One main question I had from the reading is what exactly defines kinetic typography. For instance, does the text fading in and fading out count as enough movement? Or the scrolling up of text, would that count? The reason why I’m curious about this is that generally when I’m thinking of moving text that I’ve encountered in daily life, the movement is pretty subdued, and not very dramatic. For instance, in the Psycho example from the reading, I don’t think the movement of the text was generated from the text itself, but rather the background effects affecting the text.

I thought it was interesting how the authors of the readings first mentioned kinetic text as a method for relating to a younger audience. From what I could gather, the reasoning for this is that the movement from kinetic text is connected to excitement, which is connected to younger people (since there is a general connotation of young people being more mobile than older people physically but also in terms of their plans, or ways of thinking).

In regard to pictorialization, informalization, emotionalization, and dynamization, I found many very obvious parallels to our previous readings. For instance, pictorialization, connects to the idea of words and images being brought together which McCloud discussed in depth. But beyond that, text itself is able to convey meaning beyond its combination of latter, but rather also having meaning just from its shape, and visualization (for instance, even if you didn’t speak the language, you could get a general sense of what the text meant). Informalization reminded me of Modernist artists wanting their art to be of emotion/expression rather than content - with the text not just conveying meaning, but also a sense of familiarity or at least individualism, ideally someone that you could relate with. Emotionization was very obviously similar to the discussion of fonts in the Stop Stealing Sheep reading. For instance, the example of loudness being able to be conveyed through an increase in size was very similar to the idea of angry fonts being very bold and heavy. Lastly, I’m not quite sure what dynamization means exactly. In the reading, there were many examples of human want/fascination and then human technology catching up to it, but my best guess of what dynamization itself refers to is something static literally having movement. This goes one step beyond Dondis’ example of line weight, or line directionality implying movement - in the case of kinetic type, it literally is moving.