I-20: Book Illustration Processes to 1900
8-12 January 2007 in NYC
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Bamber Gascoigne [How To Identify Prints]: was extremely valuable. It’s hard to get through (I read most of it), but it proved to be very helpful. 2: Indispensable. 3: Gascoigne is indispensable, as advertised. 4: Very useful and essential. 5: Extremely useful. 6: Gascoigne was useful, but I should have read more of Hults [The Print in the Western World] for the historical background that we don’t really address/examine in the course. 7: Extremely helpful, but Gascoigne is tough to sit and read. For a person not acquainted with printing technology, it was a critical prerequisite, but I wish it had been more readable, and also that I had been directed to some general work on printing technology. 8: Very useful. 9: Very much so. The book was concise and a solid and fairly comprehensive introduction to the material we covered. 10: The pre-course readings are essential for this course and were very helpful. 11: Gascoigne was a bit hard to digest on its own, although I can understand why being acquainted with the content of the book beforehand was crucial to the course.
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: The syllabus and all packets were extremely helpful. I couldn’t imagine the class without them. 2: Yes. 3: I found it difficult to follow along with the workbook during the class, but that isn’t necessarily a criticism of it. In fact, I look forward to going through it at a later time to try to locate the packet materials. 4: Yes, I would have loved to have had in advance the kits of engraving tools and plates, they were extremely helpful. 5: Syllabus and other materials were very helpful in class – I expect the materials – particularly the reading lists, to be helpful also at home. I’ve already arranged to exchange copies of the lists with a student in another class! 6: Excellent materials with useful illustrations and helpful bibliography for the future. 7: Yes, they will no doubt continue to be useful in years to come. 8: Very useful. I’m sure I will refer to the reading list for years to come. 9: Yes. The reading lists included are particularly valuable, in addition to the other graphic demonstrations of processes, as well as relevant web sites. 10: The course materials are generally well organized. The packet descriptions frequently contain truncated text which is frustrating. Even so, the extensive bibliography will be invaluable. 11: Yes, they were entirely appropriate, and I’ve already thought of ways to use my course handbook at work. The illustration process time line and the bibliography will continue to be useful.
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 entire course was appropriate. I wanted to learn how to identify printing techniques, and I was taught that. 2: a) I wanted a broad overview and got it. b) Yes; would be interesting to have had more (or some) discussion of what pictures are doing in books in the first place, but it would have been slightly beside the point. 3: The examples in the packets were a great help. Seeing more than one example of a given process was most helpful, since techniques could vary. 4: 1) It fulfilled the purpose I needed – I know what basic skills [are needed] to identify prints and illustrations in our collections. 2) Yes, but intense. 5: The intellectual level of the course was appropriate. I enjoyed all the course content, but found the process (photographic process) sections to be particularly helpful. This is an area in which my knowledge was lacking to begin with. 6: Dealing with actual prints was, of course, extremely valuable. 7: There were a wide range of backgrounds represented, the instructor smoothly made the material accessible to all. The most important aspects for me were the vast numbers of examples put before us. 8: The examples shown in class were invaluable – when learning to identify prints it is extremely necessary to be given not just one example of a particular process, but multiple examples. This course delivered in spades. 9: The use of examples for every process discussed was very important to give a sense of the types of material we will see. The intellectual level was perfect. 10: Guidance and instruction while examining actual prints is essential to mastering this skill, and this was the most helpful aspect of the course. The intellectual level was quite appropriate. 11: I enjoyed looking at examples of the process in question while TB pointed out various characteristics of the process. The intellectual level of the course was appropriate; it assumed we’d all read the pre-course readings and had all been previously exposed to illustrations.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: All of the examples were extremely helpful. I also thought that TB’s teaching style made the class. This class could’ve been heavy. His stories kept the class from being too stressful. 2: The pictures, the venue, the instructor, and the students. The weather was not ideal. 3: That the lectures, if you could call them that, were full of anecdotal information, yet also kept on track with the lesson plan. It seemed like the perfect balance. 4: TB, working with original prints – an amazing opportunity, and being in the Grolier Club. 5: The number of relevant examples seen during the course week. 6: Excellent mix of anecdote and information with wonderful material examples. There’s an incredible amount of material to cover and it is judiciously and selectively presented. I only wish we’d ben able to explore individual examples (and their book containers) in greater detail. 7: The instructor was fantastic! His thorough knowledge of the material and his collection of teaching examples made this a course to remember – my favorite classroom experience of my entire educational career. 8: The many comparative examples, as well as the instructor’s colorful supporting commentary. I also liked learning something about the history of the RBS collection itself, which only TB can supply. 9: Having the opportunity to have hands-on experience identifying each process and seeing first hand their typical characteristics. 10: The first-hand experience of so many printing techniques was the best. Networking was also very successful. 11: The packet system was amazing. Looking closely at the objects was useful and essential to learning to identify illustration processes.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: I wish there was a way to put different processes next to each other to compare. This would’ve been helpful with techniques that are similar in appearance. 2: More time, though not too much, going over the test. If more elbow room is possible, that would be helpful. 3: This is just a thought, that may or may not have occurred to you already: there’s so much material that it could almost be broken into two sessions, perhaps one for “black and white”, and one for color. 4: Receive syllabus in advance. 5: The second test (post-test?) seemed quite rushed – I would have liked more time for discussion and questions about the examples. 6: The title seems to be a misnomer since we rarely dealt with books as objects. It’s more “identifying prints and print processes (mostly bibliographic) to 1900.” More attention to interpreting the images may have been more productive for me at least. 7: Better instructions as to what parts of the text to focus on, and some directions for students new to the subject of printing in general would have been most helpful. 8: More time for the test at the end. 9: Nothing springs to mind. 10: The materials were almost entirely RBS packets with little use of Grolier materials. This was quite disappointing after the build up of Grolier materials in the description. Field trips, and perhaps fewer anecdotal stories would better reinforce key issues.
7) 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: No suggestions. 2: Seemed quite careful altogether. 4: Needed time/reminder to wash hands after breaks. 5: I do not have any recommendations at this time. 6: No suggestions – excellent systems are already in place. 7: Bigger tables would help, and boards to support the larger prints. 8: I thought the proper cautionary remarks were made before particularly fragile items were distributed. 9: The only thing that might be helpful is more space for looking at the examples, but this wasn’t really an obstacle. 10: None. 11: The large format materials are stored in mylar, which is great; however, the mylar offers no support to the materials contained in it. I’d recommend – especially for the acidic materials – adding a piece of archival cardstock to the individual packets.
8) If you attended the Monday and/or Tuesday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: The Tuesday night lecture was interesting. Glad I attended. 2: Yes! Eric Holzenberg gave an instructive and particularly amusing talk on Thomas Phillipps. 3: Yes. Interesting talk and mix of people at the reception. 4: Made Tuesday plans that I couldn’t change. 5: Yes. 7: Tuesday’s lecture was interesting and entertaining. 8: Yes, and amusing. 10: Yes. 11: Didn’t attend.
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: Well worth the money. I believe this class has created an RBS addiction which I will have to feed annually. A real pleasure. 2: a) Yes. b) TB does cast rather a lot of aspersions on my mother’s aesthetic sensibility [in fairness, my mother’s, too! -Ed.] 3: Absolutely. This course is pretty intense. 4: Indeed. Do the readings. If you have time, make 4x6 cards for each process; mnemonic devices to remember characteristics of each process; create your own time line; read a summary online before starting Gascoigne so you have something to hang him on. 5: Very much so. I feel that the Charlottesville session in which you complete some of the processes and do some printing would be very enlightening for those without a technology background who are interested in the processes used in prints. 6: Yes, money’s worth to be sure. I would urge others to be sure identifying prints was their main objective before enrolling. 7: This course was the bargain of the century. I hope to return to RBS soon. 8: Yes, this course is as good as they get. Anyone who takes this course will leave with a good basic background in the subject. I would advise doing as much of the reading as possible before beginning the class – examples come at you fast and furiously, so it’s a good idea to have a little grounding beforehand. 9: Absolutely. The absolute best part of the course is also the most frustrating! – the sheer amount of information covered. As a library school student this was far more material than we have covered in virtually all my classes – and by far the most enjoyable and best taught. 10: I hope my institution got its money worth. Time will tell. 11: Yes, I certainly got my money’s worth. I’d recommend this course to anyone who works with illustrated books. The hands-on approach that TB encourages is absolutely central in learning to distinguish these processes from each other.
Number of respondents: 11
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
63% 45% 27% 27%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
9% 36% 0% 36%
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
27% 18% 72% 36%
There were 5 rare book librarians (45%); 1 archivist/manuscript librarian (9%); 1 general librarian with some rare book duties (9%); 1 teacher/professor (9%); 1 full-time student (9%); 1 museum employee (9%); and 1 book collector (9%).