71: Introduction to the History of Typography [T-10]
18-22 July 2005
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Fine, broad introduction to a vast field. 2: There were a lot of pre-course readings, but selecting a few of them beforehand for a broader understanding was very helpful. 3: It was very helpful to have skimmed many of the typography readings. The printing resources proved to be less immediately helpful for this course, though it’s good to have the citations. 4: Shaping of Our Alphabet was especially useful. 5: Highly useful to essential. 6: Very, very useful. I couldn’t read everything, but the fact that I’d read a good portion of the suggested list was critical to getting the most out of the class. 7: The pre-course reading was wonderful, although the quantity was somewhat overwhelming. More guidance in prioritizing reading would be helpful (for those of us short on reading time). 8: The pre-course readings were 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. Additional footnotes would be helpful in locating the reference for further study. 2: The syllabus and bound materials were very useful, and I’ll be referring to the printed material for some time to come. 3: The packet was great, and will be a nice resource to have in the future. 4: I think the workbook gives a good sense for development of types chronologically. An added section with identifying features for the types clustered together would be extremely handy. 5: Very useful. 6: Yes. The workbook, especially type specimens and examples, was very helpful and will be later, as well. 7: Yes, both were useful, and the syllabus was fairly close to accurate. The course materials I anticipate using a great deal after I return home. 8: The workbook was extremely useful during the course. I anticipate making reference to it in the future. It was helpful to have examples, albeit photocopied, to refer to during the lecture periods.
3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: The great mix of classroom and hands-on instruction. The content was challenging, but not overwhelming. 2: I was mostly interested in how things appeared on the page and how type “sets a tone” for the finished product. The lab sessions were especially nice. 3: I was most interested in the more practical elements of the course – typesetting, printing, casting type – though I remained interested in the rest of the stuff throughout. The intellectual level was right on. 4: Understanding the evolution of typefaces is very useful. 5: My primary interest was in the history and development of typefaces and learning how to identify them. The practical aspects (casting and setting type, printing) were a great bonus. 6: Everything was relevant. Of greatest interest for me was the typesetting and printing practicum – a whole new world that is much clearer to me now. 7: The amount of time spent in lab was a surprise, but quite helpful to me in that it enabled me to really understand how movable type works. The lecture portion was somewhat overwhelming but vastly useful, and will (I believe) become more so as I have time to assimilate the information. 8: The entire course was useful. The practical portions (comp labs, punchcutting, press demo, typecasting) and having discussions with original materials in hand were especially useful. The instructor at times presumed the students’ knowing more than they did, but this was a diverse audience and it is better to be challenged than not.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: Seeing the treasures from SC was a privilege usually reserved for royalty! 2: SC trips were useful – it’s always better to see these typefaces live and in person. Wonderful material to look at. 3: We made two visits to SC, both of which were extremely helpful – there is no substitute for seeing the real things. 4: The two show-and-tells at the SC library were well-spent. 5: Well worth the time – there’s nothing like seeing actual books – and hearing SN point up typography high points. 6: Yes. Great examples in SC that illuminated the historical chronology. 7: The time in SC was fascinating, but in some ways less useful than time spent with packet materials. 8: Yes.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: “Best” is too hard to decide. However, high points included watching a world-class master cut a punch, casting type in a hand mould, printing on a wooden common press, encountering the high spots of book production, and a thorough overview of typography, together with a system of classification and help with identification. 2: Setting type, proofing, casting, and being able to identify – or go through the steps to identify – type by the end of the course. 3: Setting type with Jim Walczak was a treat. Also, SN’s consistent good humor and enthusiasm made the class periods continuously lively and interesting. 4: Learning to set type. 5: SN’s encyclopedic knowledge of printing and typography, and his infectious enthusiasm and love of the subject. He’s a great teacher! 6: Terrific instructor, helpful and ready with answers or practical advice. The reading lists are also very helpful. 7: I now feel I know where to begin and how to proceed in identifying a typeface. I feel this class has given me a wonderful beginning in regards to a topic which will take some time for me to become good at (develop my eye). 8: Discussion with actual examples in hand.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: While Jefferson Hall is historic, it is not the best classroom for a seminar. Lighting, HVAC, and table space could be better. Utilization of projected images, in addition to handouts, would allow the instructor to highlight specific details. 2: There’s a lot to learn – either extend the course or divide it in half. 3: It’s hard to say. I think there may have been less of a connection made between printing and typography than I had hoped. Then again, book composition may need to be a different course altogether. 4: Labs devoted to identifying typefaces we learned about in lecture would be very helpful and I think might easily be fitted in – one and a half hours in the morning or afternoon by section, with half an hour to identify types followed by an hour to discuss our mistakes and look closely at the texts, somewhat like the “challenge” at the end, but every day. 5: I didn’t feel as though I could recognize typefaces as well as I’d like – maybe more class coverage of old style and Roman variations? Maybe spread over two days to aid retention? Maybe labs or homework with five to ten types to identify each evening? Just some ideas. 6: Anyone teaching in Jefferson Hall needs a microphone: the room is a sound trap, and the lighting is also poor. Also, be sure the answer isn’t written on the back of the specimens in the type quiz; it takes the fun out of it and dissuades the students from looking closely at the item. 7: A visual timeline, putting packet materials out next to one another, so that one can walk along and see the development and change over time. 8: Consideration might be given to the use of a camera and monitor (or ProScope!). For those portions involving demonstration of handskills and distinguishing characteristics of typefaces – e.g. for comp lab, punchcutting, and discussion of type challenge examples.
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: An incredible wealth of materials was freely shared, yet preserved efficiently. 2: RBS staff and SN did a good job watching over SC materials. 3: None. 4: The diversity of media types made for some confusion in following along with the lectures. 5: All were handled with great care by both RBS staff and students. 6: None. 7: Don’t rely on students’ awareness to not use pens when packet materials are out – ask the teacher (or RBS staff present) to reiterate appropriate behavior, probably just the first time materials are out. 8: Purchase several sets of several sizes of good-quality book supports.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Yes. The videos were good – RBS should make them available for rental or purchase. 3: David Whitesell’s talk was fantastic. 4: Yes, they were. DW’s lecture was grand, and he should publish the paper. 5: Both were enjoyable and interesting. DW’s talk on typography was especially interesting and quite humorous – quite apropos of this class, too! 6: Excellent. The “Quixotic Typography” lecture was well-matched to the course subject matter, and an encouragement to novice typesetters. 7: Sunday night was interesting to learn how RBS is doing and see the new space. Monday night was fascinating, and amazingly relevant to our course. 8: The topic of the Monday lecture was interesting.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
1: I learned a lot. 3: Yes – the music engraving and Linotype demonstrations were great and the Jane Eyre collection was fascinating. 4: The Linotype and music engraving demos were superb. 5: Very well spent – having presentations this year seemed to work well and allow staffers to talk about their interests, too. 6: Yes. The Linotype demo is great even if you’ve seen it before. 7: I actually preferred how the Museum Night used to be, with lots of stuff out to look at. Did not attend Movie Night. 8: The section on music engraving, Linotype and the ProScope were of interest. The videos were worth the time.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Come! Be prepared for a rich, intense experience. Thomas Jefferson’s model still works: when outstanding instructors work closely with a few students, real learning can occur. 2: Wonderful class. Do some reading before attending and come prepared to ask questions; SN is good at answering them. 3: Absolutely. My only advice for people considering the course is to keep in mind that this isn’t a workshop on printing, but an academic study of the history of typography. If that’s what you’re after, and if SN’s still teaching it, you’ll have a tremendously rewarding week. 4: Yes. I believe I learned a great deal, more than it often seemed at the time. More chance to practice what we learn in class would help consolidate that sense. 5: My fourth class at RBS – and each one a real delight, as well as a fantastic learning experience. SN is a great instructor – combining scholarly erudition with a down-to-earth presentation style – and the entire week ran like clockwork, as usual. I really can’t say enough good things about RBS – wonderful for rare book types and also anyone interested in books, manuscripts, &c. 6: Well worth it. Be sure to do the reading in advance to get the most from the course. 7: Definitely worth the money! I would advise future students to avoid getting distracted in the preliminary reading from the issue of typefaces. While the history of printing is fascinating, it’s not information highly needed for the class. 8: RBS is well-organized. The break-time refreshments are appreciated both in terms of pacing the course and getting to know staff and participants.
Number of respondents: 8
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
88% 75% 63% 63%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 0% 25% 25%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, re- employed, with friends nearby
tired, or had retired, or or lived at
summers off exchange home
12% 25% 12% 12%
There were three general librarians with some rare book duties (39%), two rare book librarians (25%), one teacher/professor (12%), one conservator/binder/preservation librarian (12%), and one library communications staff member (12%).