12 : Book Illustration Processes to 1900 [I-20]
3-7 January 2005
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: They were extremely useful! 2: Very useful. Provided a good base to understanding class material. 3: Extremely necessary. 4: Gascoigne is indispensable. Also read Pankow for review, and Ivins (How Prints Look). 5: Useful! 6: Gacoigne was a little difficult to digest, but I’m finding it much more meaningful now that I’m more familiar with the terminology. 7: Very useful, I would have found it difficult if I hadn’t read Gascoigne. 8: Very useful. The pre-course readings closely mirrored the subjects discussed in class. I feel as if I came to the class well prepared. 9: Useful, yes. But more importantly -- necessary. 10: Gascoigne was excellent. I did need to read it carefully to be prepared for the course. 11: Essential, obviously, and I plan to revisit Gascoigne early and often when I return home. 12: The readings were very useful after the class. I found I understood the readings more clearly after having worked with actual prints.
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, very much. 2-3: Yes. 4: Both. 5: The workbook and reading list are very helpul. [My institution] will be acquiring any books we don’t already have. 6: I’m looking forward to collecting a few of the books mentioned in the bibliography and also to reviewing the workbook a little more carefully. 7: Extremely useful; the workbook and exit reading list will be very useful in future. (You might want to correct some of the typos in the packet descriptions in the workbook.) 8: Yes -- the materials will be extremely helpful in the future, especially the exit reading list. 9: Yes -- I was particularly pleased to see a time line listing the general dates of the processes. The listing of illustration packets is also quite helpful. Could those be spaced a little farther apart? My notes next to each packet description are easy to put into context, but hard to decipher due to lack of space. 10: The workbook was excellent. It was useful to be able to follow the descriptions of the packets. 11: Yes, and I would be grateful for any additional handouts TB thinks would be appropriate for us.
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 chance to see a wide range of different material, and learning accuracy in terminology. 2: Visual representations of printing tools and plates, and tips to identify differences in processes resembling one another. The intellectual level was appropriate. 3: Yes. Hands-on everything is the only way to teach this material. 4: Examples, examples, examples! Absolutely necessary for understanding Gascoigne. 5: The hands-on nature of the course was great -- handling so many prints was helpful. Descriptions of printmaking processes [were] well thought out and well explained. 6: As a student, I found that the entire content was relevant. The course was always intellectually engaging, if not overwhelming at times. 7: Careful examination of numerous examples, with appropriate equipment. I can’t imagine learning this stuff without looking at it under TB’s guidance. A difficult class, but an appropriate intellectual level for those truly interested. 8: The discussion of book illustration processes before 1865. The intellectual level at which the course was taught was both appropriate and what I had expected. 9: The early printing processes were most relevant, but I found the more modern color processes most interesting. Right now I feel that the intellectual level of the class exceeded my abilities. (I hope that changes by next week.) 10: Looking at original prints was the heart of the course -- and the most useful. Seeing “the real thing” was enlightening and will help in looking at materials in the future. 11: Absolutely. My interest in the subject is avocational, so I found all aspects of the course equally relevant and stimulating.
4) What did you like best about the course?
1: Organization, diversity of material, and consistency of vocabulary and identification techniques. 2: Examples of the processes and the tips to identify them. 3: See question 3. 4: Small class, high intellect, eager to learn. 5: Contact with so many prints, and TB’s stories. 6: Handling actual examples. It was thrilling to see actual 15th-century woodcuts and 18th-century mezzotints and everything else in our packets. 7: The hands-on aspect of looking at lots of prints. I also enjoyed TB’s many digressions, which do help make a long day seem shorter. 8: Being exposed to such a wide array of illustration and print processes. Also, the size of the class facilitated discussion. 10: Seeing so many original graphic materials. 11: TB’s instruction, of course, but it would be nothing without the illustration packets. I didn’t realize, good as it is, how deficient Gascoigne’s book is until I saw all of RBS’s originals!
5) How could the course have been improved?
1: Some graphics/drawings showing how some processes work, such as photographically assisted processes. 2: Possibly more comparison and contrast of processes which look similar (like Gascoigne’s section 53). 3: By much better lighting and more time to become familiar with so much material. 4: Lighting, field trip to print exhibition (MoMA or MMoA, perhaps). 5: What you already know -- more light, longer tables (being on a table edge was very awkward), and chairs with back support and some padding. 6: I would have loved to see a video or some kind of demonstration of some of the plate preparation processes, especially those involving light-sensitive plates. 7: I wish we had had more time than just five days. Maybe two classes could be offered, highlighting different processes (i.e. manual/process prints). 8: It would have been helpful -- especially with some of the more involved processes -- to have seen hands-on demonstrations or perhaps videos of the processes. 9: We saw too many prints total. And although the atypical prints were fun to decipher with TB’s help, I would have benefitted from heavier exposure to more “garden variety” wood engravings or lithographs. I would also have welcomed a brief checklist of steps to follow, like Gascoigne’s list at the end of his book. TB’s method and suggestions for detection differ w/ BG’s a bit. 10: Correct the lighting! Include copies of the “cheat sheets” that are part of the master course packets. This would allow proportionally more time to be spent listening and looking -- and less on notes to refer to in the future. 11: Longer breaks -- this material is mentally exhausting!
6) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by the Grolier Club. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?
1: N/A. 2: Only the use of pencils -- pens not allowed. 4: None to offer. Keep up the good work! 5: Larger tables -- I was very concerned about the larger prints because they had to be put down on loupes, notebooks, &c. and not just laid flat. 7: A little more space to spread out would have been nice, though not absolutely necessary. More light would be better. 8: Larger work areas would allow prints to be placed completely flat, instead of draped across textbooks, &c. I worried at times for the safety of some of the late 19th-century prints. 10: Bigger tables with more flat surface for each student would have been useful, and kept the image flat. 11: N/A. .
7) If you attended the Monday and/or Tuesday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Yes, it was! 2: N/A. 3: Yes. 4: N/A.; did not attend Tuesday. 6: Yes, the lecture was relevant and informative. 7-8: N/A. 9: Absolutely. As always. 10: Irene Tichenor’s lecture on De Vinne was a welcome complement to the program. 11: Yes and yes. Tichenor’s was one of the better RBS lectures I’ve attended.
8) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
1-4: N/A. 6: Yes, the tour was fun -- seeing the Grolier Club backstage, sort of, was a treat. 7-8: N/A. 9: Eric gave a very interesting tour -- loved it! 10-11: N/A.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Yes. Advice: reading the textbook is essential! 2: I did get my money’s worth. It was an intense experience -- be prepared for the “I am overwhelmed with info” feeling. 3: Probably -- I’ll know next year, after I have time to digest the material more thoroughly. 4: Yes. 5: It was definitely worth the money and trip. This is an intense course with potential for eye strain and headaches -- lots of sitting and looking, but worth the effort. The RBS collections and TB’s knowledge in this field make this a class every rare book, special collections, art, and visual materials librarian/curator should take. I may wait five years and take it again! 6: The class was wonderful, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic. I think I went a little blind, but it was worth it. 7: I absolutely got my money’s worth. I would recommend this class to anyone interested in the graphic arts. 8: I feel as if I got my money’s worth -- and more! The course was well-organized, and the topics covered were interesting and relevant. In all, the course will prove extremely helpful in my work as a rare book librarian. 9: Yes, yes, yes. Do the reading and start working on it earlier than you think you need to. 10: Yes! And thank you to everyone who worked to make this such a good experience: TB, NA, EH, and all those quietly behind the scenes. I appreciate it. Try additional “team” work, especially for the final test of identifying prints. By the end of the week (when everyone has information overload), it would have been useful to work together with a partner to help clarify and reinforce what you each had learned. 11: Yes. I consider this course as essential for anyone with a serious interest in pre-20th-century books. Take it!
Number of respondents: 12
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
75% 58% 8% 34%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 25% 17% 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 exchange home
25% 17% 75% 33%
There were five rare book librarians (42%), one archivist/manuscript librarian (8%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (8%), one full-time student (8%), one book collector (8%), one graphics cataloger (8%), one education administrator (8%), and one museum gardener/librarian/collector (8%).