Timothy Barrett and John Bidwell
42. History of European and American Papermaking [H-60]
13-17 June 2005
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Excellent. 2: Standard literature for most of them, yet many were rare editions and, thus, more difficult to get hold of. 3: Good.5: Very useful, though I didn’t quite understand why some of the instructors’ own publications weren’t on it. That might have been a good introduction to their interests and perspective. 6: Very useful; wish I had managed to read more of them. Dard Hunter’s book Papermaking in Pioneer America was very helpful to me, who had very little background in the subject. 7: The list was great, very helpful and a good resource tool. 8: Useful. 9: Very useful introduction the larger bibliography in the course handbook.
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. Perhaps could have had PowerPoint handouts; note taking could have been less consuming; more time to listen/query. 2: Yes and no. Much of the graphs and notes will be difficult to decipher, teachers were needed to interpret material. 3: Yes. Yes. 4: Liked the flow chart developed this year; looking forward to having it fleshed out for further use. 5: Very useful and I will certainly refer to them when I return home. 6: Yes. Our in-class workbook was very well done and useful. 7: Yes. 8: Yes. 9: Yes, though I have not had a chance to read them, except during the sessions, yet.
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: Yes. All. 2: Very interesting material covered, the historical build-up was most informative. 3: Discussion of watermark/paper identification/aging; hands-on paper work; history of innovations as related to books/trades. Yes. 4: I found the chemical content discussions most relevant and interesting to me, though. JB is quite the interesting/funny storyteller/historian. 5: Explanation of the changing physical/technological processes very useful. Generally pitched at just the right level, though occasionally a little too introductory (very little pre-course reading was assumed). 6: Every aspect of the course was of great interest to me because most of it was new to me. I hope to be able to identify more accurately some of the rare books I work with back home, using what I learned, especially the watermarks. 7: The watermarks sessions; the history of papermaking with dates and examining paper samples. 8: Yes. 9: Economic and production history. Explanations of papermaking details (e.g. fermentation, scouring, &c.).
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: Yes. 2: Yes. 4: Did not enjoy the discussion of books on books that much. Would have liked more historical discussions or chemical discussions. 5: There was no trip away, but it might have been a good idea to visit the paper mill (as on previous occasions). 6: Yes. We had one session in Special Collections. It was nice to see the books themselves. 7: Yes. We went to Special Collections and examined numerous books. 8-9: Yes.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: Story-telling approach/style to history; made it come alive. Practical applications of paper making technology. Experienced experts in their field; very generous and sharing with their knowledge. 2: Great amount of knowledge conveyed. Very good balance between practical and theoretical sessions. 3: Very substantive, informative; interaction between instructors and their respective areas of expertise. 4: Professors top of the field. A privilege. 5: The combination of historical and practical hands-on experience. The dialogue between the two instructors. Watermark sessions and opportunities to discuss examples were very welcome; I would have liked more of this, in fact. 6: The knowledge and enthusiasm of JB and TB; they have spent their professional lives learning about paper and paper history. It’s a privilege to listen to them impart some of that great learning. It was fun making paper for ourselves. 7: The watermark sessions and papermaking sessions. 8: The mixture of hands on and cerebral activities. 9: The interaction of practical sessions with historic overview lectures.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: Bibliography: include list of vides, DVD, films, &c.. List of relevant Web sites, &c. 4: Outlines; flowcharts on historical events; flowcharts based on visual evidence, more flushed out. 5: I would have liked more time for more detailed case studies of particular books and to work through bibliographical applications, especially in relation to pre-1800 printed books. 6: Perhaps, if each student could have a packet of examples, a la Book Illustrations course. 7: A field trip to a paper mill. 8: More comfortable seats! Aside from the fact I was so uncomfortable (along with other classmates), the class was great. The uncomfortable chairs were very distracting. 9: Perhaps more on the bibliographical interpretations/uses of paper study.
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?
3: None. 5: All done very carefully. 6: Everything was handled appropriately by teachers and students.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Less so. 3: Both. Yes. Though a specific focus to Monaghan would have been better than the chapter-by-chapter survey. 5: Yes. 6: Yes. Fine as always. 7: Attended Sunday; did not attend Monday. 8: No. 9: Yes, they were a good introduction to RBS, not just my course, and a chance to meet other students.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
1: Yes. 5: Yes. I would have liked a little more free time to go along the RBS shelves, but it was all very worthwhile. 6: Yes. Both nights featured interesting presentations. 7: Not really. 9: Yes.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Yes. Well worth time and money. I very much enjoyed my week here. Learned a great deal; reinforced what I knew, filled in gaps, and added life and relevance to what I do. Thank you both very much! 2: I can highly recommend this course for library staff. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, RBS is a great resource of great knowledge. 5: Extremely useful introduction to the subject and guide to how to pursue it further. Very worthwhile and enjoyable. 6: Yes, it is a great course. Everyone who works with books should take this course. It’s hard to overestimate the importance of paper in book history! 7: Yes! 9: Yes.
Number of respondents: 9
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
78% 33% 44% 33%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
11% 23% 56% 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% 44% 0% 0%
There were:
No. Percentage Occupation
3 34% Conservator/binder/preservation librarian
2 22% Rare Book librarian
2 22% Other (Art Librarian; Makes handmade paper for book conservators)
1 11% Teacher/professor
1 11% Museum employee (but not in museum library; studying to be
a conservator)