[robitor]

I would disagree. I think it can be rationalized, trends reflect the changing tastes of society - and the changing tastes of society reflect how society itself is changing. I think for a lot of art and fashion, the trends can be rationalized from anthropological, sociological, or psychological perspectives. For those ignorant about certain industries however, i'm sure trends can appear arbitrary. (and a lot of people try to follow what's fashionable without understanding why it's fashionable)

iOS 7 for example could have represented how our society has become sufficiently technologically savvy enough to not need the visual clues that comes with skeumorphism, e.g. people don't need the notes app to look like it's real-world counterpart for them to know that you take notes with the notes app. We as a society are so used to touch screens these days that we don't need skeumorphism anymore to remind us how things work.

Of course, there will never be a final design aesthetic as society and technology are constantly evolving. Yes, flat is just a trend, but it wasn't arbitrary.

[ryanklee]

> the trends can be rationalized from anthropological, sociological, or psychological perspectives

I'm not an inherent skeptic of the worth of the soft humanities, but it's pretty far fetched to claim that these fields can offer anything like a unified or even non-contentious view on design elements, or anything else for that matter. If anything, the virtue of these fields is based on the multiplicity of interpretation they offer. They ain't Newtonian physics, that's for sure.

[robitor]

No, the idea is that there are reasons for trends that have to do with people, culture and society. The fact that trends are a product of our very complex society means that the explanations for these trends can be studied from an academic perspective. Aesthetic trends aren't created by programmers, that's for sure.