I-20: Book Illustration Processes to 1900
3-7 November 2008
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Very helpful in familiarizing me with the vocabulary. 2: So very useful – it was quite helpful to read and (sort of) understand Gascoigne, and then go through the class and understand it in a better way. I appreciated the second volume [Linda Hults, The Print in the Western World] when I didn’t get Gascoigne, as it was helpful to have another explanation. This is outrageously cheesy, but the first answer that came to mind: “The pre-course readings were, in a way, like the light etching before engraving.” 3: Excellent! Gascoigne provides a firm grounding for the course, although at first it was quite an intimidating read. I plan to reread it when I return home. I also consulted Hults, which was helpful. 4: Gascoigne was very useful and helpful to have read prior to the course. 5: Gascoigne is a great book, but hard to read through in one sitting. For the future it might be helpful to identify key parts that absolutely should be read before class, to distinguish from other parts which just as easily be read afterwards at a more leisurely pace (to prevent brain overload!) 6: Very useful. 7: The pre-course readings, especially Hults’ book, were helpful, as it gave the historical context for printmaking. Gascoigne’s book isn’t all that helpful until you have real prints to examine. 8: Indispensable. If only I understood a bit more before coming, since we hit the ground running and never stopped! 9: The pre-course readings were indispensable. It was helpful to focus on just one text: Gascoigne, instead of many possible readings.
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: Yes. The pre-course reading [Gascoigne’s How to Identify Prints] will make more sense and be more useful to me as a reference book now that I know what is being described. I’m glad that the workbook has students’ contact information. 2: Yes. I would only ask that, if time permits, the print we are looking at be pointed out on the playlist – when I could, I kept notes on the playlist so that I could remember what the reference refers to. 3: Extremely useful, especially the bibliography (exit reading list) I plan to acquire several suggested titles for my library’s reference collection. 4: Oh yes. The resource [exit reading] list will become a modified buying list. 5: The exit reading list looks incredibly comprehensive; the hard part will be selecting which books to buy and read. 6-7: Yes. 8: Yes – they were well prepared, and full of information “to grow on.” 9: Yes, the materials were appropriate and very useful, especially the illustration course playlist and the exit reading list.
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: Every aspect was relevant. I personally didn’t require so much time on relief processes and could have used more time on the later photographic processes. The intellectual level was very appropriate. I felt overwhelmed a few times, and never bored. 2: I thought the intellectual level was fine. I really liked having this broad understanding of the practices, and to be so focused on the technical processes was great – getting a very fundamental, working knowledge that will grow in more specific explorations, and more contextual studies. 3: The intellectual level was high; I felt challenged the entire week. I particularly was interested in the intaglio and lithographic processes. 4: By far, viewing the original examples in class was the most helpful in my learning process, as well as TB’s discussion. 5: I can honestly say that the entire course is relevant to my current work, and if I can remember everything I learned it will continue to be relevant. 6: Yes. All was relevant for my purposes – to learn to catalogue c18-c19 books and prints. 7: I liked examining all the prints because identification made more sense when I could physically see details of the print. The intellectual level was appropriate. 8: The exposure to the variety of processes to be encountered in book illustration; specifically for me, the relief and intaglio processes were most relevant. The intellectual level was appropriate. 9: Yes. Clues to identifying prints were extremely helpful, but most useful were the explanations of processes, and showing printing surfaces and tools. Perhaps more discussion and illustration of types of presses might shed more light on the printing processes.
4) Was time devoted to studying original materials at WAM or JHU well spent?
1: N/A. 2-4: Yes. 5: N/A for this course. We used RBS materials only; but the lithographic proofs of Mr. Walter’s vase that were shown at the Wednesday night WAM tour were very interesting, and applicable. 6: Yes. 8: N/A. The optional evening tour at WAM was very interesting. 9: N/A.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: There is no substitute for seeing original prints in person. 2: I liked the intensity – the sheer volume, the close looking, the seemingly endless stories and details – at first they seem to run together, but because there is so much, all the little things and details begin to sort themselves into patterns, and it begins to cohere. 3: Looking at original materials in the packets, and being able to take the test on Monday and Friday to compare what I had learned. Also, TB’s engaging lectures and insights. 4: Viewing the examples. 5: The best thing about the course was the large amount of looking at prints we did. Although I was starting to go a bit cross-eyed toward the end of the week, this, combined with TB’s lectures, is the only way to learn. 6: The hands-on examinations and lectures on the materials. 7: TB’s jokes and asides that nearly always pertained to topics we were discussing. I also liked the packets. 8: The opportunity to be taught by the Master, and now I realize what a rare experience it has been. 9: Examining original materials to put theory into practice.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: We got to see lots of examples of each process, which is great, but in many cases seeing compare/contrast pairs would be very helpful – e.g., seeing a wood engraved and process line block together. Because I didn’t take the course at UVa, I missed out on trying the print processes [in the labs], and I kind of wished I had, but that’s my fault. 2: I would like to have compared things a bit earlier; by the time we got to process prints, everything was looking alike and my memory was gone – I found it difficult to isolate and remember qualities of a method unless I could remember the characteristics of methods similar, but not the same. 3: I didn’t realize until about halfway through the course that all of the packets were numbered according to Gascoigne. This would be helpful to have emphasized at the beginning so students can code their notes according to Gascoigne numbers. 4: I might suggest some comparative examples highlighting differences between two processes. Perhaps a little more input from students. 5: I was sad to learn that the Baltimore version of this course doesn’t include making prints. I understand that the logistics of this may be too tricky, but the benefit from actually doing these things with one’s own hands I think would have deepened my understanding. 6: Can’t think of a thing. 7: Don’t know; I liked it as is. 8: More side-by-side comparisons of the kind we had on Friday morning. Also, a little more time explaining, or perhaps adding to the advance readings, some basic descriptions of the processes themselves – even if only a few of them. (Perhaps TB will start writing his book.) 9: The class is so close to perfect – it’s difficult to think of improvements. Obviously, the structure and content has been refined over many years. Perhaps additional illustration could be added to the workbook. More comfortable chairs.
7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by our host institutions. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?
1: I was very impressed by the efficient and careful handling of a great quantity of important materials by Kenneth Giese [TB’s teaching assistant] Really, it runs like clockwork, and that’s very impressive. 2: I think the packets are great – things got a little crowded sometimes, but that’s a mean complaint when you are crowded by so many interesting things. 3: The packet system works well, and each one taught a particular point or made connections; at times it would have been nice to have larger work spaces to accommodate the packets, books, notebooks, and loupes. But the materials were always handled carefully. 4: Maybe a little more table space so notebooks and examples didn’t overlap. Also, enough table depth to support the extra large prints. 5: Maybe stricter rules about no pens. 6: Perhaps deeper tables; we had too many things to spread out safely. 8: Nothing further I can think of, though I might suggest that during the taking of the final test, students be encouraged to “travel” with both loupe and microscope; which isn’t convenient, but would save hunting around for equipment. 9: Everyone in the class was experienced in handling rare materials. I think materials were handled well. Perhaps environmental and security conditions could be improved.
8) If you attended the Sunday reception and/or Monday night lecture, were they worth attending?
1: The Sunday reception was nice because informal; the Monday lecture – fabulous! 2: Yes – it was lovely to begin with a beginning, rather than just starting up. 3: Yes. The reception was a great way to meet everyone taking the course. Will Noel’s lecture on Monday night [“It’s All Over Now: The Public Release of the Digital Archimedes Palimpsest”] was a highlight. I look forward to sharing the Archimedes Palimpsest website with my students. 4: The Sunday reception was a great warm-up to meet other who would be in class with you. The lecture by Will Noel was entertaining and educational and delightfully appealing to both the Illustration class and the Codicology class. 5: N/A. 6: Yes. 7: The Sunday reception was worth attending because you got to know some of your classmates before sessions started on Monday. I did not attend the Monday night lecture. 8: Sunday was a relaxed way to meet other participants and start the week. Monday’s lecture was positively riveting. 9: Yes.
9) If you attended the Tuesday evening tour of JHU’s Peabody Library, was the time profitably spent?
1: It was an excellent tour given by people whose enthusiasm was gratifying and contagious. 3: Yes. The tour was engaging, and it was terrific to see the Peabody and its collections. 4: Beautiful library with extraordinary holdings that I’ll definitely come back to investigate further. 5: N/A. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, it was worth it just to see the ironwork. 8: Yes. 9: Yes, the library is impressive. The curator didn’t seem aware that half of his audience was taking a book illustration class. He only pulled a few volumes at random, and spoke in broad terms.
10) 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: I think the money was very well spent. I will now be much more informed and confident in my work with the fine prints collection. I also have a fantastic list of resources for further information and instruction, which is invaluable to a professional. 2: I loved this course – I loved seeing and learning more than I could possibly remember. I know that it will be useful; I think knowing these printing methods support so many disciplines and jobs. 3: I am so grateful to be a scholarship recipient, and to have had the opportunity to take this course, which I highly recommend. It was an amazing week; I learned so much! 4: Yes, it was a worthwhile experience that challenged me. Like anything it will take continual practice, but I feel like I have an arsenal of resources available in the course workbook. 5: Since my institution paid for the course, I will say that I think they got their money’s worth, as this definitely enhance my ability to do my job. Advice: don’t lose your nerve! 6: Yes! Don’t lose your nerve. It’s worth taking in every way. I learned more in one week than I have in four years of working, unguided, in a print room. 7: I believe my institution got its money’s worth. We do have a small, specialized rare book collection and an increasingly important collection of books in the open stacks that are currently being moved to a closed stack system. Identifying the prints will help us to appraise the books, and help us make choices regarding book selection. 8: Yes, more than my money’s worth, as I have come to expect from RBS! One final thought – to quote TB – don’t lose your nerve! 9: The class is definitely worth every penny. I don’t know how I functioned in my job without this class!
Number of respondents: 9
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
78% 44% 56% 44%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
22% 11% 22% 33%
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
0% 44% 22% 22%
There were 4 museum employees (44%); 2 rare book librarians (22%); 2 archivist/manuscript librarians (22%); and 1 general librarian with some rare book duties (11%)