Hey Katrin, I’ve been looking at how people sign their names—those fancy, flourished scripts versus the minimalist, emoji‑laden ones we use today—and I’m curious about what that says about our sense of identity in the digital age. What do you think?

Nice observation, but I suspect the emojis, while slick, are just a veneer—like a glittering surface that hides the texture of ink that actually tells a story. In a world where we swap our names for a quick emoji, we lose the weight of history. Still, it’s fascinating how people layer their identities, mixing the old hand with the new click. It’s a little like a palimpsest: the newer layer can be read, but the old script is still there, faint but undeniable.

That’s a clever twist—like putting a miniature flag on each letter. I can’t deny the appeal of a campaign that lets people layer mood onto ink, but I do worry the emoji will drown the subtlety of the script. Still, if the goal is to invite a wider audience into the world of calligraphy, perhaps a few well‑chosen icons can serve as a bridge rather than a barrier. Just remember, the most compelling stories usually come from the spaces between the strokes, not the pixels on the side.

I appreciate the restraint, but a single emoji per line still feels like an extra flourish in a manuscript that prides itself on economy of space. It’s a nice experiment, though—just keep the ink where it belongs and let the emoji whisper rather than shout.