Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 37 Introductions
- 3.5K Typeface Design
- 743 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 569 Type Business
- 428 Type Design Critiques
- 523 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 126 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 74 Technique and Theory
- 52 Lettering Critiques
- 451 Typography
- 282 History of Typography
- 111 Education
- 58 Resources
- 469 Announcements
- 71 Events
- 102 Job Postings
- 145 Type Releases
- 150 Miscellaneous News
- 255 About TypeDrawers
- 51 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 109 Suggestions and Bug Reports
Optical correction in Arabic monoline
Abdullah Arif
Posts: 3
I examined several Arabic monolines and it seems that most if not all of them reduce the thickness (width) of vertical stem for some reason. An example of this is Tahoma Arabic. What is the reason for this? In unmodulated Latin, the horizontal stem is thinned a bit to achieve perceived consistency in stroke width throughout the glyph. I see the opposite done in Arabic
I understand that Arabic is baseline heavy, but why do we need to further thin out the vertical stems? Is it to make it more Naskh-like in appearance?
Here are 3 different stroke variations on a word from my typeface, do any stand out as being more "correct" than others?
I understand that Arabic is baseline heavy, but why do we need to further thin out the vertical stems? Is it to make it more Naskh-like in appearance?
Here are 3 different stroke variations on a word from my typeface, do any stand out as being more "correct" than others?
2
Comments
If you want to bring contrast to your typeface where do you get the contrast in Latin? It's from the tool that writes the script. It could be a broad nib pen or expansion pen. The angle of the pen causes the vertical strokes become thicker in Latin. This naturally happened because the most important part of the construction in Latin is in vertical strokes. If you make the the verticals thinner it would become much harder to recognize the shapes in text sizes. Actually Latin calligraphy starts with practicing lots of vertical strokes.
In Arabic the angle of the pen causes the contrast to be more horizontally stressed and this happened naturally because the construction of arabic is majorly distributed horizontally or in simpler words Arabic script is mostly horizontal strokes. If you make the horizontal strokes thinner in Arabic then it is Latinized or reversed contrast.
I think this kind of optical correction addresses a mixture of perceptual bias—a tendency of a person familiar with the norms stroke modulation in the script to perceive monoline as unbalanced—and actual optics. It's difficult to disentangle these.
I know, as someone familiar with the modulation patterns of a lot of different scripts, that my perceptual biases are not linked to my native script (Latin); that is to say, how I perceive monoline Arabic is affected by my experience of Arabic, not by the modulation of Latin.
Although it has something to do with perceptual bias it's also serving a function. In Nastaliq (نستعلیق) for example the farther the construction is from the baseline (major korsi or کرسی) the thinner the stroke becomes. This also could be justified that in Arabic script most of strokes are occurring around the baseline so if we see a thick stroke farther from the baseline it sticks out. The calligrapher tilts the pen with some pressure, this causes the reed pen to bend at its tip and make the stroke thinner at those situations. It looks more pleasing to the eyes but it's also probably a method to spread the black mostly in parts of the construction which is more repeated and less black in less repeated parts, making a more balanced negative space around the words.
@John Hudson
> how I perceive monoline Arabic is affected by my experience of Arabic, not by the modulation of Latin.
FWIW my views of the nature of nativity and conscious bias largely preclude such objectivity.
Yes, there are probably good aesthetic and functional reasons why the traditional modulation pattern was established in the writing of the script—or, to put it another way, why certain letterforms evolved from the moving of a particular writing implement—, but that seems to me orthogonal to perception of forms with low modulation in which, for instance, there is very little difference in the balance of negative space in the three examples shown.
I'm just trying to find an explanation for what calligraphers were doing and why I find it pleasing to my eyes. It's merely a justification not a dogma. If you you have your explanation I would like to hear it too.
Only in the early stages of the development of calligraphic traditions after the advent of Islam, we can find manuscripts where the stroke stress is on the vertical, rather than the horizontal in the Kufic styles. But within a couple hundred years, we see the stress shifted to the horizontal strokes. With the wide spread of the cursive styles, more contrast was considered more beautiful. And this continues to our own time.
The Maghribi styles of Spain and North Africa, are the most uniform in stroke thickness and the contrast is limited to the terminals of strokes in bowls and arcs. Here you will see examples where verticals and horizontals have the same stress and others where the stress is on the horizontal strokes, but rarely where the stress is on the verticals.
In my view, some horizontal stress should be used in Arabic typefaces whenever possible, including monoline designs as in this font.
Speaking of dogma.
Hrant, I think you need to consider the possibility that the scribes who consciously developed particular ways of writing were intelligent people who understood some things about both writing and reading. You sometimes seem to have a kind of deterministic view of tools, looking only at the patterns that arise from the shape and movement of the tool, and not considering the decision making of the person wielding the tool. When there is palaeographic evidence, as Mamoun notes, of changes in the way the tool was held and used, we should consider all the factors that might be involved in that change, including both aesthetic and functional factors. Finally, Arabic scribes regularly employ manipulations of the tool that are mostly absent from European writing, and that you'd probably find interesting to study, since they consciously circumvent the translation stroke model that you think problematic, altering the relationships of inner- and outer stroke edge and, in some situations, actually becoming drawing and filling of an outline.
One might make the case that Arabic scribes were dealing with notan avant la lettre.
Clinging to the byproduct of an obsolete tool is not necessarily harmful, but at the very least it's an arbitrary constraint on notan. You can want to respect the white all you want, but painting the black makes that hypocritical in practice. My favorite parallel here is Thomas Jefferson: he loved Sally Hemings, but she was still a slave.
I like calligraphers! Yes, especially those who engage in deviation. But calligraphic text type is still like trying to serve soup with a fork. As I said in my ATypI Mexico City talk, this is less true towards the display end of the type design axis. But it remains a truth.
* But admittedly not even entirely:
Thus, I think that referencing a typeface to traditional tools is a choice these days, not something that is imposed on every type designer. That text typefaces for general use are often very similar to previously existing text typefaces, with only slight changes, is a natural consequence of popularity being determined by what people are used to.
Thus, I don't see the situation as a problem that we can do anything about, except for encouraging type designers to engage in bold and original thinking, to undertake daring experiments from time to time.
While we already have plenty of daring experiments - many of which appear to be horrible failures no one would want to use - it's precisely the most talented and successful designers that need to be encouraged to experiment occasionally, since the impulse to experiment is often strongest in those who have not yet attained mastery of the craft.
And, of course, while Optima is made of strokes that could not have come from a quill pen, its proportions were taken straight from the Trajan column, and other aspects of the typeface were also conservative; originality was blended with tradition in that case.
In other words, what I am calling perceptual bias is a learned bias. It is entirely due to familiarity with stroke modulation that is typical of a given writing system, and independent of — while hard to disentangle on a case-by-case basis — from perceptual phenomena arising from optical and cognitive hardware. When I say 'difficult to disentangle', I mean that when we see e.g. symmetry as asymmetry, both learned perceptual bias and optical illusion may be in play.
The origins of the typical stroke modulation patterns really seem to me a red herring, in terms of the topic of this thread. What creates perceptual bias — how we learn it — is familiarity over time with that pattern. In this respect, it doesn't matter at all how the pattern came about.
‘The stimulus patterns on the retina are not alone in determining our picture of the visual world. Its messages are modified by what we know about the “real” shape of objects.’
[Thanks, Frode for reminding me of this.]
For ‘real’ in this instance, read common conventional or typical.
The Latin calligraphers made a decision to rotate the tip of the pen more in a direction that makes the vertical thicker not only because of the limitations of hand and the tool. Why? Because Arabic calligraphers did the same with similar tools but the contrast is reversed compared to Latin. Calligraphers made their tools, the tools are not circumstantial completely. The tip of Arabic calligraphy reed pen is cut with an angel but in Latin it's not titled. This is a decision that was done to make the pen easier in hand when direction of contrast is in a certain way. I say restrictions could be construction of scripts that changed the contrast direction and some other things, not hand and tools.
@Nina Stössinger
I'm curious since you had designed the Nordvest (which I personally admire), have you considered a reversed contrast sans for text purposes in the process? Did you try to see if it works?
Something we're not doing nearly enough of.
> what I am calling perceptual bias is a learned bias.
I'm not sure it's useful to exclude the "hardware" dimension from that. But if we must: what to call those?
> it doesn't matter at all how the pattern came about.
To readers, indeed. To some creators however sadly it does.
BTW "what we know about real shape of objects" can migrate between objects, making the conventional less valuable.
> A lot of this is self-reinforcing convention.
Yup.
That's surely true of a lot of stroke modulation pattern, in a lot of scripts. But it's also the case that most of signs that make up a writing system evolved through the action of writing, and hence some signs really presume a particular ductus and modulation, and run into problems of internal space collapse, proportion, or illegibility if one tries to write them with a different modulation pattern.
As you note, the lower the contrast, the easier it is to subvert typical stroke modulation. I think it is also easier in Latin than in many other scripts. [For several months a couple of years ago, I fell into the habit of writing with my pen much more steeply angled than usual: something close to a typical Hebrew angle. I can assure you that Latin written in this way looks much less weird than Hebrew written with a typical Latin pen angle.]
Abdullah,
What size, is this intended for use at, please?
And what's the far right glyph in your specimen please?
Thanks!
Such collapses are not due to a violation of an imaginary tool, but a lack of imagination of how to go beyond it; it's key to nix the "writing" angle (pardon the pun) and instead think directly in notan. Which is natually much more difficult (especially with chirobaggage) but inherently more fruitful, at least towards the Text (versus Display) end of the reading spectrum.
> I would wonder if Arabic (to circle back to the original topic here) is less tolerant of this kind of thing?
Considering perceptual bias (as per John) arising from precedent, that makes total sense.
I don't think in terms of imaginary tools — and as established many years ago on Typophile, I believe type design has always been, at most, para-chirographic —, but I am interested in how the normative shapes of signs evolved and what impact tools have had on those shapes. And if, like you, one rejects the notion of the signs having skeletons, then I think there is all the more reason to be aware of the shapes as being constituted of positive and negative arrangements, rather than as skeletal forms to which, conceivably, any and every modulation of thick and thin could be parametrically applied.
This notion of a modulation pattern should be unpacked, perhaps. By pattern, I mean a systematic approach to where the thick and thin fall across a set of signs. Modulation patterns can be more or less strict, but generally speaking we expect some consistency of approach; indeed, this is one aspect of what makes a typeface design a coherent whole and not a frankenstein or ransom note collection of random parts. Nina's Nordvest brilliantly applies a pattern of atypical modulation to a Latin serif text face, and it works in large part because the pattern is applied systematically (which is not the same as saying it is applied deterministically. as if the shapes were made by an imaginary tool held at a steep angle; the necessary adjustments for individual shapes, for size, for weight, are part of the system).
I'm very interested in the modulation patterns of South Indian scripts in their conventional typographic guise, because these signs originated in a monoline manuscript tradition (scratched in palm leaves with a needle). When these scripts were reduced to typography in the 19th Century, they were given modulation patterns, typically following an expansion stroke model, i.e. reflecting the dominant European writing tool of the day. Since the expansion stroke model is based on pressure rather than the shape of the nib, it is much more flexible in terms of deciding where thick and thin fall. So, I wonder, who decided? Where did the typical typographic modulation patterns of scripts like Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, or Sinhala come from? What were the criteria in deciding 'This bit should be thick, and this bit should be thin'?
Indeed, although that still spans a very broad spectrum of intent. What's notable though is the persistence of the skeleton whenever you "paint" the black (para or not) which I believe precludes ideal notan.
I certainly agree about the necessary coherence of contrast (modulation) patterns. And I do believe in considering history, even trying to read the minds of long-dead practioners. But in large part to identify and overcome anachronisms, not merely to play in the sandbox of expectations.
Mainly for running text on screen at 16pt or less, preferably. The glyph in question is an Alef.