Michael Twyman
No. 13: Lithography in the Age of the Hand Press
14-18 July 1997


1. How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Very useful. Several options were offered regarding the reading list, which was most helpful. 2: Good bibliography (I think all bibliographies should be available to everyone). 3: Choice of pre-course readings was excellent and under normal circumstances would not have been excessive. 4: Very helpful. 5: Extremely useful. 6: Interesting, but not essential. MT covered the same material in class. Bibliography will be useful in the future (he didn't expect or suggest we should read it all). 7: They certainly contributed considerably, but I believe were not essential to one's participation. 8: Very useful. I appreciated the suggested short list of readings offered by the instructor, in addition to the fuller ones. 9: Extremely useful. 10: What reading I had time to do before arriving was extremely useful. 11: They were difficult to find to purchase (except for Bamber Gascoigne and Early lithographic books from the Book Block. Pre-course reading is always helpful. 12: Excellent. 13: Very useful.


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: Yes. 2: Not much material was distributed in class. 4: Yes ­ I believe they will continue to be so once I'm back at work. 5: Yes. 6: Somewhat, but as I took notes, not essential. 8-9: Yes. 10: Since the subject of lithography is so complex, MT's reading list will be very useful in continuing my studies. 12: Yes. 13: Course syllabus was appropriate and useful for the course.

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

1-4: Yes. 5: Entirely so. 6-7: Yes. 8: Yes ­ perfect for our group. 9: Yes ­ quite challenging. 10-11: Yes. 12: Good exchange of ideas in class. Good participation of students in discussion on lithography. 13: Entirely appropriate.


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

1: We made just one field trip, on grounds, and it was very important to the understanding of course subject matter. 2: The best part of the course was the visit to the lithographic studio to see a lithograph made. 3: Absolutely essential. 4: We saw the printing of a lithographic stone which was fine so far as it went; I would have liked to see the making of an image on a stone first (no fine art required), then the fixing and other chemical steps, then printing. 5: Yes. The lithography demonstration was helpful. 6: Yes. The demonstration of printing a lithograph was helpful. I would have liked to see someone drawing on the stone, as well. 8: Yes ­ enjoyed the trip to the lithography studio. 9: Yes, very. 10: Yes. 11: Very well spent. Until you actually see a lithographic print pulled, you really don't understand it. 12: Visit to UVa's Art Department to watch a demonstration of a lithographic press was very helpful for understanding the actual process. 13: The time spent in the art department observing lithographic printing and the inking of the stone was very worthwhile.


5. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations?

1: Yes. Yes. Yes. 2: Yes. 3: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 4-6: Yes. 7: Yes on both. 8: Yes. 9: Yes. Exceeded my expectations. 10: Yes. 11: Yes ­ and, of course, the evaluations from past years. 12: Yes. 13: It fully met my expectations.


6. What did you like best about the course?

1: Instruction generally, and field trip. 2: The instructor: MT is the ideal pedagogue: enthusiastic, energetic, humorous, omniscient in his subject. 3: Time taken to explain how particular items were produced, and detailed explanation of means of production (with demonstration!). 4: Intense exposure to MT's expertise in the fields of lithography and ephemera. To my surprise, I enjoyed the book section thoroughly. 5: The instructor ­ organized, expert, and gracious! The best of the best at RBS. Also, classmates were sharp and prepared ­ one of the better groups I've been with at RBS. 6: MT's emphasis on why ­ why certain processes, tools, etc., had advantages, why printers chose approaches they did. I liked seeing so many examples of topographical books, chromolithography, etc. And learning to look for clues as to how work was produced. 7: I think MT's practical experience in the techniques and his approach from an artist's point of view, rather than simply a historian's, was a major factor in his effectiveness. 8: The lectures by an expert in the field and the opportunity to look at various actual specimens with him and ask questions and the quality/quantity of marvelous slides we got to see. 9: The instructor and his methods of presentation. 10: The instructor ­ well informed, an excellent speaker, funny, and engaging. 11: MT has a very good teaching technique. For example, before we went into examples of presses themselves, he asked us (as a group) to design a basic press. Then, when the slides of the presses were shown, we understood the problems the press designers had to solve. MT encouraged class participation ­ questions and observations were answered fully and thoughtfully. 12: Excellent slides and comments on them by the instructor. I liked being able to actually handle real lithographs and rare books ­ the feel (and smell) of the paper and being able to study them with a loupe. 13: The instructor's depth of knowledge of the subject matter and his willingness and ability to share it with his students.


7. How could the course have been improved?

1: I would not object to more time at the lithography studio observing demonstration of aspects of the lithographic process. 2: There is a paradox, in that the more pre-course reading one did, the more the class became repetitive ­ since the course is necessarily based on his authoritative work, the solution may be to emphasize stuff outside of the book. I think the process of making a lithograph, however crude, would give us a better idea the techniques than any amount of talk. The time could be taken from the sections on presses and music, which were not illuminating. 3: Possibly, if some of the connoisseurship work could have been done as independent homework assignments, they would have been more engaging and useful. Also, the instructor might (then) have been able to get some breathing room. Probably, also, if someone other than MT would do some good publishing on the subject.... 4: I would have preferred more time for ephemera and less on music. 5: The first day there was quite a bit that repeated the readings. Stress more new material at the outset. 6: It's hard to suggest any way to improve. Maybe fewer examples of printing presses and enough repetition of how to distinguish backward lettering from transfer, etc., to really get it in our heads ­ a handout would be nice (but I know that sounds like I want spoon feeding). 7: More process identification from samples. And I don't think the music section was boring!! 8: It's just about perfect as it is. 9: A more step-by-step demonstration of the actual lithographic process showing the application of chemicals, etc., one at a time. 11: I can't imagine. 12: I would suggest that a 30-minute discussion be made of each of the four major books on the reading list. 13: I can't think of any practical way. It would be nice to see someone actually putting an image on the stone, but clearly, the physical resources for such a demonstration are probably not feasible.



8. Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, printing demonstrations, &c.

1: Attended the Peter Stallybrass and TB lectures. I thought TB's presentation was up to its usual high standards. 2: Thomas Tanselle is a great scholar and writer of summaries of scholarship, but a spirit-numbing lecturer; PS was great. The receptions after were enjoyable (the quality of the wine notable). Occasional imposition of arbitrary "Belanger rules" I found unprofessional. 3: I don't know what I'd have done without the Sunday dinner, for which the food was very good ­ as it was for all occasions. The TT lecture was a disappointing presentation of an important subject, PS's talk was, at least, fun to listen to. 4: The tour was too long and exhausting for such a hot evening ­ some pointless busy-walking. Videos were also a bit long ­ two were probably enough. Booksellers were most gracious ­ evening lectures, especially PS, were excellent. Being in the Dome Room was a dream. 5: Bookseller night was most enjoyable. 6: I didn't think the food was very good Sunday night. I liked having tables to sit around, however. 7: I like the bookseller night. Otherwise, the day leaves me fairly mentally exhausted. 8: In general I find that I am extremely tired by 5pm, so evening activities are very difficult for me to enjoy (perhaps this is just because of my age). 9: They are a good way of bringing people together. I preferred PS's livelier presentation to TT's. TT should leave Jerry McGann alone. 11: Sunday night dinner is always a delight and a good time to catch up with people you haven't seen for a while. The talks are usually a mixed bag ­ not as good this year (but not as bad as one last year), but still a good idea. I missed the rest. 12: Good introduction provided by the Sunday dinner and the three videos afterward. 13: The booksellers' night was well planned and organized.


9. Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?

1: I was not unhappy about any aspect of the course and would have no qualms about recommending it to others. Yes. 2: Yes. 3: Lithographic prints, etc., are interesting enough in themselves, but the course also presents a window on c19 culture that might be hard to equal in anything else one could do in a week. 4: Definitely, you get your money's worth! You'll find you know other students ­ and meet many more. 5: Highly recommended. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, I got my money's worth. I am grateful that RBS remains so "inexpensive" relative to its quality. Both the course and MT were recommended very highly to me, and they more than fulfilled my hopes. 8: Yes, definitely! 9: I certainly got my money's worth. I would recommend doing as much advance reading as possible. I can't wait to go back to my library to re-examine examples of lithography I've seen. I look forward to pursuing this new interest outside of work, as well. 10: I would strongly recommend this course to anyone involved in or interested in printing. I got my money's worth. 11: This is an extraordinary course with a slightly understated title. You will come away not only with knowledge but with understanding. 12: Excellent instruction receive ­ I could never have gained the knowledge anywhere else. I am proud to have been a part of RBS. 13: I would highly recommend the course for anyone with an interest in lithography of the hand press period. I think the course would interest anyone concerned with illustrations processes.


Number of respondents: 13



PERCENTAGES


Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution gave me leave Institution paid tuition Institution paid housing Institution paid travel
70% 60% 27% 23%
I took vacation time I paid tuition myself I paid for my own housing I paid my own travel
7% 40% 66% 62%
N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off N/A: self-employed, retired, or exchange N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home N/A: lived nearby
23% 0% 7% 15%


There were thirteen students; six were rare book librarians (46%), and one each was an antiquarian bookseller, a conservator / binder / preservation librarian, a dogsbody / image researcher, a general librarian with some rare book duties, an independent scholar, and one works in a museum at work not directly related to library, and a teacher/professor (7% each).