Design: Nemesis

Most of people say that there is merely no dichotomy theory to divide an idea, or identification or explanation to explain about a certain phenomenon in an obvious way since there are the numerous things that we cannot explain. I am so tedious with this opinion since I was also telling to LB, and Sean also said to me it as if that is the life.. How is irresponsible! (Sean sorry, it’s just for me, not you!, and sorry to LB

I am just thinking that as if we, human beings don’t try to own any other purpose of life but instinctive goals, this kind of behavior seems like we might give up to take up the responsibility to think, question, and then answer to our own questions to exist here . I might not open to door of thinking space.  

If we don’t refuse to take up the responsibility… even though we already know we have not stopped to find the coherence meanings in hermeneutic cycle and the fundamental characteristic of the world has focused on phenomenological issue, that is, we already used to be, are trapped and will be trapped in our own thinking forever, why we cannot to stop analyze and categorize our own language into a sort of structures, creating new breakdowns or subjective interpretations on the other hand. (Anyway we know the both sides of a coin.)  
      

As a designer who tries to be authentic and flexible, I am also asking to myself. If the thing, we call knowledge, can be coined in a certain consensual domain, design knowledge should be there against the notion of innovation or creativity? (I have no idea if the notion would be called deconstruction or postmodernism or not. Whatever..)   

If putting designer’s own meaning (interpretation) into the center of design consideration will give designer a unique focus that other disciplines do not address, how can they deal with which individual users understand their artifacts and interact with them in their own terms and for their own reason? How do they know the boundary of interpretation in terms of meanings of user in use? Finally, how do designers argue the design knowledge in order to create the consensual area?      

Thus, is it the conclusion by me that design is not subjective or not objective? Hmmm..

I am not confident. I can’t trust myself. Can I be a designer? Do I really think that I am a designer?     

I have no idea why I am unsettled yet. The more I have gathered the evidences to argue my idea, the more my assumption has been agitated. Maybe.. I am worry to collect them since my limitation of design knowledge and ability as a designer would reveals… Maybe.. I would already think I am not good at getting the authorship of meanings of users aroused through their internal and external world.   For me, Designing is like Nemesis that I could not get out of its trap forever. I have no idea why I want to be in the trap, why I want to challenge to it. I could not trust if there is design axiom that could resolve my confusion. Where can I find it?       

If I am avoiding from the nemesis, do I have to be an irresponsible designer who gives up being human? Unreasonable thinking of mine!! :)   

Hey! Sean! I don’t get my answer to my humble question yet. Yes, I am just finding my answer as you said to me. However, I have no idea if I can get it finally or not. In HCI filed, I have to think what the design is again. I will learn it from my smart colleagues and thoughtful professors again and will apply the new realizations to existing design knowledge of mine. I guess this is also my duty as a human being who tells what design is and transfers design knowledge to other disciplines. I just try to do it. I just love the design.

Semantic change of design.. Just a lot of questions

While I read the Dewey’s book, I was wondering if I am an artist, designer, or even scientist. My identity, just as a humble live creature is seriously getting to be ambiguous. When I was addicted to draw I thought I was an immature artist, when I had studied and worked in design I used to be a fake designer, and now, in this HCI area, I feel I am an irrational researcher in science field even though the field is somewhat different from natural science.         

Of course, I have read that someone have said in terms of the definitions of each area and the evidences they collect in order to support their argument in terms of the boundary between Art and Design, between Design and Science, and even, in the design discourse, the design from the realization of everyday life to technology-centered design to Human-centered design, and as Klaus Krippendorff said, if we need to consider of Science of Design, Design science, or Science for design or not.

For me, it is getting to be difficult to realize that what identity of design is where the boundary is and what its discourse stands up.        

In some moment, it seems to be clear for me, but in the other moment, I have no idea what it is.     

In addition, as if HCI people seem to enjoy jumping in its ambiguity when they design, they have thrown many questions and unsettled resolutions to me even though Jeff has been not to stop explaining what design is, what factors of human beings we need to consider, what theoretical methodology we need to study users. I think his explanation is just for him and his evidences that he collects, but not mine. He provides me with huge thinking space to make me ponder in the questions. And I have to think about the questions in my own way: How do I ultimately answer this question? How do I participate in the design discourse?  

The name of design, it changes its semantic body. It is like another aesthetical experience for me.