14: Introduction to the History of Typography [T-10]
5-9 January 2004
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
2: Our pre-course readings were an essential foundation for understanding the course material. They provided an important background to the laboratory portions of the course. 3: Good choices. Excerpts from some of the hard-to-get things show up, thankfully, in the workbook. 4: Very helpful. Now I want to try and purchase them for my own library.
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. 2: We worked from both a syllabus and from a wonderful and meticulously prepared notebook that covered nearly every aspect of the course. It will be a handy reference for many years. 3: Very. A thorough workbook with lots of helpful images, type identifications, and readings. 4: The ring binder was exceptional. Will be a great resource in the future. 5: Yes, particularly the various alphabets in different typefaces.
3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1: Yes. 2: Absolutely. Historical information was wedded to technical discussions in a seamless manner--a very successful approach. 3: Yes. 4: Very good. Challenging enough to keep things lively, but always within reason. 5: Yes.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: Yes, I loved all the “hands-on” things we did: setting type, watching SN cut a punch, casting type, printing, and visiting Special Collections. 2: 100%. We were well-prepared to view the material selected for each Special Collections visit for which our instructor was an encyclopedic guide. 3: Very. The three sessions spent setting type were essential, and we would not have had enough time with less than three. The session spent printing on the wooden hand press was very useful. The type-founding and punch-cutting demonstrations were phenomenal. We had time left over in Special Collections and could have looked at a few more examples. 4: Absolutely well spent. 5: Yes, particularly the fine press publications and using the press.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: SN’s enthusiasm and experience. 2: I thought it was a unique opportunity to work with an instructor whose technical knowledge is so amazingly thorough. I am certain that I would never have fully understood the intricate processes of punch-cutting, typesetting, and casting without the wonderful workshops SN so thoroughly provided. He imparted his boundless enthusiasm and erudition throughout! 3: SN’s extraordinary hands-on knowledge of type and related arts. His unflagging good cheer and enthusiasm. Half a dozen other students equally interested in learning how to date and identify type. 4: SN himself. The broad experience and range of information he brought to the class made the experience better than I had hoped for. 5: I enjoyed the opportunity to do some of the hands-on work--typesetting, printing, correcting type, etc.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: I don’t know if it is possible or feasible, but I would have loved a trip to the Smithsonian to see collections there. 2: Not sure--it was very thorough and I feel I have an excellent foundation to build upon. 3: A little more precision in the planning. Occasionally there was a little “dead air” that got filled with charming but not directly relevant anecdotes--maybe a result of having a smaller class size than usual? 4: Dense time line (in the binder) of dates for typefaces and milestones in type history. 5: I would like to see some actual type printed and had an opportunity to see furniture pounded in.
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?
2: Our classroom staff representative was meticulous about handling the materials. 3: No problems. 4: The access to the packets was great. I can’t wait to do a lot of the same for my students.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
2: Yes--a treat. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. A shame we missed the planned Monday speaker, but the talk was still well worth the time.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
2: Absolutely. Linotype demonstration not to be missed. 3: Very. 4: Yes. A shame more students didn’t participate. Nice to have specifics for each class.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Yes. SN is a treasure, because he actually has made things--type molds, punches, etc. He is a bit self-deprecating when he should not be, and he takes many detours in his lectures. These are usually interesting, but it makes his lecture style a bit fragmented. If you can sit back and relax, it all comes together for you by the end of the week--trust me. 3: Yes. It’s worth spending some time in advance learning the basic differences among Roman type families (Venetian Old Style, French, Dutch, Transitional, Modern) and even trying to learn some of the distinguishing characteristics of modern Roman faces. 4: I will spread positive word about RBS. I hope to get some of my students to attend. 5: Yes, this was a thoroughly enjoyable week. I learned so much that will be useful in my work.
Number of respondents: 5
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
80% 0% 20% 20%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 0% 40% 40%
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
20% 100% 40% 40%
There were two rare book librarians (40%), one teacher/professor (20%), one full-time student (20%), and one exhibition coordinator (20%).