Objectivity is only possible within an exterior context, thus it becomes very difficult to negate either of the positions here. In fact, they complement each other. The website is not art as long as we are unaware of the designer's creative process, and is useless as long as it does not get rerouted through someone's subjective logic jumps.
I don't quite agree. First of all, it makes no sense to say that it "is not art" and then let that depend on "we are unaware". Are you aiming for an objective or a subjective concept of art? Our awareness lies outside the work of art itself and has no bearing on it. If we want it to be art, it is. We can call this "selection" or "ostentation". Taking something and viewing it through an "art" prism. Some things, like the white wall or a cable, don't produce much when viewed this way, while other things, like music, produce a lot. One could then, if one wanted to, stage an axiomatic grade definition of art as being something that produces more than a certain value if considered as art. But questions of what "art" is were never very interesting anyway.....
I agree, though, that this needs to be rerouted through someone's subjective logic jumps to be useful, but as this is definitely happening to a very high degree, we can conclude that it is useful. And more importantly, let's make it clear what I mean by "useful"! I mean that it produces something positive.
