H-60: History of European and American Papermaking

11-15 June 2007 in Charlottesville

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Very useful. I had read Dard Hunter [Papermaking in Pioneer America] a while ago and have used it as reference. It is a good general book on papermaking – surprisingly comprehensive. 2: The pre-course readings were very useful. Parts of the course content were drawn directly from this reading, thereby reinforcing it. 3: Good general preparation and not excessive; more reasonable in their demands than some other courses. 4: Good background reading. 5: The Dard Hunter text, read in its entirety, was the perfect preparation. 6: Good as to content and quantity, but some were hard to access. Through interlibrary loan it took some time, plus I could not get some of the books. 7: The list was comprehensive and useful, though a number of the titles were difficult to locate. 8: Very useful.

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

1: Very useful; I will definitely use the workbook. I am especially interested in the graphs and charts on the use of gelatin sizing, the comparison charts for Eastern and Western papermaking, and the paper size charts. 2: The workbook that as distributed in class contained many images and charts that were referred to in class. These clarified many points. The workbook will continue to be useful to me in the future. 3: They were appropriate, containing helpful charts and material of a graphic nature that would be difficult to acquire through note taking. I will undoubtedly use the reading list as well. 4: Yes; should prove useful. 5: Yes! 6: Yes; I just took notes in the very useful and comprehensive booklet we were given. 7: Both appropriate and useful, well thought out; a complement to the classes. 8: They were all perfectly appropriate in class, and they will form an important, functioning part of my reference library.

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: I really can’t say. It was all relevant. I had expected to be most interested in the papermaking parts (TB); but I was fascinated by the history that JB covered, and expect now to do a great deal more reading in these areas. Having librarians in the class was useful; again, I mention this because I expected them to be ruthlessly boring – I was surprised by my interest in their questions and comments. 2: The practice in identifying the ages and types of paper will be very useful for me. The intellectual level of the course was high, and I appreciated that. I especially enjoyed hearing about TB’s research on gelatin in older papers. 3: Aesthetics of paper; dating of paper through various means; economics of papermaking; and Asian style papermaking. 4: The expertise of TB and JB – great combination of historical and practical information. Making paper was great. 5: Yes, the content was appropriate, and the instructor happily answered questions. The discussion of watermark technology was particularly interesting. 6: Yes, the synergy in the two very charming experts, in different fields, wonderfully coordinated. Even when I thought I knew the subject, there was something new, funny or quirky presented! 7: The intellectual level, in particular, was outstanding, delightfully accessible, anecdotal, and richly informed. I especially admired how TB and JB worked in a kind of synergistic collaboration. 8: I came especially interested in conservation aspects of the subject, but spent the entire week absorbed and stimulated by every aspect each instructor presented.

4) If your course left its classroom to visit Special Collections (SC) or to make other field trips away from your classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

1: Very worthwhile. In fact, I used some of my free time to order books we looked at for my own personal library. I found the Dard Hunter books especially interesting. (These are not the ones I can afford to add to my collection however. Perhaps it’s just as well.) 2: Yes, we viewed books on the history of papermaking. JB described the usefulness of each book. I appreciated this introduction to the literature rather than simply being handed a bibliography. 3: We did make a trip to SC so that we could examine reference materials there; a paper mill – even if it is a UV Hollander beater, would be better. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, the SC visit allowed us to look at some fine printing relating to Dard Hunter that would have been impossible to do in another classroom. 6: Yes, always nice to handle relics and samples; we had plenty on hand in the classroom, plus an afternoon of samples. 7: This was my single complaint; I wish we had made a field trip to a paper factory. 8: N/A.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: I am not really able to answer this question in the way you want. Everything was relevant – very little seemed repetitious despite the fact that I have taken several courses in papermaking before – and from name brand people! I really needed information about the chemistry of papermaking; about the practicalities – how mills were set up, how sheets are actually formed in different areas of the world, how people managed to stay in business – or not! The course helped me to consider my own goals with respect to papermaking and printing, and this is invaluable. 2: I really enjoyed the hands-on parts of the course. I liked how TB and JB switched off teaching. They both have very different styles that compliment each other well. I liked the combination of lecture, videos, slides, and hands-on work. 3: I really enjoyed the interplay of TB and JB, who complemented each other, and obviously respect each other’s work. The hands-on opportunity, and samples for home are very welcome in a system which so emphasizes book learning. 4: The expertise of TB and JB. 5: The teachers’ enthusiasm for the material, and the physical making of paper. 6: The synergy between TB and JB, plus they were always open to questions, and very accessible. 7: The expertise of the instructors, and their eagerness to share what they have spent decades doing. 8: The infectious, dynamic enthusiasm for the subject that both instructors communicated.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: Despite its historic significance, the Jefferson room is not a particularly advantageous place for a class. It’s a stuffy room, difficult to keep even moderately cool. With so many fans going and so much outside noise, it’s difficult to hear. Also, the tables should be arranged in a [square horseshoe], thereby allowing everyone to see everyone else. I adjusted to the physical configuration eventually, but it could definitely be improved upon with this simple modification in seating arrangements. 2: At times it seemed the instructors were a bit rushed. I would have liked more time for questions. 3: The trip to SC was helpful, but not essential. 4: Not sure it can; TB and JB work together very well – well paced, and good variety of approaches. 5: I personally would have liked more on European paper, but if I had come with less knowledge, I might have felt differently. 6: Two weeks! 7: Maybe a field trip; but that is nit-picking. The course was a tour-de-force. 8: It couldn’t be.

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: We were given ready access to all the materials needed, and they were very useful for the exercises we performed. TB and JB also made certain that everyone knew how the reference materials were organized. 2: Handling seemed appropriate. I am fairly sure that no one in the class needed it, but we were not given any instructions on how to handle the materials. 3: Light tables; rather than holding paper samples in front of lamps. 5: The materials were not in danger. 6: Worked well. 7: I thought appropriate precautions were taken. 8: I thought the use of the teaching collections well tended.

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

1: The lectures were fabulous, and so were the videos. I thought both Alice Prochaska and Michael Suarez spoke convincingly, and – especially AP on a significant and interesting challenge for collectors everywhere. ([Re: MS’s lecture] I confess that I am not that interested in the challenges of establishing “accurate” bibliographies; but, as a former statistician, I always like looking at graphs.) 2: I enjoyed the three lectures I attended very much. I guess I would have liked some time for questions directly after the lectures, rather than having the reception be the forum for questions. 3: The lectures were very interesting, and added an extra dimension to the experience. 4: All lectures were very informative. 5: Yes, there seemed to be more receptions this year, which added favorably to the general camaraderie of the classes (not just our class). The content of the lectures was also appropriate. 6: Yes, I didn’t think I’d be particularly interested in some, but I’m glad I went; none was disappointing! 7: I attended everything and found them worthwhile. 8: I attended both lectures and found both highly interesting.

9) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

1: Absolutely. I only hope that I have comported myself appropriately enough so that when I apply to the typography course, I will be given senior consideration. 2: Yes, the course was definitely worth my time and money. It is unbelievable how much I learned. This is one of the best classes I have ever taken. 3: RBS is an excellent value and difficult to duplicate. On- campus accommodations help. A bulletin board (i.e., an online listserv set up before the class), might help people organize ride-sharing to-and-from the airport. 4: Yes; well worth it. Don’t wear long-sleeves. 5: Yes! 6: Yes, but I think artists, though they should take this course, would find it hard to afford. 7: I can see why people keep coming back and coming back; summer camp for intellectually curious adults. 8: This is course NOT to be missed. Every person is lucky to have this opportunity.

Number of respondents: 8

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution

gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

38% 25% 25% 25%

I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own

tion time tion myself own housing travel

0% 38% 75% 75%

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 scholarship home

63% 38% 0% 0%

There were 2 conservators (25%); 2 artists working in the book arts (25%); 1 rare book librarian and 1 special collections librarian (25%); 1 museum print historian (13%); and 1 full-time writer (13%).