|
Christopher Clarkson
No. 11: Introduction to Medieval and Early Renaissance Bookbinding Structures
12-16 July 1999
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Most of them were good, useful to the course, and interesting. Duby was a bust - all atmosphere, no citations, and quite possibly just wrong. I didn’t finish it. Pye’s book was gloriously fun, but I’m not sure it was relevant (although I’m glad to have read it).
2: A nice mixture of technical background and social history.
3: Pre-course readings on bindings were very useful, though a more systematic account of the development of binding techniques would have been helpful, such as CC’s article "English Monastic Bookbinding in the C12," which was part of the course packet. The Walters catalogue is the most visually helpful, but it lacks any narrative account to set the bindings in a developmental context.
4: Somewhat useful, but there were some readings mentioned often during the class that were not on the list, and perhaps should have been.
5: Useful. I would have liked to have had access to CC’s list of published works (which he gave on the first day of class) prior to the commencement of classes.
6: Very interesting and generally useful. Might have been more useful if the instructor had made some mention of them at the outset of class to indicate why he’d selected them.
7-8: Very useful.
9: Would have liked the bibliography in the course packet which we received here to have been sent earlier.
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 great. I wish we could have had more diagrams, notes, articles, &c.
2: Syllabus was useful, but it lacked good image reproductions and a functional index.
3: Class materials were extremely valuable. CC gave many diagrams and illustrations that immediately aided comprehension.
4: Yes. The workbook put together by CC was very well done, and extremely useful for its diagrams and photographs.
5-6: Yes.
7: Yes, tremendously helpful!
8: Yes.
9: Yes, and our class photocopied a lot more of CC’s materials on our own.
3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1: Yes. I think we were all strong on some points and weak on others, so it shook out evenly.
2: Yes. The instructor maintained a good level of intellectual sophistication while checking frequently in case a student was missing something.
3: The intellectual content was pitched very appropriately.
4-9: Yes.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: I was glad to see the material, and it was nice to do something different - but I would have gotten more out of another day of lecture.
2: Yes, but a driver’s license is only a marker of basic competence, not a charter’s license. Our van driver was horrible: jarring, speeding, tailgating, aggressive. I was continually frightened both to and from Baltimore. Please address this problem.
3-4: Yes.
5: We visited the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore where our time was very well spent, and we had the opportunity to see many relevant pieces. The van was rather cramped, with little air conditioning.
6-7: Yes.
8: Very well spent.
9: Yes. Could public transportation be involved (ie, drive to a Washington DC subway/train station) to help avoid rush hour road traffic? The driver was quite erratic - is he a professional driver?
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.
2: Yes. If anything, it was more extensive in a helpful way.
3-9: Yes.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: Wide range of materials and the extreme expertise of the instructor. A good balance of information for different backgrounds, and a willingness to back up for individuals.
2: The conservative attitude taken by the instructor towards the subject.
3: Very good exposition on the historical development of structures.
4: The visit to the Walters Art Gallery was a wonderful opportunity to see a relevant selection of bindings. CC’s mock-ups and samples of binding structures and sewing techniques were excellent, and beautifully demonstrated many of the elements he discussed.
6: Plenty of visual examples.
7: The progression through historical binding methods, particularly when the minutiae were covered thoroughly without losing sight of a broader picture, including dates and major trends.
8: The opportunity for both lectures and hands-on learning.
9: The visit to the Walters Art Gallery.
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: More time! Would have been nice to have some [Special Collections materials].
2: A bit more organization of the physical samples used to illustrate concepts.
4: The introductory part of the course, which took a full day, seemed long. Like much of the class, it often seemed somewhat disjointed. Some more structure, and progression by period and country might have helped.
6: I think an historical overview/summary of the general evolution of binding practices and styles, and a summary of the characteristics of various types of bindings (eg Anglo-Saxon, Romanesque, Carolingian) on the first day, with slide examples, would have helped clarify things. As it is, we saw a lot about techniques, but I’m not sure we could summarize (or readily identify) periods and styles if asked to (albeit on a general level).
8: The only way to improve this course would be to lengthen the time it is offered - so much information, so little time.
9: More models present. A bibliography (complete) sent out prior to class. Class separated into conservators, librarians, &c.
8) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the BAP’s 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?
2: I worried about the stability of the slide projector, as it was perched on a stack of boxes.
9) 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, &c.
1: I had a good time, in general. The video from the Connections series was awful - half-truths, half-errors, sensationalism. I happen to be an expert on one of the topics touched on, and the evasion and error in dealing with the material was astonishing. I think it should not be shown.
2: I missed the hand-press demonstration. Find a Charbeneau clone!
5: Sue Allen’s lecture was very informative and well presented.
6: Receptions would have been more pleasant if they were held outdoors, with plenty of room and seating. Sue Allen’s talk was most enjoyable. Bookseller Night was fun, although I spent most of my time at one shop.
7: Sue Allen’s lecture was particularly wonderful, interesting, informative, and enjoyable. Sunday Night Dinner and the videos were nice. It was a good time to meet people and get introduced to the location. The food was good. Serve fruit at the breaks!
8: I found the lectures to be interesting and informative.
10) Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?
1: Loads of fun and great information. Thanks! Absolutely! [got my money’s worth].
2: Yes, very much. Be ready to be engaged every moment, and don’t even think about any tourist things.
4: Yes.
7: It’s a great course. Highly recommended.
8: This course was definitely worth the cost of attendance.
9: Yes.
Number of respondents: 9
|