James Mosley

52: Type, Lettering, and Calligraphy, 1450-1830 [T-50]

14-18 July 2003

1)   How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Very useful, although I didn’t see all of them. I came to the course with so little knowledge of the subject, however, that I would have been pleased to have been pointed first to a very general text (e.g. Warren Chappell’s A Short History of the Printed Word). 2: Good refresher. 3: Fairly useful. A single required text might be useful to give everyone a starting line. 4: The pre-course readings were, on the whole, very useful. 5: The pre-course readings were quite appropriate and useful. I only wish I had had access to the Rare Book School collection. 6: Provided good background. 7: Somewhat useful, although too much to read in the short time I had to prepare (because of late application and admittance: my shortcoming and not the instructor’s). The general introductory readings were helpful; the more detailed less so. 8: Very useful, although I’d have liked to see JM’s longer bibliography before the class, so I could have chosen some elective reading. 9: Useful, a solid background to the course. 10: Very useful, both as preparation and for consultation after the course. 12: Very useful. 13: I think this depends on one’s knowledge -- I was familiar with much of the reading, though for some of it from long ago.

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: They were excellent and will serve me well in the future. 2: On time and helpful. 3: Will presumably be useful for future reference -- really not much use in class. 4: Some of the materials will be useful far into the future but others not so much outside of the classroom. 5: Absolutely. They will become part of my personal reference library at work. 6: Yes. 7: The syllabus was very general, but the reading lists attached will be very helpful in further study of these subjects. The material handed out in class was very helpful, although I think more could have been used. 8: Yes, though I would have liked handouts of the type we were viewing on screen so that we could have compared types more easily. 9: Bibliographies will prove helpful in the future. 10-11: Yes. 12: All material was excellent. 13: Yes.

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

1: Yes. I suppose that one who knows the history of type and printing well must be an historian of sorts, but I thought JM was exceptional in the breadth of his intellect and erudition. 2: Yes. The combination of excellent teacher and reference materials in the room was good. We could add to the class by spending more time with materials in the room. 3: I reckon so. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, very much so. 6: Yes. 7: Perhaps because of the in-depth scholarship involved in such a study, the level at times was beyond general comprehension. 8: Sometimes the level was either very technical or very simple. 9: Yes, an introductory course, but still with challenging content. 10-11: Yes. 12: Yes, it was a pleasure to take this course. 13: Very much so.

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

1: We did not leave the classroom except to go to Special Collections, and it was well worthwhile. 2: I would like to have had more time. I enjoyed the encounter with real objects. 3: No. The trip to Special Collections was not useful. We saw too few books from too far away. There’s no point in making a trip (even a short one) to look at The Fell Types. 4: We did -- and yes I feel it was well spent. 5: Yes, the examples were actually quite appropriate and helpful. 6: Yes. 7: The trip to Special Collections was extremely interesting and appropriate to our studies. 8: We only viewed six or so books the whole one and a half hours; I’d have preferred more books and less commentary. 9: Yes. The opportunity to see examples of printed materials as a supplement to the slides was appreciated. 10-11: Yes. 12: Indeed! It was clever to split the class up. 13: We worked mostly from slides in the classroom, so a second visit to Special Collections would have been helpful -- though splitting the class makes it inefficient. Could there be a special class “exhibition”?

5)   What did you like best about the course?

1: JM: his encyclopedic knowledge, his intellect, his love of the subject. 2: The teacher, JM, was excellent. He presented an example of a scholar who brought intellectual rigor to his own research -- in rare combination with a humble nature, open to changes in the field that others are introducing. 3: The typecasting demonstration was useful, but willing students should be able to give it a go. I also enjoyed the type identification and discussion on the final afternoon. I think the course would have benefitted from more of these exercises. 4: The instructor -- knowledgeable and enthusiastic presentation of material. 5: I think I had the most fun trying to identify unknown pieces of printing. Casting type was a close second. 6: Type casting demo. It helped me visualize a process that I never completely understood before. 7: The expertise and knowledge of the instructor. 8: The fact that it was -- I admit, necessarily -- a broad overview. 9: The teacher’s absolute mastery of the topic and his willingness to share his own areas of research. 10: Anecdotes of JM’s personal and professional experience, which were used to illustrate material covered. 11: The fact that the historical perspective was emphasized when interesting related parallels in art history, political history, and industrialization were mentioned. 12: Its overall intensity. 13: JM’s insistence on placing typographic developments in a social and cultural context.

6)   How could the course have been improved?

1: I don’t believe it could have been improved much. 2: I found myself wanting more type examples in the handout and typographers listed in time clusters. 3: More type ID exercises and discussions. Briefer introduction -- we took three class periods to get to type. The instructor could teach us how to pronounce foreign names: Leonardo da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Geofroy Tory. 4: It is a lot of material for one week. 5: The course could only be improved by extending it for another week! 6: Fewer slides in a semi-darkened room, especially after lunch. Zzzzzzzzz . . . . 7: The time period covered could have been narrowed down, as the amount of information at times seemed overwhelming. 8: Maybe divide it chronologically again, to allow more depth. 9: Class is well organized. I can’t add much in suggesting improvements. 10: Identification exercises could be used briefly each day to reinforce the material covered that day. 11: Perhaps more hands-on identification or skills for later identification, but otherwise fine as is. 12: Not at all. 13: More exposure to real examples -- not slides or models. The final session of type identification was very valuable.

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: No suggestions. We had excellent materials always available. 2: I enjoyed access to materials and didn’t notice any damage. 3: The few leaves we handled from the RBS collection were handled appropriately. 4: We were not able to lock our classroom door in Clemons where RBS reference books were located throughout the week. 7: None. 9: I think everything was well handled and arranged by staff. 10-12: None. 13: Perhaps more table-top space to lay out books for examination.

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

1: Yes. I always enjoy hearing TB’s report and Greer Allen’s talk. 2: I attended both and thought both were worthwhile. GA was especially engaging -- bringing together two wildly different topics. 3: Sunday could have been a bit briefer -- felt like a slightly pessimistic stockholders’ meeting. GA’s lecture was enjoyable. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, GA was great fun! 6: Sunday lectures are always informative about RBS affairs. Monday’s lecture was fun, entertaining, and well-crafted. 7: The Monday lecture was terrific. I did not attend Sunday’s lecture. 8: Yes, GA’s talk was entertaining as well as enlightening. 9: I enjoyed the lecture, always worth attending. 10: Yes. 11: GA’s lecture was delightful and heartwarming. 12: The lecture this year was superb. 13: Is a lecture by TB ever not worth attending? GA, of course, is always superb.

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

1: Yes. I finally figured out how the Linotype machine works and what electrotyping is. 2: I liked the stuff and the videos. 3: Very much -- a great hands-on experience. 4: Enjoyed this evening very much -- yes. 5: Yes. The collections are extraordinary, and I only regret that there was not an additional day or two to go through them. 6: Museum Night on Wednesday was made better with ES on hand to pull requested items. Thursday’s Printing Surfaces Museum was marvelous, fun, and I learned new things. 7: Yes. 8: Absolutely. More of that would be welcome, if possible. 10: Yes, Museum Night was particularly informative. 12: N/A. 13: “More stuff, more stuff!”

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

1: Yes (and I would have gotten my money’s worth if I had paid tuition myself!). I have never had an RBS course that was less than wonderful. 2: I found it worthwhile. Come with an open mind. 3: Absolutely -- easily worth twice the cost. I’m a bit uncertain of the intended audience for the class. It’s too much (as presented) for a beginner, but plows a lot of familiar ground for someone with a bit of experience. It would not dissuade me from attending RBS again. 4: Yes -- the course was really wonderful. I would like to take “part II” if offered. 5: I regret having stayed up very late on two nights -- students need to be well rested; there is a great deal to absorb. Yes, I think I got my money’s worth! 6: High-quality education is a bargain at this price! To get the most out of RBS, attend all events and go to coffee breaks -- participate fully. 7: I received more than my money’s worth. As always, it was a wonderful experience. 8: My institution got its money’s worth -- I invested time well-spent. 9: An enjoyable course. I’d like to follow up with more of the readings listed in the bibliography. 10: Yes. RBS is always worth it. 11: Yes, I took the Introduction to the History of Typography (with Archie Provan) last year. I liked the balance of these two courses. JM’s is the earlier historical perspective while the other is more related to a general overview of type design with more emphasis on details of the letterforms. 12-13: Yes.

Number of respondents: 13

Percentages

There were five rare book librarians (39%), two general librarians with some rare book duties (15%), one teacher or professor (7%), one antiquarian bookseller (7%), one book collector (7%), one book designer and artist (7%), and one administrator with curatorial duties (7%).

RBS Home