The music videos of today are an odd bunch. When you watch a rap video for example, all you see is well-endowed women in overly provocative outfits. Rappers mouths are filled with gold teeth and their bling is bright. I'm pretty sure that the last thing on their mind is showing typokinetic graphics in their videos.

And what about the other videos like rock or emo? These usually showcase some kind of dramatic narrative about love or loss and blah blah blah. There is pretty much no type whatsoever incorporated into these videos. And why, do you ask? Because IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

Think about when typokinetic videos were introduced: the '60s. This was a time when music was experimental and certain bands and groups were tying to break away from the norm in order to create new sounds. Perhaps typography was incorporated into Bob Dylan's song "Subturranean Homesick Blues" because it went along with the feeling of that particular musical era. It was experimental and it sounds like it worked in that respect. It seems like it was a unique way to interpret the lyrics.

Perhaps typokinetic videos aren't utilized in todays music because music artists and industries have other priorities in mind. We are a very consumer driven society. Music videos can be viewed as a vehicle to sell an album. Typokinetic videos seem like they would be creative. Creative in a sense that the words are being used to represent lyrics or a stream-of-consciousness thinking. But really, music videos these days (on MTV) aren't really about being creative.

There was one quotation in particular that really bothered me. Peter Hall says, "We'll look back at these early days of the music video genre and recognize that a few pioneearing typokinetic gems lurked amid the trash." Is he trying to say that only the videos that use typography are pioneering? I disagree. There are plenty of great videos that don't use typography and are still pioneering. For example: AHA's "Take on Me." Need I say more?

“As a fitting metaphor for the distilled quality of things digital, the focus in e-mail is on the abridged, the acronym, the quick read.”

When it comes down to email and the internet in general we are going at a quick speed. It is there for simplicity so that we may move a little bit faster through our day. Sadly the brb, lol, and ttfn are becoming part of out everyday language. Like Helfand says gone are the days of good handwriting, the letter is lost. I think of this as a very sad fact. That we are so busy in our everyday lives that we can not sit down and write someone a letter. Now I don’t do this on a regular basis but I do try to do it. Remember the days when you went to the mail box and got excited because you had gotten a letter from someone. It hasn’t been that long. I think it is sad that we email each other thank you’s and invites.
Email has become a fast way to communicate. And it goes along with the fast paced lives we live in. But it is ugly! The short sayings for things lack any human contact because we are to lazy to type them out, not to mention the constant use of them cause frequent misspellings in once simple words. And the font choices are horrendous. And isn’t it funny that when I receive and email from my mom when it is important it is capitalized or italicized. She does it to get my attention, yet it is so impersonal. The internet has not only made us step away from the beauty of design for a fast read, but the feeling that comes with it. Letters, when they are hand done show emotion, feeling, and tell something about a person. Emails they tell you if someone decided to change a font or if grandma wanted to email you in comic sans because it was her favorite font. There is nothing to it. The Electric design is for fast reading. I know that it is necessary in our lives, but can’t we get feeling or emotion out of it? Not just bright, bad colors and hyperlinks when we are trying to connect with someone on the internet. Or is it to late and we don’t care to even connect with an actual person?

electronic typography; a real and current issue I agree. The author here seems to be considering the idea of a compromise of our beloved letterforms in relationship to the digital era of spoken word. I feel that her concerns, although well developed, are misplaced. For artists and philosphers pure in the world of typographic consideration such as Jacques Derrida, the advent of technological advancement must be a threatening idea. However, my thinking is that our society might consider the world of electronic type, written language, & spoken word are separate but equal. We use and manipulate each form in certain ways according to the audience and purpose. There are still as many relevant uses for the written language as there are for spoken word, as there are for a digitized mixture of the two. Recently, I have been exploring the use of animation software to be manipulated in the on-line classroom. Truly, typography and speech are the (two) backbone(s) for such programming. Now I realize that typographic techniques are not the basis for control in such a media however the basic concept still exists that the typographic language is necessary. And more importantly, although these technologies exist, people are still using and are in need of type as static imagry. I can imagine there might have been some (very little but still some) concern as letterforms were becoming more on the forefront of communication that personal interaction would be slightly compromised. Maybe this is just a blip in our constant evolution of language.

On a separate note, the author mentions something about "...reconciling the relationship between words spoken and words seen..." This might be the key to not having to compromise our letterforms. Let's break down the barrier just a little bit more, and maybe spoken/written (powers combined) will generate enough ownership to users that digital media might back down, just enough anyway. "When written words can speak for themselves," isn't that what a reconcilation would sound like? Alright so maybe that's just type taking over, but why not? How can language similarly effect typography? I guess I just thought that was how.

In trying to keep this one shorter than the past few, with some complaints in length (George). Type is timeless. No doubt in my mind. We still use it will every intention as we use speech, and I think we even push it through its electronic form. No offense Jessica, Everything's Gonna Be Alright.