Fellow IBDP student here—presumably, this question has been asked in the context of the ToK essay?
Henry F. Gilbert writes extensively on the subject (https://www.jstor.org/stable/737863), and argues that there is, in fact, progress in the arts, although it isn't in form, it's in the degree to which the artist expresses (him/her/them)self and mastery over the form. His central claim is that as an artist continues to create, he/she/they (regardless of his/her/their liking) develops skills in the medium as well as in self-expression. In other words, the more an artist creates, the more he/she/they will be able to express, in improved fashion.
To summarize, the only possible 'progress' would be in
- the artist's individual abilities;
- the degree to which the artist is able to express (him/her/them)self through art.
He acknowledges the subjectivity in the word 'beauty', and refutes claims that art can only change, not progress. For the sake of this answer, I won't go deep into his refutations; note that these refutations aren't really refutations in principle, but arguments against the manner in which these claims were made (for example, that 'beauty' remains undefined in most claims) and against the notion that 'beauty' is something that can 'progress' (its inherent subjectivity allows it to change, but prevents this change from objectively being 'progressive' or 'retrogressive').
To summarize,
- he does not refute the notion of 'change' in art,
- but argues that progress can't be in form—in your case, it would be an argument against progress in design.
I suppose you could argue that design can't progress, but art can; take this with a pinch of salt as I haven't reflected upon it too much. Also note that the later parts of this work are self-contradictory, in that he defines the progress of larger artistic movements using terms that he fails to objectively define, and applies a fair bit of his own opinion where he himself says one shouldn't.
Alternatively, you could go with others, for example, as Gilbert mentions, Ruskin, Whistler, Bell, and Croce, who argue precisely the opposite—that beauty is the only factor by which change in art can be judged—although I personally find Gilbert's arguments much more convincing.
For context, I'm analyzing how the lyrics in Radical Face's songs along with the form (sound design, production, etc) have changed (or progressed?); the focus of this part [of my essay] will primarily be on the former.
I'm not sure if this answer will help now, seeing as the question was asked over a month ago, but if you want to discuss this further, feel free to drop a message in the inbox!
