Stanley Nelson

53: Introduction to History of Typography [T-10]

5-9 July 2004

 

1)   How useful were the pre-course readings?


1: Very useful and informative. Since the workbook provided during the course included selections from some of the books, the reading list itself could have focused on fewer works (with the highest priority). 2: It was okay, but not that much necessary. The workbook gave a good idea of what was talked about, and some practical guidance during the course was better than any book, at this moment. 3: Great. I’ll be referring to them, rereading in the future. 4: Readings were very useful, especially Lawson’s Anatomy of a Typeface and Dowding’s Introduction to the History of Printing Types. The syllabus reading list was too long, and some books listed were very expensive or impossible to find on the Internet. But my pre-course reading helped a lot to lay a foundation for class discussions and exhibits. 5: Pre-course readings were very helpful before, and now, afterward, I will review them closely. Would have been helpful to emphasize key readings. 6: Very helpful and necessary. I think Dowding should be required reading for beginners (like me). 7: These readings were helpful, but dated to some degree...well, of course, many are classics in their subject, but there are many new books covering the same material in a more readable fashion. I enjoyed adding the older ones to my library. 8: Readings were informative. There were too many on the list. It would be better if certain books (perhaps five?) were starred as the most important. 9: 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. The syllabus was logical and appropriate, though it had to be altered slightly because of the number of students in the course (too many for all to do type-setting at the same time). The workbook was very useful, and will continue to be used as a reference work. 2: It was useful, but not totally. It could be better organized and with an index, but using it during class, with SN, helped a lot. 3: Plan to return to the syllabus frequently at work. 4: The class notebook was very helpful, but could be improved by listing dates and type designers with the typefaces and an index. Some type specimen sheets for major types would also be helpful. But it is clear that SN put a lot of effort into preparing the notebook. 5: Yes – the booklet could have been a little better organized. Not the most intuitive layout. 6: Yes. The material was excellent, but the organization of the pamphlet could use some work. I don’t believe an index would be as much help as a coherent restructuring of the current material. 7: Excellent! Yes, I will use them for reference frequently, I’m sure. 8: The course book was very useful and I will refer to it in the future. It needs an index. Would be nice to have examples of all the typefaces on 3-hole punch sheets of paper. 9: The course book is an excellent resource. I plan to use it for reference at work and home. The lead type from our casting lab also made for a nice keepsake.

 

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 historical roman typefaces (1460s-1830s) are the most important in my work, along with an understanding of type-setting. Yes, the intellectual level was about right. 2: The history of the first four centuries (1450-1850). It could add a little more time on printers until the c18, keep Morris and some private press of the c20, and forget about the rest. 3: I knew little about typefaces before coming, though I’d worked with books from the handpress period. The content was appropriate for my needs, though SN talked to my level and above. 4: Printing on the common press, type-casting, punch-cutting demos, identification of typefaces. 5: All interesting and relevant, and at a high intellectual level. Very stimulating, to the point of overwhelming. A lot of information, useful as a launching point. 6: Very. 7: Typesetting, press demos, discussion of type designers – basically just what the doctor ordered for me! 8: Typefaces, when they were used. Intellectual content was just right. 9: The intellectual level of the course was very appropriate. I found that SN moved easily between teaching the general history and offering specific guidance for our individual projects/interests.

 

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


1: Looking at the books brought down from Special Collections was not as informative as I would have hoped. They were hard to see (too many people crowding around), and the volume often wouldn’t open wide enough to get a clear look...lots of muddling around with the foam supports. 2: Yes. 4: Yes, the books shown to us from Special Collections were well chosen to illustrate the discussion and manual. 5: Yes, very helpful to see some specimens in book form, not just leaves from books. 6: Very. 7: Yes. 9: The materials we viewed from Special Collections were very useful in demonstrating aspects of type discussed in class.

 

5)   What did you like best about the course?


1: The packets were very useful – to see specific examples while SN commented on their characteristics. The hands-on type-casting, type-setting, and printing were really interesting and useful experiences. SN and [lab assistant] Haven Hawley were great instructors, and very patient with us. 2: The history of the type founders, until c18. 3: The hands-on printing and type-casting. Learning to identify typefaces. Learning from an expert in the field, as well as interacting with peers – a great group. 4: Typecasting, punch-cutting demos, printing on common press especially. The teacher – SN is extremely knowledgeable, enthusiastic, friendly, and good humored! Everyone in the class participated and shared their knowledge and interest in type, although they came from very different backgrounds. 5: Personable instructor, very confident with material. Flexible teaching style of instructor. Even though there was so much to learn, he made it accessible. I loved the hands-on aspects. Casting type was a very special opportunity. Also enjoyed using the wood common press. 6: SN’s historical tidbits about type. His enthusiasm is infectious, and I found his lively style a wonderful teaching method. Also, the setting, proofing, and distribution of type was a great introduction to the flow of a print shop, and an appreciation of the difficulties of the study of typography. 7: Having an expert like SN who was responsive to my questions, helpful when I was confused, and kept the class well balanced in seriousness and tone. 8: SN’s enthusiasm about printing, typefaces, and making type. It was a fun course, and I think we all learned a lot. The hands-on part of the course was wonderful. I have a much better idea of what goes into printing. 9: SN is immersed in the subject matter and it’s a pleasure to learn from one with experience in so many aspects of the subject matter. In particular, I was amazed at how quickly SN was able to assess the specific needs of our class. He was not only interested in hearing about our work, but made it his work to go about helping us improve our approach to printing and type. In my case, in two instances he offered wonderful solutions for various printing/design problems I’ve experienced in my own creative work. I would certainly take another class with SN, especially one that involved printing laboratories.  

 

6)   How could the course have been improved?


1: Greater emphasis on the historical (pre-1840s) faces. 2: Changing the workbook; more on printers, less on c20. 3: Loved the course! 4: Not call the “test” a test – it causes stress. 5: Emphasize key broad points – although I understand how typography is about the details, so may be unavoidable. More historical context. 6: Restructure the handout and a little more focused display of packet material could improve an already great class. 7: Have an index in the handout booklet, and type specimens arranged by category for comparison. Drop the idea of a test. Too many examples – call it a classroom discussion of samples. 8: The “test” was useful, but a different word should be used (not quiz). Thirty-four pieces might be too many. 9: I think the course did an excellent job of covering most aspects of type. An index for the course book and more dates per page would help to better organize its materials.

 

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: People had to be reminded to use pencils when working with the packet material, but once SN passed pencils around, everyone did use them for the rest of the course. 2-3: None. 4: Classroom handling of materials seemed appropriate. It was extremely helpful to see examples of so many types. 6: Nada. 7: N/A. 8: Handling of the books seemed fine. It was evident what we could and could not touch.

 

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


1: Both very interesting and informative. 2: Yes. 3: Monday evening lecturer was a delightful speaker. 4: Yes – Sunday – I learned about the history of RBS. Yes, Monday – Warren Chappell’s work was quite impressive. 5: Yes, very valuable and interesting. Warren Chappell lecture was entertaining and good local tie-in. 6: Yes. Have David Vander Meulen speak again. He was great! 7: N/A. 8: Missed the Sunday lecture. Monday’s lecture was delightful. 9: D.V.M.’s lecture was fabulous. The images used were wonderful gateways into the work of Warren Chappell and were seamlessly integrated into the text of the speech, which was also top notch. Bravo!


9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?


1: Yes, very interesting. 2: Yes, very much. We could be prepared for it (at least the ones that came for the first time). 3: Attended both and wished I’d had more time to study the RBS treasures on display. Enjoyed the demonstrations by TB that brought the printing machinery to life. 4: Yes – on Tuesday and Wednesday there were many interesting displays and demos. I especially liked TB’s demos of Linotype and music printing. There was too much information to absorb at the time in the displays, but the handouts will be helpful later. 5: Yes, a lot of interesting materials, although after class and activities all week I was reaching saturation point and wish I could have had more energy to focus. 6: Very! In particular, Tuesday night’s Museum was incredible. By Wednesday evening, my brain was reaching overload. 7: Yes – thank you for having them. 8: There was so much both nights, I know I will have to return to see more. 9: Both Museum Nights were valuable opportunities to refresh and/or learn about various aspects of printing. TB and Haven Hawley both gave wonderful talks and were useful in answering questions about the materials and processes.

 

10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?


1: I’m a very satisfied customer, as I have always been. Advice: learn the California job case before you come, as SN says in the pre-course reading. 2: It was a little too expensive, but it’s okay. 3: Yes. I hope to return for more courses in the future! 4: Read as much as you can about typefaces in advance, bring Lawson and Dowding with you. I learned a lot about type from an expert on the subject. This course whet my appetite for James Mosely’s courses on type. 5: Yes. I was expecting intensive, and I got it. My time was efficiently used. 6: And then some. If I were taking this class again, I would do more reading from the suggested list, and less “heavy browsing.” 7: Yes – I think that the school seems to be run quite nicely – although I sometimes chaffed at the obsession with start times, in retrospect it is the only way to keep the flow of classroom lecture on schedule. Please emphasize this in your materials. I had a lovely time, thanks! 8: Absolutely. There is a great deal of information. Sometimes I felt overwhelmed by it all, but SN was always there to make sense of it. 9: Did I get my money’s worth? Certainly.


Number of respondents: 9


Percentages


Leave                       Tuition                    Housing                   Travel


Institution                 Institution                 Institution                 Institution

gave me leave            paid tuition               paid housing              paid travel


56%                            44%                            22%                            22%



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

tion time                    tion myself                 own housing              travel


33%                            56%                            67%                            67%



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


11%                            0%                              11%                            11%



There were four rare book librarians (45%), one teacher (11%), one curator (11%), one book collector (11%), one special collections technician (11%), and one museum employee (11%).