This was a very interesting look into how kinetic typography developed over time and gained relevance as a form of semiotics. Kinetic typography feels so tied to computer software to me that it was good to be reminded that it was rooted in manual labor from film title designers in the mid 20th century. I really appreciated the systematic approach of describing the cultural trends which influenced and drove the innovation in kinetic typography: pictorialization, informalization, emotivaization, and dynamicization. Out of these four trends, I was most fascinated by emotivization. I found it very interesting that the authors cite corporate culture + advertizing as so tied to evoking emotions through text and imbueing the text with emotion. Maybe this is a personal thing, but I often picture corporate culture to be at odds with creativity and individuality. The fact that kinetic typography is trying to bring back the personality and inviduality that was found in handwriting almost seems contradictory to advertizing which wants to mass market and tries to apply to many people.

Another part of the text I found interesting was the section on constraint and creativity. I still haven’t reconciled my own thoughts on the role of technology in animated movement. On one hand, software with presets makes art forms more accessible which allows for more people to innovate and use it as a tool. However, I also wonder if this kind of software that allows users to use “animation schemes” will create a monotony of effects that are overused/standard causing the animation to lose its special meaning/wow factor. From a CS angle, I also wonder if the responsibility to innovate and add more animation schemes and find new ways to animate text should fall on software developers or artists/animators. I imagine that going forward, in order to make sure that new additions to the language of kinetic typography are not solely created by software devleopers but with joint input.