Sorry, I tend to use the word "attack" in a posotive way and it's probably misleading. When I said pixel art is thoroughly attacked here, I meant it's analyzed, it's deconstructed, it's meticulously explored and practiced, generally with the purest intention of evolving the artform. That's a good thing.
Well, my programmers were mainly referring to things like the fibonacci sequence and golden ratios, things that are in fact objectively quantifiable and that produce aesthetic results. So I guess what it really boils down to is that art is balance, like anything else. There's no right or wrong. I'd be an apple arguing that I'm superior to an orange - both have obvious value and different uses. Sure, your bridge and car example are good, but like commercial design they can be as appealing as they are functional. Again, that balance. A simple clean corporate logo can be beautifully designed and nice to look at, yet it's real intention is to convince the customer to open their wallet, the strategy behind the design is based on tedious market research numbers and consideration of numerous factors, mainly the targeted demographic's preferences, booooring. Here creative designers and market analysts come together to make something happen, two totally different worlds collide. The renaissance painters were geeks for composition, creating subject matter triangles, etc, there was an exacted structure under the beautifil facade of their paintings. Both mathematical strategy and exceptional painting talent were necessary to imbue each painting with strong integrity the renaissance painters are still praised for even today.
That's art. Sorry about the tangent. Thanks for the link, I plan to more fully explore that when the time is right.