Alan Fern

41: Introduction to the History of Illustration [I-10]

7-11 July 2003

1)   How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: The pre-course readings were very interesting but not particularly relevant to the course. According to the instructor’s plan (until students made suggestions), most of the course consisted of slide material. These were covered in a shorter time frame than reflected in the outline, given the instructor’s particular areas of interest. 2: Would have been more useful if they’d been required and if the teacher had been required to read them, too (and take notes). Several of his “guesses” were directly contradicted in the readings. 3: I learned a lot from the readings. Would like to see some recent scholarship on book illustration included. Suggestions for additional readings on specific topics would be helpful. 4: While the information in the pre-course readings was somewhat useful, they were not presented in a way that gave any sense of what the reader should get out of them and thus bring to class. 5: Readings were very useful, although I would suggest that some more recent works be added to the list since most of the titles were quite old and some newer works would have dealt with contemporary trends. 6: I was grateful to be introduced to the David Bland text, A history of book illustration. I had no library access due to where I live, so didn’t get to view some of the other texts mentioned, some of which were a little too specialized (early) for me. 7: Would have profited more from more specific reading about printing processes, or perhaps the RBS printing processes course should be a pre-requisite (?).

2)   Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: No, the material distributed was not helpful. The outline we were given (the only item we received) was not followed as the material was covered quickly given the limited background and context provided to us. On Thursday, the students requested, and the instructor provided, a time line. The students also discussed on that day the social history in connection with the various examples. 2: Nothing was distributed in class except a one-sheet schedule of topics we didn’t follow in the end. 3: We did not receive any printed material in class except for a table listing order of topics which was not followed. Would have liked to have outline, time lines, summary of trends in each time period. 4: No materials were distributed other than a syllabus, which we didn’t really stick to, and which was therefore of limited use. I think the reading list (pre-course readings) will be of more use to me now than it was before the class. 5: It would have been helpful to have more handouts for the course. We received the booklist online and a rather tentative syllabus the first day, but it could also be helpful to have a list of the slides used (names, dates, illustrators, &c.) since often there was a fair amount of time wasted having AF spell names and often he was unsure of dates. 6: This was an introductory (and first time) course and I did want a general overview -- so the syllabus seemed fine. There were no other handouts given during the course -- This should certainly be a consideration for future courses. 7: This course offered nearly no such material. However, the pre-course reading list should be useful in filling gaps in the knowledge not gained during this course of study. I would have preferred a better general guide to this subject in the way of time lines / brief histories, &c.

3)   Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: The intellectual level was adequate but the material presented was limited. I understand that the material to be covered is extensive and difficult to cover, but the approach should, in my view, have included extensive organization on the part of the instructor. This would have assured more coverage of more material. There was far too much discussion of what should have been covered during the week. 2: No. The course seemed more aimed to a “Friends of the Library” general audience, not to professionals and enthusiasts in the field. Several times the teacher assumed questions were more naive than they really were, and moved on without asking if that answered the question. 3: No. Was not in depth enough and there was very little integration of the various topics covered. Very little commentary on the slides from the earlier time periods. 4: It felt more like an undergraduate lecture course than the kind of seminar / discussion course I had hoped for. Part of that is the nature of the survey class, but I think the way the day was structured might be changed so more emphasis was put on discussing ideas. 5: Yes, but I would have liked even more intellectual context -- historical context in terms of social history and aesthetic of the age, &c. 6: The interaction of the other students (especially the professionals) certainly made this very intellectually stimulating. 7: Sometimes, a level of fore-knowledge was assumed which was not appropriate. Otherwise, the content seemed to be on track.

4)   If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: Not applicable. 2: Yes, we had one morning in Special Collections. Would suggest doing this every day, e.g. each afternoon. 3: Visit to Special Collections was very productive. One of the best class sessions. 4: Very much so -- when this course is offered again it would be good to spend more time with actual examples rather than slides. 5: Yes, most definitely. Although I would encourage even more time spent in Special Collections. It would be helpful to spend part of each time viewing materials as they are discussed in lecture as opposed to leaving the Special Collections visit until the last day. 6: Yes. This was the pièce of résistance. Could have done with a Special Collections session every afternoon -- in fact this has been seriously suggested to our tutor. 7: Yes. This was some of the best time spent during the week. Add more of this to the next offering of this short-course.

5)   What did you like best about the course?

1: I liked the fact that the instructor was, in fact, willing to accept our suggestions. He seems very interested in improving the course. Earlier in the week, however, many students’ questions were ignored. The instructor became very open to our comments by the end of the course. 2: The camaraderie of the other students. 3: Strongest part of the course was the discussion of late c19 and early c20 illustration, including private presses, Art Nouveau and Bauhaus and Constructivism. Use of illustration packets. Learning from other classmates. 4: The chance to look at and discuss actual materials both in the classroom and in Special Collections. Also, the opportunity to meet and learn from my fellow students. 5: The most useful part of the course for me was TB’s teaching packets, the “Museum” visits, and the trip to Special Collections, and then it was helpful to spend time at the end wrapping up the course by the class as a whole trying to summarize and analyze what we as a group learned this week. 6: The aspects relating to the “private press” books and then actually seeing such fine examples in Special Collections. 7: Working with print processes packets. Working with RBS teaching collections. Special Collections hands-on.

6)   How could the course have been improved?

1: The instructor suggested that the Book Illustration [course] be a prerequisite. This is an excellent suggestion, given the approach taken by the instructor. Assumptions were made concerning our knowledge of the various techniques; however, according to the course description, technical areas were not to be covered extensively. 2: Suggest taking more time to prepare original materials: focus on what’s available in RBS material and Special Collections. Slides in black and white from books on reading list are no substitute, slides of original material less of a problem, but should be followed by trip to Special Collections to see same while still on that topic. AF said he felt he had covered early material and implied maybe we just weren’t listening. However, early material (i.e. pre-c19) was covered mostly by making aesthetic observations about the images. Suggest a more structured course in the future: e.g. hand-out of time lines, descriptive lists of major genres. A thematic approach might work better for such a vast subject. 3: Much more context for the slides that we were seeing. Making connections between technical and social/economic changes and how book illustration was affected. More knowledgeable discussion of pre-1850 book illustration. More books. 4: The material to cover in this course covers a large period of time and vast quantities of materials, so having a balanced syllabus and sticking to it would be better. It might be worth considering to develop the course along themes rather than chronologically (e.g. educational book illustration, fiction illustration, art illustration, &c.). An overall time line and list of people / works to be discussed would make it easier to concentrate on the images and ideas. 5: In the future I would suggest that the illustrative processes teaching packets be used during the first day or that the introduction to such methods be required as a prerequisite. I learned so much once we got out the packets and materials and actually discussed what it was we were looking at. Unfortunately this week we came to use these half-way through the course. 6: As mentioned previously (and has been suggested to our tutor), 1) Handout materials (especially an annotated time line. 2) Daily Special Collections sessions (à la Sue Allen) to view the real thing. 7: Overall, the course needed to be better planned and mapped out. The subject is too large to allow for the luxuries of excessive discussion early on.

7)   We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa’s Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?

1: I didn’t have any problems in the handling of the materials. 2: We used very few original materials, but they were well-handled. 3: There was no problem with the handling of materials. 4: A brief word from the Special Collections staff regarding use of the materials and their expectations would have been good. 5: As a librarian who has training in preservation and oversight for a Special Collections department, I was quite impressed by the handling and care of items throughout the week by students and RBS staff. 6: No -- this all seems well provided for as usual. 7: The rules established for handling these materials seemed reasonable and sound.

8)   If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?

1: Yes, both lectures were very interesting and helpful. They added to the enthusiasm I had for attending the class. 2: TB’s Sunday lecture was entertaining and informative. The Monday lecture -- on a specialized topic -- could have benefitted by slides of the machines, people, and names involved, as it was hard to follow by ear alone. 3: Attended Monday night. Well worth attending. 4: Yes, they were each interesting in their own way, though not directly relevant to the course. 5: Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed all the evening events, although I found the [printing] materials museum the most informative for this particular course. 6: Always an essential element of the RBS experiences. And up to the usual high standards. 7: Yes. Good speaker (John Bidwell) and pertinent topic for my work.

9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?

1: Museum nights on Wednesday and Thursday were excellent. Thursday night’s Museum Night, in particular, raised my spirits considerably. 2: Yes! Adding a second Museum Night was brilliant. Though I know it’s double the work for RBS staff, two museum nights is what saved the week for me. 3: The two Museum Nights were excellent experiences. Hand-outs and exhibits extremely useful. One of the best parts of the week! 4: Definitely! It was a good opportunity to get a taste of other Rare Book topics than what was relevant to the class I took. 5: Yes! I realize it is a lot of work for RBS staff to put up and tear down exhibits but it was greatly appreciated! 6: This just keeps on getting better every year! Excellent, not to be missed. 7: Both Wednesday and Thursday Museum Nights were time very well spent.

10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?

1: I felt that, in spite of disappointment in the course, I got my money’s worth. Part of the issue was my complete and total enjoyment of previous courses -- I felt totally transported and involved and expected to feel that enthusiasm again. 2: No. Sadly, this course did not provide what was promised in the Course Bulletin: it was almost all aesthetic history, with special emphasis on what influenced c19 and c20 “artistic” books. Very little on social history and social context, and even that was mostly devoted to artists, not to consumers. Nothing on the Encyclopédie, though it was listed in the Bulletin. 3: No. First RBS course in which I was disappointed. I would recommend the class to anyone interested in illustration after 1880, but not for students interested in earlier time periods or in exploring trends and changes over time. [Note on “money’s worth”: This isn’t really the consideration. More concerned with effective and constructive use of time -- as I think are most busy professionals.] 4: Yes, I feel that I did. I do think it would be helpful to have the course on illustrative processes as a pre-requisite to this class, so that a knowledge of technical aspects is common to the students. 5: I felt that I have certainly been introduced to the subject and that I now have more of a knowledge base from which to move forward in terms of further education. I do think that the professor needs to work on the organization / course design and not be so wedded to previous lectures that he has given. At times the lectures seemed “canned.” The best discussions and the best sessions involved the class as a whole actively engaging the materials. Also -- the history of book illustration did not end round about the end of WW II -- there are still many interesting things that have happened since, including the revival of book arts and the artists’ book movement, graphic novel, &c. 6: Personally I got what I came for -- an overview of this subject as a whole and a chance to look more closely at my area of specific interest. So yes, I got my money’s worth. However, this was a first run for this course, so there are several things that could be modified for future versions as has been mentioned above and in some depth with our tutor. Such comments were constructive and should benefit future students. 7: For the most part, “yes.” I would suggest using more materials and fewer slides for future courses, as well as a more carefully defined syllabus and time line.

Number of respondents: 7

Percentages

There were three rare book librarians (43%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (14%), two book-collectors (29%), and one curator (14%).

RBS Home