52: Medieval and Early Renaissance Bookbinding Structures [B-40]
27 June-1 July 2005
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Read some of the historical material and all the technical material. I think the review of technical materials, i.e. Szirmai, Powell, &c. may have been a better use of time. Glad to have purchased the books and will continue reading after course. 2: Most were not remarkably helpful. They offered a general flavor of medieval culture which was not really addressed in class. These could be lessened in quantity or made more recent (some were awfully dated). Valuable readings: CC, Pye, Franck. I am curious as to why we read no Szirmai. 3: The pre-readings were quite useful as introductory materials. I understood the articles better after each class when I re-read relevant ones pertaining to the day’s lecture. 4: Readings were very helpful and photocopies much appreciated (basic readings on medieval history could be updated or different selections made). 6: Very helpful to get a sense of instructor’s character and passion (CC assigned one of his own articles). I understood technical aspects better after the course. The books assigned are ones I regularly teach, for the most part. 7: Very useful. 8: The CC readings were the most helpful. Several of the general medieval history texts were less so considering that the material covered was so specific it didn’t offer more than a basic context, which most people taking the class should already have. Barbara Shailor’s Medieval Book is, also, a must. 9: Readings were very helpful, although most were not brought up in class. Having a sound understanding of the social and industrial structure of the time was a nice build-up for the class. 10: Extremely helpful and interesting, too. 11: Good background to the general history of the era, but a bit repetitive and lacking in binding-specific information.
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 helpful being able to watch slides and not be writing constantly. Visual aids, models, and samples were extremely helpful. 2: CC provided us with a wealth of information in our packet. I will return to these again and again. 3: Excellent. I can’t wait to type up my notes and organize every thought, so I don’t forget the experience. I wouldn’t mind taking the class again in a year or two because CC keeps his research findings so current, and shares them so freely. 4: Yes, very helpful; love those diagrams and copies of hard-to-locate articles. 5: The workbook provided is a very useful reference to the class. It would be great if a table of contents could be added for easier use. 6: Good materials -- I expect to use them a great deal; also, I appreciated bibliographies included in the workbook, especially when CC commented on their strengths and shortcomings. 7: Yes. 8: A number of CC’s rare articles could certainly be added to the photocopy packet; we also amended the bibliography as we went. Yes, it will be a good resource. 9: Yes, the workbook/handouts are very nice, especially bibliographies. 10: Yes; workbook will be very helpful in the future as a reference together with my notes. 11: The workbook was very useful and made note-taking easier.
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: Ways of looking at material descriptions. Looking at and handling some of the models. Ability to ask any questions in an open environment. 2: Virtually everything. I was grateful for the detailed slide presentations, show and tell, and book viewing. Nothing felt irrelevant to me. The intellectual level was accessible, stimulating, and inspiring. 3: The evolution of the book as a structure, and how society and changing times affect its change. The intellectual level of the course was comfortable. I learned a great deal of information that is more relevant to my colleagues in allied professions. It’s good to know what interests us all as we look at the same book and want to focus on different areas of it for inspiration and answers. 4: Intellectual level fine! Sewing, materials, &c. particularly relevant to both curatorial and teaching aspects of my work. 5: I came in as a binder, but learning about institutional memory and how different scholars interact to learn about collections was very interesting. 6: Learning vocabulary and how to look (see the evidence open for interpretation) were the great strengths; great slide collection for these points and intellectual level good, especially given the variety of knowledge levels in the class. 7: The discussion of binding structures was the most useful; secondarily the discussion of covering materials was informative. The intellectual level was appropriate, but we might have been assigned more to read in advance along the lines of Shailor’s exhibition catalog for pre-class vocabulary development. 8: My research focuses on the modern end of the curriculum. CC’s interests are a bit earlier, and he prefers anything made before 1520. However, he still put earlier techniques into a broader spectrum, which was what I wanted. The intellectual level was a bit confused. CC continually remarked that half would or wouldn’t understand a point, but didn’t wait for us to ask questions. The level was not dumbed down per se, but I’m sure everyone would have benefitted from more trust. 9: The materials and mechanics of the book structures were the reason I took the course, and the subjects covered were very relevant. The intellectual level was appropriate. 10: Historical details were of the greatest relevance. The intellectual level struck a good balance for the varying backgrounds of the class participants. 11: As a conservator, structure is important and was covered well. I liked the emphasis placed on importance of aspects of bindings to save. We had a mixed class, so some things were very basic that I would have liked more information on, but CC was great at answering personal questions.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: Wonderful visiting WAM and the Peabody Library. 2: Yes. 3: Yes. Well spent. It was great to see the three-dimensional objects close-up and in person, and hearing the talk and interests of colleagues. 4: Wonderful and worth being in Baltimore. 5: I think both the lectures and field trips were cleverly integrated, and the staff at WAM was highly knowledgeable and helpful during the sessions. 6: Visits to examine WAM material made this summer especially rewarding (last summer at RBS we couldn’t much use the Special Collections because of the move [to the new building]). 7: Ca. one hour in galleries, six hours with books in WAM: yes, they were effective. 8: Yes, we spent perhaps half of our time in WAM. I’d suggest we do even more with the real objects, if possible. It was the best part of the course. 9: The ability to see actual examples from the WAM collections was absolutely essential. 10: Time at WAM was extremely well-spent and brought the class to life. The books were splendid and highly relevant.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: The instructor! I felt very fortunate to be able to snare a week of his time. His amazing experience, hand skills, and sense of observation are inspirational. 2: There was nothing I didn’t like. I was grateful for the balance of survey vs. detail. 3: (1) The instructor and his obvious life-long, sensitive love affair with every aspect of the book -- its fabrication, repair, role in society, evolution, future, and preservation. His willingness to share so much of what he knows. It felt like Christmas morning every day, so that I could hardly wait to arrive at class. (2) My classmates were wonderful -- all from different backgrounds and in different parts of their careers. (3) Access to WAM and class at the Engineering Society. 4: The opportunity to ask CC questions as he showed us things; many moments of “Now I finally see what I’ve been reading about!” 5: The best part of the course is seeing the process of the study of the progression of bindings in time. I also liked hearing CC’s philosophy of best conservation practices to preserve bindings for later study. 6: CC: admirable craft ethic and great sense of humor. The fellow students: a reliable aspect of RBS is the opportunity to meet people with interests as obscure as my own. The classroom: nice layout for our work (better than my home institution). 7: Intensity of experience, comradery of classmates. 8: WAM. 9: Taking advantage of the incredible collection at WAM, and having such a knowledgeable and experienced instructor available for in-depth explanations. 10: CC is a great teacher and is highly approachable. We were all comfortable interrupting to ask questions and always received knowledgeable and helpful answers. 11: Listening to CC free-associate descriptions of bindings -- a lot of great insights there.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: I was very happy with the course. Long days sitting, but we covered a lot of ground. 2: Have more relevant pre-course readings. 3: One minor improvement: more substantial food provided between the hour (or less) allotted between day and evening sessions. 4: The course was fine and was what I expected. Pretty good balance of lectures and objects, though more time with some of the teaching objects (packs of photos, examples, &c.) would have been good. 6: Since terminology and visual evidence were so crucial, I would have liked the opportunity to write some descriptions along the lines of conservator’s reports, just to get a handle on the material. 7: Better overall structure; we seemed to begin some subjects over and over again. 8: More museum time; more binding practice. 9: When looking at examples, the information could have been explained in a more organized manner. 10: Hard to think. Having WAM books to hand as we came to them in the syllabus would be good, but this is doubtless impractical. 11: Fewer breaks (or shorter), so we did not feel so rushed, or an evening lecture time or two.
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 think materials were handled carefully. [WAM senior conservator] Abigail [Quandt] was present during the viewing and collection of materials. Perhaps a few more wedges. 2-3: None. 4: I thought demonstrations were well-organized, and I’m taking some ideas back for my own teaching. 6: No need to worry here! 8: With the help of WAM conservators, we didn’t incur any problems. 9: We did not handle the actual materials, which was a logical decision for such valuable examples. We were able to look at books by passing them around. It was nice to be able to take photos as well. 10: No suggestions. 11: AQ was with us the whole time, and things were very carefully handled.
8) If you attended the Sunday night reception and/or Monday night lecture, were they worth attending?
1: I attended the lecture and found it very interesting; made some good contacts for imaging assistance. 2: William Noel’s lecture was very worthwhile and interesting. 3: Yes. It was interesting to see what other collections and institutions are in the area for potential return future visits. 4: Yes, but I missed the State of Rare Book School talk. 5: WN’s talk on Archimedes blended cutting edge technology and traditional scholarship very effectively. 6: Monday’s Archimedes was a memorable evening! Sorry I missed Sunday. 7: WN gave the best lecture I’ve seen him give (and I’ve seen plenty). It was fascinating and entertaining. 8: Yes, WN’s lecture was excellent, and his presentation of books on Tuesday was extensive. 9: The lecture by WN was excellent. 10: Yes! WN’s talk was engaging, entertaining, and relevant. 11: Yes. Will’s Monday lecture was fun. WN’s a fantastic speaker.
9) If you attended Tuesday’s tour of the WAM Collection and/or Wednesday’s tour of the Peabody Library, was the time profitably spent?
1-2: Yes. 3: Yes. None of us wanted to leave, but our tummies were growling. 4: Both excellent! 8: Yes, though it makes for a long day. 9: The viewing of WAM highlights and Peabody Library was fun and interesting. 10: Yes. The Peabody is well worth visiting, and John Buchtel provided an entertaining introduction to it. 11: Tuesday was a bit too weighted to the texts for me, but JB’s show Wednesday was good, if a bit dark.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Very impressed with the quality of the program. Hope to be able to participate in the future and make it down to Virginia. 2: Yes. This trip was a financially challenging one, but I am glad to have had the experience. It will have a lifelong impact on me and my work. 3: Yes! I hope to come back next year. Thank you for your dedication to this priceless opportunity for quality continued professional development. 4: For Baltimore in future: note that an ATM that accepts international cards is in the nearby Peabody Court Hotel, as is a pay phone. I regretted that we could not come back to the classroom in the evening to look at teaching examples (as at UVa). Missed communal breakfast and breaks (though evening drinks appreciated). Baltimore is a bit spooky (especially for single women -- walk with a friend), but it was worth it for WAM. I recommend people stay an extra day, since WAM doesn’t have late-night opening. 5: I think tuition is very reasonable and dorm accommodations a must for students to be able to afford attending. I will pass on the good word about the school. 6: I’m exhausted! Can’t imagine adding any advice, except sleep well in preparation. 8: Yes -- consider Nick Pickwoad’s course in addition to this one if your heart is in the c16 or beyond. 9: Yes, I got my money’s worth. As a second-time RBS student I can say it’s well worth the time and money! It’s an incredibly enriching experience. 10: Absolutely! Things went very well, especially considering it was RBS’s first visit to Baltimore. Another restaurant may be a better choice for the Sunday reception. More restaurants and ATM locations would be useful for the Vade Mecum. The Engineering Club is a good location for classes. 11: I’m satisfied with my money’s worth, but would like if I take the class again to be with a full group of conservators. I think with a better focus, we could all get more out of it.
Number of respondents: 11
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
64% 55% 18% 36%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
18% 18% 64% 54%
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
18% 27% 18% 10%
There were five (46%) conservators/binders/preservation librarians in the class, two (18%) full-time students, and one each (9%) rare book librarian, archivist/manuscript librarian, teacher/professor, and academic administrator.