>It's not foolish.

It is all about fooling the viewer. Like for example seeing some run down old buildings in US or Eastern Europe will make people scoff, but if you show them similar looking run down buildings in South Mediterranean Europe or Japan they will be in awe. It's about perception.

>Design is subjective

No it isn't. Just like art and people's appearances, there's unanimously objective on what's beautiful and what's ugly.

The redesigned Pepsi logo is objectively worse, which is why it was so short lived and reverted back to the original design.

People who say there's no such thing as ugly design because it's al subjective are coping hard or trying to sell their design agency.

> Just like art and people's appearances, there's unanimously objective on what's beautiful and what's ugly.

Neither of those things is true. Plenty of artistic movements have been both praised and derided, and many people have a "type" which influences who they do (or don't) find attractive.

As to idea that there's a universally agreed-upon definition of objectively pleasing design, I suggest you take a look at the work of the Memphis Group.

Which redesigned Pepsi logo are you referring to here? The one with the legendary design document[0] lasted from 2008 to 2023.

[0] https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...

... can you share with us a design for a beauty meter which objectively measures beauty? Since it's not a subjective characteristic, it should be possible to establish whether something is beautiful without a subject to perceive and experience it.