23. Book Illustration to 1880 (Session I)
Terry Belanger
(The course was offered twice in RBS 1994; this is the evaluation
of the first 1994 session)
The identification of illustration processes and techniques,
including woodcut, etching, engraving, stipple, aquatint,
mezzotint, lithography, wood engraving, steel engraving, process
relief, collotype, and photogravure. The course will be taught
from the extensive Book Arts Press files of examples of
illustration processes. As part of the course, students will make
their own etchings, drypoints, and relief cuts in supervised
laboratory sessions. Offered again in Week 3.
I. How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: The readings were very useful. The books were tough
to locate -- I had to special order them plus pay a service
charge. BG cost nearly $60. The other was $40.
2: Very useful. The Mayor text was a bit tedious, but
apparently no superior history of illustration exists.
3: They were helpful and should be continued. Yes, it
helps to get them on time. My own acceptance into the course
took two weeks from the date of the letter to its receipt.
There were eight days between typing and postmark. 4:
I read half of one book and all of Gascoigne. I had trouble
visualizing processes in Gascoigne. Now I want to read it
again, because that will not be a problem. Gascoigne was
immediately useful; the other at least helped me a bit with
names. 5: Very useful. None of the terminology was
totally new and the course used the same organization as the
text. 6: I think Gascoigne will be a revelation after
this course instead of the more bewildering book I found it
to be before being exposed to the materials here. I found what
I read of Mayor to be very interesting and useful in
conjunction
with Gascoigne. 7: Gascoigne will make far more sense
after the course, but I'm very glad I read in it before --
it provided an initial framework to support course work.
8: Gascoigne was excellent at providing background
for the course. 10: Not necessary to read the book in its
entirety. 11: Very good. 12: Gascoigne was
very useful. Mayor is less useful as a preparatory text, but I'll
go back to it now. 13: Useful as an introduction,
although they did not prepare me for the intensity of the
course. 14: Excellent.
II.Was your faculty member well-prepared to teach THIS
course?
1: Yes -- he was wonderful! A superb source of knowledge
and experience. 2: Absolutely. 3-4: Yes.
5: It certainly seemed so. 6: Incredibly so.
7: Absolutely -- both in terms of knowing the material and
knowing how to manage the presentation of a daunting amount of
material -- intellectual and physical (ideas and
prints). 8: Yes, very well prepared, highly
detailed knowledge of the topic. 9: Yes! Very much so!
10: Very. 11: Exceptionally well. 12:
Exceptionally so. 13: Yes! 14: Too well prepared.
III. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1-6: Yes. 7: Yes -- no unwarranted assumptions, and
no oversimplifications -- challenging but manageable.
8-10: Yes. 11: Yes -- terrific introduction to the
subject. 12: Yes. 13: Yes! 14: Yes.
IV. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS
brochure description and Expanded Course Description? Did the
course in general meet your expectations?
1: Yes. The course went beyond my expectations. I
cannot wait to conduct more outside research and bring my
new-found knowledge home to the work place. 2: Yes. I was
pleased that it concentrated on process and identification,
but historical aspects were by no means ignored. I found the
balance very satisfactory. 3: Yes -- absolutely.
4:
Yes. Surpassed my expectations. I certainly did not expect it
to be such fun! 5: The course more than met my
expectations. I had not expected hands-on sessions nor labs,
but was thoroughly pleased with both. This balance helped
focus my attention and left no time for drowsiness or
inattention. 6: This course went beyond my
expectations, so much so that I wish it could've been several
days longer. 7: Yes -- and expectations exceeded.
8: The course matched the course descriptions. It
surpassed my expectations as to what could actually be examined
and worked with in only one week. 9: Yes --
absolutely -- plus enjoyable! 10: Yes. Yes. 11-12:
Yes.
13: More than met my expectations. 14: Yes.
Yes.
V. What did you like best about the course?
1: 1) The instructor. He is a great teacher. I was so
fortunate to attend this class, the best RBS course I have
been to yet. 2) The examples shown in class were perfect and
clarified the techniques described in the texts and
lectures.
2: The incredibly rich collection of prints [in the
BAP collection], particularly the files keyed to Gascoigne
numbers. The opportunity to make and print linocuts,
drypoints and etchings. The enthusiasm and knowledge of the
instructor.
I always felt that we were being given an abundance of
everything -- course materials, opportunities to examine prints
and to make them. 3: Well structured, well controlled. We
covered a lot of territory in a short time. Good mix of
hands-on stuff -- handling actual prints, trying out techniques,
and theory. 4: The labs were excellent and enjoyable.
They provided a good break from looking at prints. My eyes were
rather tired, but the labs gave them a rest and were most
useful in understanding processes. Could we do a lithograph (on
zinc, of course) next time? 5: Very hard to say, but I
guess it was all the well-prepared examples. Working with
actual prints is very effective. 6: I was especially
pleased with the actual production of images. I always like to
know how a thing is accomplished. I liked having so many
examples of images to pore over. I was especially impressed when
our instructor clearly stated that he didn't know something
and then recommended a source where I could find the
information myself -- such an occurrence lowers the intimidation
level. I am extremely happy with this course and I hope I'll
be able to take Part 2 next year and other courses in years to
come. 7: The stuff -- readings and lectures are
necessary and useful things, but the opportunity to learn from
actual examples held in hand is unbeatable. 8: The
hands-on experience with equipment and processes which I had
only been able to read about before taking the course.
9: Opportunity to do hands-on evaluation of various
types of prints. 10: Immersion in prints -- all types.
Hands-on experiences. ``Study'' time. 11: Using actual
printed examples. Doing the actual processes greatly increased
my understanding. 12: 1) The labs were very well
organized, fun, useful, and illuminating. 2) We were able to
look closely at hundreds of prints. TB's system of
distribution works beautifully. 3) TB explains things clearly,
stays on the subject, stays on schedule, and communicates a
wealth of information. 13: The large number of examples
to view and the quick hands-on printing techniques; the latter
were particularly helpful in giving me a good feeling for
processes which I had only understood intellectually.
14: The multitude of physical examples. Comparison and
contrast of different processes.
VI. How could the course have been improved?
1: Perhaps have a practicing engraver visit. The course
truly is wonderful. A bit more room would be nice, but space
is a precious commodity. 2: Some of the illustrations
we were given to copy were a bit too complex. I would have
been happier with a simpler image. 3: Not easily.
4: As in 5, above, if we could have done a planographic
print, it would have been great. But there are likely
technical problems I am unaware of. 5: With great
difficulty. As an introductory course it attacks the subject
vigorously and never lets up. I wish I could make some
meaningful comments here, but the instructor has spent ten
years polishing it and in five days the flaws are hard to see.
6: I like the studio space, but it is a bit cramped.
7: Since when a particular technique was common can be
a useful clue in identifying a print, I would have appreciated
a handout with an outline or time line of those dates. TB gave
them, but I'm not sure they all made it into my notes.
8: Sometimes the room seemed cramped or difficult to
work in. 9: No comments. 10: Slightly slower
pace at beginning? Time in class for review of material
covered in previous session. Possibly some team work in
identifying prints -- eg, groups of two or three, with reports
back to the group as a whole. 11: I wouldn't mind a
quiz at the end to see how much was actually learned (I
suspect quite a bit). Sacrifice one study period for a paper
overview. One-page crib sheet of differences -- white
dots/black sea, etc. 12: I'm not sure the diagnostic test was
useful to me. I already knew I didn't know enough when
I started the course -- that's why I took it. 13:
Could have used two weeks in order to begin digesting all
the information. Can we take the course again? It might be nice
to have a checklist of the prints shown, with enough room for
notes. 14: Proportionately more hours given to photo
processes and to comparison and contrast of different
processes.
VII. Any final thoughts?
1: If you have the chance to attend -- please do it.
The
experience and instruction is so worthwhile. RBS is a must
for
those in the profession and any individual who loves books.
2: Don't fail to read Gascoigne. 4: Bring your
lamp, especially if you stay on The Lawn! 5: Don't
hesitate to enroll. 7: This is a terrific experience
-- take the course! I can't imagine this course without the
practical experience of making blocks and plates and then
printing them -- you gain a much deeper understanding of why
a
print looks as it does when you know from experience how it
was made. 8: Read the text book (Gascoigne), even if
your obligations give you ``no time'' to prepare for the
course. The preparation for understanding all you cover in
the
week is well worth the extra effort. 9: Professional
level of students is very high. I found that after hours and
luncheon periods were excellent for networking, but more
important, for the exchange of thoughts about the material
being discussed. EXCELLENT EXPERIENCE. Hope to return in
'95.
12: Take it. 13: An unbelievably valuable
experience and good fun. Come well rested. I would certainly
recommend this course to anyone who asked. 14:
Memorize
the text before coming to Charlottesville.
Number of respondents: 14
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
64% 57% 33% 36%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
7% 36% 60% 57%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, employed, with friends nearby
retired, or had retired, or or lived at
summers off exchange home
29% 7% 7% 7%
Four students (29%) were rare book librarians; two students
(14%) had a non-professionally-related interest in the subject;
and one student (7% each) was an adult school administrator, an
antiquarian bookseller, antique appraiser, a general librarian
with some rare book duties, a general librarian with unspecified
rare book duties, a museum employee, a researcher, and a
teacher/professor.
23. Book Illustration to 1880 (Session II)
Terry Belanger
(The course was offered twice in RBS 1994; this is the evaluation
of the second 1994 session.)
For a description of this course, see above. The first session
of the course is aimed particularly at those whose background in
print identification is weak. This session of the course is aimed
particularly at those who have some background in print
identification, but who would like further exposure to the
subject, especially to developments after about 1860.
1. How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: The Gascoigne book was, is, and will continue to be,
a superb resource. 2: Gascoigne was a tremendous help.
3: Essential. 4: How about Ivins's book, How
prints look -- it's shorter. I did not have the opportunity
to
look at Gascoigne ahead of time because there were no copies I
could check out of my library. The third HUGE book is
too
HUGE, in my humble opinion -- maybe better to put it on the
reading
list. 5: I could not find Gascoigne before I came; I
would
have found the course much easier to understand had I been able
to study the book first. The importance of Gascoigne should be
stressed in the course description. Further suggestion: could
New-comb Hall be induced to keep some copies in stock for
residents of this course? 6: They were very useful.
7: They were a good start. 8: Extremely.
9:
Very helpful. 10: Useful, but I didn't use. 11:
Excellent. You should stress that one should really read
Gascoigne before coming (I did -- mostly). 12: The
readings
were somewhat helpful, but a bit confusing without the many
examples we were able to peruse during the course. I look forward
to
reexamining the readings and will no doubt get more out of them
this time. 13: Very (I was familiar with the texts.)
2. Was your faculty member well-prepared to teach THIS
course?
1: O, yes! 2: No.1. 3: Absolutely.
4:
Yes, formidably so. 5: Magnificently. 6: Yes.
7: Indeed. 8: Yes. Perfectly. 9:
Extremely.
10: Yes -- very experienced and a good, practical eye.
11: Awesomely so. His stories of how he acquired prints
were instructive -- and a bit nostalgic, considering several
places/people are no longer around. 12: Absolutely!
13: Absolutely.
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content
appropriate?
1: Though a bit overwhelming in the moment, the course
leaves one enthusiastic to study the subject. 2-4: Yes.
5: Yes, certainly. I wish I had had a bit more
background,
but that is not the fault of the course. 6-7: Yes.
8: For me, yes. Even challenging. 9: Yes.
10: Yes. Perhaps some attention could be given to the
fine
arts bias some of us will bring to the course -- ie,
distinguishing
between the pragmatics of book illustration (reproduction) and
the envelope-pushing of artists (creation). 11: Yes.
12: Very much so. 13: Yes.
4. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS
brochure description and Expanded Course Description? Did the
course in general meet your expectations?
1: Yes. Yes. 2-3: Yes. 4: Yes + yes.
5: Yes, and more. 6: Yes. 7: The content
exceeded all my expectations. 8: Yes. Exceeded.
9:
Yes, yes, and yes. Exceeded my expectations. I had no idea how
in-depth and detailed our examination of actual prints would
be.
The Lab component was an added plus! 10: Yes -- yes.
11: It exceeded my expectations. I will be able to
use what I have learned on Monday morning -- and the
visual
environment will now overwhelm me for a while as I analyze
every thing. 12: The course not only met my ex-
pectations, it exceeded them. 13: Yes. Yes.
5. What did you like best about the course?
1: Teaching prints with prints. Handling the examples
was
invaluable. 2: Hands-on experience in identifying
prints.
3: Heavy exposure to original prints. Printmaking
workshops. Instructor. 4: The chance to see a large
number
of prints. That we got through all the material. Printing
exercises were fun and instructive. Provision for ``think
time.''
5: Too much of an embarrassment of riches to say.
6: The class discussions of the packets of prints.
7: I really liked the opportunity to examine carefully
and
closely such a great number and variety of prints with such an
experienced instructor. 8: Hands-on approach -- both
looking
at prints and the labs where we made them (or made attempts at
making them). 9: TB's wealth of knowledge; his
willingness
to answer questions and willingness to reexamine prints based
on
student suggestions. 10: Handling the prints -- great
quantities. Also, the shy, retiring modesty of the instructor,
an example for us all. 11: Looking at lots and lots and
lots (and lots) of actual examples, instead of photolitho
reproductions of them (as in Gascoigne). 12: The ability
to see and closely examine examples of the various types of
illustrations we discussed. Also, the hands-on aspects of
creating dry-points, linoleum cuts, and etchings gave a better
understanding of those processes. 13: The opportunity to
look at and handle so much original material. The instructor's
knowledge and sense of humor. I also enjoyed the print-making.
It served pedagogical and amusement ends, as well as relieving
what would have otherwise become an overwhelming intake of
visual
information.
6. How could the course have been improved?
2: While any course could be improved, this is an A1
course taught by the best. Just keep it up. 3: 1) My
woodcut, at least, was rather detailed and took a long time to
finish. The compassion function would have been performed in an
hour or so. I would have preferred spending part of the time
looking at more prints, studying, or (during lunch) networking.
2) More copies of certain kinds of prints to decrease the
necessity to share. 4: It's just about perfect -- but we
didn't cover rubber stamps! 5: For those of us
(and
I am sure I am not alone) who found all this information
difficult to assimilate, it would have been helpful at the
outset
to have a chronological chart of the development of printing
techniques. It is interesting to compare this course with
``Managing the Past,'' of which one wanted to have more hours
per
day; here it would have been impossible to take in more
information. I wonder if the students might not retain more if
the course were spread over two weeks. 6: By being a day
or two longer. 7: I can't imagine. 8: In no way
that I'm able to suggest. 10: A little more attention to
technique -- how it's done -- as for many of us, this helps to
under-
stand the product. In fact, the course teaches technique
directly
(etching, linocut), so it wouldn't be counter to principle.
11: More time. Possibly an evening lab after one of the
lectures? (This will let us test our prowess under the
influence
of wine, too.) 12: Within the limitations of the
one-week
format, it could not be improved. 13: Hard to say. I
can't
see how in the same time period. If there were more time,
perhaps
greater emphasis on publishing history and illustration
processes
(to have a firmer idea of which processes were used when and
where, typically -- as an identification aid).
7. Any final thoughts?
2: Study before coming. 3: This (referring to
RBS)
is as near perfect as may be. One addition to the Vade
mecum: Amtrak from DC is booked up weeks in advance.
4: Do not wear good clothes, especially to
lab sessions. You might put this information in the course
description (unless it's already there and I missed it) or in
letters to the people accepted into the course. 5: Take
it!
Read Gascoigne at least twice ahead of time, though. 6:
Read Gascoigne in advance, and bring him for your late evening
reading. 8: None. 9: No. 10: Very
worthwhile; gives a good grounding for further self-study.
11:
As Mr Schwarzenegger said in The Terminator -- ``I'll be
back.'' 13: Highly recommended.
Number of respondents: 13
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
62% 33% 38% 39%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
23% 45% 55% 39%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, re- employed, with friends nearby
tired, or retired, or or lived at
summers off exchange home
15% 15% 0% 15%
Grant from a Grant from a Grant from a
friend of friend of friend of
the Library the Library the Library
7% 7% 7%
Five students (40%) were rare book librarians; three students
(25%) were general librarians with unspecified rare book duties;
and one student (7% each) was an antiquarian bookseller, an
archivist, an art historian, a library administrator, or a
teacher/professor.