Many of the principles discussed in the article paralleled other concepts discussed in class. For instance, the section on pictorialization made me recall how McCloud described writing as symbolized pictures and made me wonder where concrete poetry and kinetic typography would lie on McCloud’s pyramid. Furthermore, I found the concept of emotivization/informalization interesting because it reminded me of the “Stop Stealing Sheep” reading we did and the exercise where we matched different typefaces to emotions. The authors argued that most of the affective qualities of text are lost in translation to computer screens or prints. They stated that the process of emotivization and informalization helps reimbue emotional qualities of a speech to a writing script. I don’t know if I agree with this argument, since even static fonts can portray emotions like doubt, anger, joy, etc. However, I agree that animations can amplify the effect of typefaces and convey emotions more effectively. For dynamicization, however, I had trouble thinking of a direct connection to one of the other concepts we explored earlier in class since this is our first exposure to animations/dynamic images.

I also really enjoyed the way authors described the grammar of kinetic design and how they paralleled it to the practice of mixing scents—how both were initially considered “lexese” language with no grammar but developed structure. Like the basic principles of visual design in the Dondis reading, I think the grammar of kinetic design gives structure to the principles we understand intuitively. I think it opens up new venues for creativity because it makes it easier to analyze pieces of kinetic design, understand why some designs work, and how to replicate the effect in other works.