As a result, all human culture has been absorbed in a certain kind of structures/matrixes/theories? Or human beings have decentred subjects in the world/minds, indicating the blind spot where structuralism is not related to our practical life since it is just theories that human beings have created? This means that the subjects are ubiquitous in the structure or out of the structure even though we want to build some sort of structures/theories, sorting out like the areas of Armatures and Professionals/Non Specialists and Specialists. I am still confused what the professional areas are? Yes, Prof. Jeff gave us his opinion of that, yet I have no idea if I am a professional designer as I said Jeff in the orientation session for new students that I am a Fake designer. I did publish low-quality design works at a couple of companies in Korea. We, designers always continue to publish unfinished/low-quality works in front of public due to a lot of constrains such as time, cost, and clients. Finally, designers are successful to deceive people. People say “Wow Great job”, “You are talented”. I however, do not know what is the area of mater piece in designing? When do we face with the great works like Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci? So, do people feel Aura in front of the works even though Leonardo might not be satisfied with his works? I also know my quality as a designer. I always fight with myself as a designer in my mind. Finally, I feel guilty.

On the other hand, what if design deals with differentiated products from artistic products? Is it necessarily that designers always make them feel Aura with some design works? Aura is just spatial experience of people. According to Barthes’s opinion in death of the author, we, designers are already died in the design works published. There are only multiple layers of users’ experiences/interpretations between design works and users. More specifically, we can think about Armatures and Professionals in HCI area. How do HCI people construct/deconstruct information culture and knowledge for users? How they define the Aura or guru? How they enhance the quality of information environment for users? How they imbue the aesthetic value into the environment? How do they publish the unfinished works? Or do they are necessarily to fulfill the kind of qualities even though users do not want? Actually, I cannot be completely satisfied with Jeff’s point of view. Advance, Evolution, Blurry. O.K. Good. However, why we should adopt the methods like tournament story lines frequently appeared in the comic books in Japan to explain the Amateurism and Professionalism? Because we have to survive? Because we always have to win? So, do HCI people have to wait the interpretations/evaluations by users even though the users are not qualified to evaluate the Information environment?  Rather, is it user’s monarchy to judge HCI designers? Of course, it is not necessarily to obtain the perfect answer with my stupid questions. We do not need to be equipped with a sort of formal structures of our curiosities. Just let me borrow Susan Sontan’s idea in her essay, Against Interpretation, ‘style guide’ rather than a means of comparing the structures (although her idea is not directly related to this context). We definitely have the ability to decompose the culture at the same time if the culture has been absorbed into a certain kinds of metrics. I am thinking that it might be good to allow individual styles, recognized signs or interpretations. That can be style or not.  

For us, there are a number of theories to interrupt our clear and intuitive thoughts. Nevertheless, if the theories provide us with the opportunities to ponder upon this environment, I appreciate the confusion.