John Kristensen and Katherine Ruffin
T-60: c19 & c20 Typography
10–14 June 2013
Detailed Course Evaluation
1) How useful were the pre-course readings? Did you do any additional preparations in advance of the course?
1: I found the readings to be enjoyable and sound historical preparation. 2: The pre-course reading assignments were helpful. It would have been even better to have had an indication of what order would be ideal to read them in—some things I read early would have made more sense after reading some that I tackled later. 3: Chappell/Bringhurst covered its material much better than Blumenthal did the same—though Bringhurst’s obvious pessimism regarding the c20 got a bit old…loved Beatrice Warde. Updike is useful but slow going. 4: Extraordinarily useful. After reading those selections I felt as one classmate said, as though I had had dirty eyeglasses previously. The readings were substantial but not onerous, all five resources proved valuable during the course. 5: Very useful. I read all of the readings, even the suggested ones. 6: Extremely useful, and also very readable. I read all of the books that I could obtain (almost all), and did supplemental reading to prepare. 7: The pre-course readings prepared me for the week’s sessions, but also were themselves immediately instructive. Though only excerpts were assigned, I intend to read these volumes in their entirety. 8: The pre-course readings are a must. It not only introduced you to new material but refreshed your memory of areas you have touched upon before in your own studying/work/RBS classes. 9: OK. I read several books related to the subjects. 10: The pre-course readings were very useful, but they were repetitive. I think they could be pared down a little. And it would have been good to have been given a little content beforehand about the authors, since I did no additional preparations (their names came up a lot in class but we couldn’t have known that beforehand. 11: Good overview. 12: Well thought out. No.
2) Were the course workbook and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: They were. I appreciated the binder format of the workbook, which made additions easy to make. 2: Yes. It was nice to receive them as we went along. 3: Yes. It would have been nice to have Cobden-Sanderson for pre-class reading. Specific typo terminology &c. will be very helpful in future as will handouts from typo packets. 4: I will use the workbook for many years to come, and I will photocopy some of its pages to share with my students. KR and JK gave us a wealth of material to complement and enrich information from the advance reading. 5: Yes, materials were useful and helped with daily activities or identifying type. 6: Yes, they were very useful both for in-class study and for separate reference. I will definitely be returning to them for later study. 7: The course workbook was useful, but I would have liked to see it organized with tabs for ready reference. 8: The workbook was very useful and necessary to enable the class to be exposed to the great amount of material we explored over the week. It helped keep us on track and was a tremendous aid for every study and review. 9: Yes, well done. 10: Yes. I expect I’ll refer back to them periodically at work. 11: Yes, good references. 12: Well done—the binder provided was especially good.
3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?
1: Yes, quite a few. The biggest difference with this course was the sheer amount of printing lab time, making it the most hands-on course I have taken. 2: N/A. 3: Yes. The purview, goals, and activity spectrum of the course were more ambitious/diverse than others I’ve taken, but the presence of good teaching materials and the dynamic rhythm of each day made it fun to switch gears—field trip, lecture, research time, and printing time all in one day. At the same time, I feel the aspirations may have been a bit too diffuse and so we lost some depth/detail—c20 digital/polymer printing all in one hour? 4: This course offered precisely the improvement over my one previous RBS course that I hoped and asked for: this course, its instructors, and my classmates all offered a more intellectually challenging, scholarly, critical education in bibliography. I understand much better what critical bibliography is and why it matters so much to humanities. 5: Yes. Because we were able to print and discuss typefaces and see examples that JK and KR brought, in addition to seeing UVA SC! It ranks very high. 6: Yes, I took the fundamental class the History of the Book, 200–2000, and I was appreciative of having had that background. This was more detailed and required a deeper initial knowledge (though I enjoyed both immensely). 7: I have taken one previous course at RBS. Though there is a physical component to all RBS courses, the opportunity to work the press and the production of artifacts resulted in a greater knowledge than viewing the RBS collection without the presswork. 8: Yes. This is my fourth RBS class. They have all been wonderful. I like this class especially because of the combination of hands-on printing and academic perusal. 9: Very good, up to RBS standards. 10: I took the History of the Book, 200–2000 last year. This course dovetailed nicely, and I would certainly take the same pair again if I had to do it again. 11: No. 12: Yes! They have all been good.
4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?
1: The mechanical explanations of hot-metal printing technologies filled in a large gap in my understanding of book history. Gaining biographical familiarity with the important figures of c19 and c20 printing was also of great use. 2: Type identification, understanding appropriate uses for individual types, understanding the meaning—in a historical sense—of particular types, and printing. 3: Type genealogies and identification. I study pre-1800 letterforms so the goal was to learn more about c19–c20 history. Printing experience is of interest but not necessarily relevant; still, it was a lovely surprise and very welcome/exciting/fun. 4: My presentation on Friday morning gave me the perfect opportunity to launch a new book-length study. That was my purpose in taking the course and I succeeded beyond my expectations at researching and synthesizing what to me is a brand new form of knowledge. I’m no expert after one week, but I know how to proceed with this project. (Take more RBS courses!) 5: Experience setting type, seeing examples at UVA SC. 6: I was particularly interested in learning about the historical development of type—the how and why—and having been afforded the experience of actually putting that learning to use in setting type and printing was of special interest. 7: My greatest interest came from the presswork, which I feel was conducted in a safe and instructive manner. For my purposes, however, the in-depth review of Monotype and Linotype proved the most relevant. 8: JK and KR working in tandem had a way to make all areas of the course extremely interesting and relevant. The trips to SC were related to the work and vice versa. 9: Typographic design very relevant. 10: The hands-on printing and the history of typography (as opposed to the c20 aspects). 11: History of Typography is hands-on demonstration. 12: The printing exercises on the proof press (Vandercook).
5) Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information, knowledge, and skills that the course was intended to convey? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: The machine-gun biographical summaries of c19 and c20 printers were a bit of a whirlwind, but JK and KR were always accessible and on point in answering questions. 2: Yes. I learned so much more than I expected to. I had not imagined we would do so serious a level of printing, and that was a wonderful surprise, from which I learned much more than reading about printing or watching a video would have taught me. 3: Skills yes—printing, proofing, what to look for in type (theory), and fine printing. 4: The intellectual level of the course was not only appropriate to our heterogeneous group of printers, librarians, educators, and researchers, but it seemed to me ideal. 5: Yes. KR and JK were excellent instructors. Their experience as printers and their extensive knowledge of type history helped guide us to see/appreciate typography in a more complex way. 6: Yes, both. Because the course balanced historical content and references of examples with hands-on use of the press, the learning experience was particularly successful. I believe the intellectual level was appropriate for one group—and we had a nice blend of experience levels. 7: The instructors were an absolute delight. JK and KR pair together so well in the classroom and the pressroom! Their separate expertise and focus combined to offer a truly circumspect view of typography and printing. 8: KR and JK did an amazing job in seeing to it that each one of us acquired the information and skills that we hoped to gain over the week. They also saw to it that we were able to share with each other for an expounded experience. 9: Yes. 10: Yes, and yes. 11: Right on point. 12: Yes! Yes!
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: The instructors! JK and KR complemented each other very well in both teaching methods and expertise. They were a joy to learn with. 2: The complementary perspectives of the instructors and the diverse experiences and expertise of the students created a great learning environment. 3: I liked the field trip, printing hands-on, beginning to end, with design and proofing processes; also, JK’s raconteurship and wisecracks—as well as depth of knowledge—and KR’s gentle, supportive demeanor and encouragement of every lesson learned. KR brought a lot of useful structure to our days and periods. The goals were always clean. Final presentations, videos, 6 person group divisions for lab/lecture, and JK’s generous giveaways were a nice bonus! 4: The intellectual challenge JK and KR provided, supported, and helped us meet. I loved equally the hands-on letterpress printing experience and the lecture/discussion sessions. 5: Setting type, learning about c19 and c20 type. The combination of hands-on printing and viewing the examples. 6: Above all, I enjoyed the discourse among fellow students and with the instructors. It’s rare to have the experience of spending tons of time talking about the joys and beauty of this study, and spending so much time with like-minded individuals was an exceptional treat. 7: I liked the presswork the best. My understanding of letterpress printing could scarcely have been advanced so far so rapidly without it! 8: As a hands-on person, I was especially pleased that the press room was part of each day and not just a token experience. 9: Integration of teaching with the demonstration of fine printing using important titles. 10: The hands-on printing, the presentation requirement (even though I dreaded it at first), and JK’s lectures. 11: Dual instructors. 12: The printing!
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: Perhaps more time to closely examine physical examples would be welcomed. The SC sessions were wonderful, but it is often difficult with a large group around a single book. Also would have appreciated more time on the typography identification activity—this was a useful exercise. 2: It was great to see the books in SC—but for many it was more like a glimpse. Somehow the “crowd around the table” approach was frustrating because often I couldn’t actually get close to the book. Either the book needs to move, or the people do. 3: Cover less and do so in more depth. It makes me sad to suggest trimming but at times it felt a bit whirlwind to me. 4: I suspect JK could have talked a bit less to allow KR more time to speak and share her expertise. They complemented each other’s approach beautifully, but I know KR could have spoken at greater length and depth given more time. 5: I wish I would have known that we were to give a presentation on a typeface. I could have brought some materials that I couldn’t take from RBS to my hotel to research. 6: For next year, perhaps the list of additional reading could be published in advance. I so thoroughly enjoyed the selected advance readings, and would have welcomed recommendations for additional reading in advance. That said, I’ll enjoy making my way through the supplement list now. 7: Some of the lectures were a bit off, perhaps…too much information. The necessary speed of facilitation resulted in occasional confusion on the part of the students. 9: Their reading list could be improved. 10: Not much to improve upon, but I think the course schedule could have been more explicit so that we could more clearly see the progression of topics we’d be covering in the lectures. 11: More notice regarding acceptance—hard to make plans on short notice. 12: A little more on letter design—details—how design is done. Use of curves and straight edges, &c. Maybe actually design a face—a letter or two.
8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1-2: Yes. 3: Yes. “Continuity and change” in the description was spot on as a theme for c19 and c20. The printing time/experience was quite unexpected but marvelous. Great work on the new printing office! Such a privilege. 4: Yes, I was surprised, but very pleasantly. 5: Yes. 6: Yes. I learned even more than I thought I would. 7: Yes. 9-12: Yes.
9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1: Yes. 2: Yes. I learned a lot, so this is hardly a complaint, but I would have enjoyed more on the effect created by the use of a given type—more forward looking why-would-I-use-this? Or when-would-I-use-this? 3: Yes…and more! 4: Yes. Absolutely, I could spend another week doing nothing but identifying typefaces. I will keep practicing this for a long time to come. 5: Yes 6: Yes, and then some, particularly with respect to true historic framework in which the c19 and c20 content developed. 7: Yes. 9-12: Yes.
10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: I have learned to give closer attention to typography and letterform, something I tend to overlook when examining a book. And I have gained a vocabulary with which to describe the books I work with. 2: It has improved my design eye, and raised my interest in letterpress printing. 3: Design principles are for life. I will actually try to do more presswork in coming years, if possible! I had a blast and will make it a priority. Also, the historical materials/references on hold for want of a specific project, but they will come in handy, and certainly serve well, when needed. 4: I plan to write a book (as associate professor in the next few years) making connections between first-wave feminism, page design, and the history and culture of certain typefaces. I want to develop expertise, eventually, in critical bibliography. 5: I will be able to use this material to better understand and identify materials of this time spread. 6: This course will help provide additional knowledge and content as I refine my personal collecting skills. 7: In my own research, a greater understanding of Monotype and Linotype will inform my bibliographic work in late c19 and early c20 materials. In my classes, where I often use bibliographic principles to enhance literary studies, my increased knowledge of letterpress will help me to excite my students about book history. 9: Yes, my printing will definitely benefit. 10: For richer personal enjoyment of the books I interact with at work, but also to inform my collection development decisions. And it will help my teaching immediately. 11: To better judge more proofs. 12: Set up a printing lab for the University Library.
11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: The field trip to the UVA printing lab was a healthy addition to the course load, as it was a practical respite from “fine” printing, which was the course’s focus. It was also fascinating to witness the parallels between historical printing and contemporary mass printing. 2: Yes. The trip to UVA Printing and Copying Services was a great comparison. 3: Yes. Our field trip to UVA’s Printing Plant was enlightening and fun. Well organized and run. Lots to look at/observe—a real printing operation—great counterpoint to our painstaking hand work. 4: Yes—the trip to the UVA printing plant gave a useful contrast to the historical forms of design and printing we studied. 5: Yes. Visiting the UVA print shop was very worthwhile. 6: Yes; we visited a modern printing shop which helped in our understanding of how history has led us to where we are today. 7: Yes! The trip to UVA Printing and Copying Services helped us to see the evolution of printing practices to present-day industrial production. 9: Yes. 10: Yes—great trip to the printing services office and to SC. 11: Yes. 12: Unnecessary.
12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?
1: JK & KR’s addition, Ornament Night, was a great opportunity for students in other courses to get time working with typesetting. 2: The ornament night activity and punch-cutting movie were terrific. 3: Ornament night was superb—worth repeating! (Though the Printing Office got a bit crammed). The Monday night lecture was well-delivered though not revolutionary in message. 4: I loved the RBS lectures. I was too tired to attend Video Night or Booksellers’ Night, though I had hoped to attend both. 5: Yes. Both the Tuesday lecture and forum were excellent (very relevant to my interests). Video Night was awesome because JK and KR opened the type shop to every one for printing. 6: Yes, and I like the cavalier street time with the reception following. 7: Certainly, for the camaraderie as well as the information. 9: Yes. 10: I only attended the Monday lecture, but it was well worthwhile. 11: All, and I enjoyed all. 12: Yes! RBS lecture.
13) 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: All was well! The additional sinks are a great reminder for hand-washing. 2: See my response to question seven above. It was so much more satisfying to have the ability to spend time with, and turn the pages of the books in the RBS collection and those brought by the instructors from their collections. 3: Everyone was great, very respectful—almost felt RBS collections were under used—have a separate viewing area so materials can be looked at kept open?—otherwise they sit on the table and get forgotten about sometimes—or no time to see them (cf. above response to questions three and seven). 4: I thought they invariably handled with utmost care and respect. 6: No suggestions. Everyone was very careful at all times; the reminders are helpful but I never saw materials in danger. 7: Continued diligence on hand-washing, as well as safety standards for press work are absolutely imperative. 9: The handling of materials was well thought out and implemented. 11: Cameras. 12: All well!
14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?
1: Of course! 2: Yes. This was an in-depth experience filled with useful information from people who really know their field. Not overwhelming for the novice, Yet still deep enough for those farther along. 3: YES!! RBS needs more “T” offerings. This was a fantastic experience. More, please. 4: Yes, absolutely—no question about this. The course is worth every penny. 5: Yes. I would recommend this course to anyone whose interest/collections fall into this time period. There are a lot of examples that are useful for those experienced with typography and those with an interest. 6: Yes, absolutely, and I do recommend it to others. 7: Certainly got my money’s worth, and would emphatically recommend this course! 9: Yes. 10: Yes! 11: Yes, yes. 12: Yes!
15) Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year? (If you have further praise/concerns, please speak with Amanda Nelsen or Michael Suarez.)
2: The course was packed but not rushed—I think that’s a tough balance to achieve, and you did it masterfully. 4: I love RBS. I will return as often as I possibly can. I have been elated, even euphoric, this week, flushed with excitement every day at what I’ve learned. Thank you. 5: Do your READINGS; they will help. JK and KR were truly outstanding and were excellent, excellent instructors. They had a great dynamic. 6: If you’re interested in printing history, type design, and typographical study in general this is an experience not to be missed. Take it, and enjoy! 7: Be prepared to work the press! If you desire a purely tabletop overview of typography, this course will require you to divide your attention between that study and the labor of the presswork. 9: I will suggest the course to others who would benefit. 11: I would like to return in future years. 12: Keep up the good work!
Aggregate Statistics
Number of respondents: 12
Leave
Institution gave me leave: 7 (59%)
I took vacation time: 1 (8%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 4 (33%)
Tuition
Institution paid tuition: 6 (50%)
I paid tuition myself: 4 (33%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 2 (17%)
Housing
Institution paid housing: 4 (33%)
I paid for my own housing: 4 (33%)
N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home: 4 (34%)
Travel
Institution paid travel: 5 (42%)
I paid my own travel: 5 (42%)
N/A: lived nearby: 2 (16%)
Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)
Archivist/manuscript librarian: 1 (8%)
Book Collector: 1 (9%)
Librarian with some rare book duties: 1 (8%)
Rare Book Librarian: 1 (8%)
College, assistant professor: 2 (17%)
Student, Ph.D. (humanities): 1 (8%)
Antiquarian bookseller: 1 (8%)
Retired: 1 (8%)
RBS: 1 (9%)
Personal Interest: 1 (9%)
College Lecturer: 1 (8%)
How did you hear about this course?
RBS website: 7 (58%)
Word of mouth: 4 (33%)
RBS faculty or staff recommendation: 1 (9%)