55: Type, Lettering, and Calligraphy, 1830-1940 [T-55]
5-9 July 2004
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Good, big, comprehensive reading list; a pick and choose menu. Very useful. 2-3: Very useful. 4: Very useful – annotations of the bibliography by the instructor were very helpful. 5: I didn’t get to do all of the readings. Those I read were helpful, but I think I will get more out of them re-reading them after the course. 6: Very. 7: Very sufficient. 8: Extremely useful. 9: Useful. 10: Excellent!!!
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: Not that much distributed, frankly. As was, was good. 2: Yes, although I am glad that JM agreed to give us his more complete bibliography on printing and typography, rather than the heavily abridged one in the course packet. 3: Extremely. The extensive bibliography we received will be possibly the aspect of the week with the most lasting impact. 4: Schedule of topics to be covered was optimistic and quickly became inaccurate. Readings packet, bibliographies, &c. were and will continue to be tremendously useful. 5: Yes, very useful. 6: Yes, for the most part. Will also be useful in the future. 7: Very useful, and will go very well with the notes taken in class. 8: Very much so. 9: Yes. 10: Great!!!
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. The course happily coped with wide varieties of background and interests of the students. 2: Aspects of the course that related to English and American typography (e.g. Gill and Johnston, Morison, and Monotype, &c.) were covered the most thoroughly, reflecting perhaps the interests of JM and, to some extent, those of certain vocal members of the class. Overall, a very high intellectual level. 3: The most interesting parts were the areas beyond the Anglo-American material which the readings focused on. 4: Historical context of type was most interesting. 5: For me, the materials relating to the early periods were more useful than those relating to digital typography, but all were of interest. 6: JM’s vast knowledge and enthusiasm carried the day. Intellectual level appropriate. 7: The history of the letter forms. The intellectual level was hard to keep up with, but finally in the last class I felt more confident. 8: The slides used in the course were extremely relevant, the lecturer’s personal insights and observations informative, but the hands-on items from Special Collections were a bit difficult to enjoy because of their having to be used in the classroom. 9: Practically all. 10: Very high level of intellect. The personal experiences and input of the very highest level.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: Useful short cross-the-road trip to Jefferson Hall to see punch-cutting. A-OK. 2: Unfortunately, we saw little of what JM says he requested from Special Collections because of their upcoming move and the unavailability of certain books. Still, time was well spent in the little we saw. 3: Our time with Special Collections material was a little disorganized, but still of interest. 4: Punch-cutting demonstration was interesting. The Special Collections works we saw were limited and in some ways tangential to the course’s topic. 5: Special Collections materials were brought to the classroom. Even though much of the material was not rare or fragile, we were not permitted to handle it. Having the instructor walk around with the items open to a particular page is not the best or most effective way to see them. 6: Yes – one worthwhile field trip. 7-8: N/A. 9: Yes. 10: N/A.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: JM, who brings great depth of learning across a broad scope. Also, and it would take American ears to fully detect this, he speaks English with real fluency and intelligence (the one is not the other). He must be, as the British say, a “National Treasure,” and when he crosses the water, an international one. 2: Hearing JM spice up his lecture on English typography with personal anecdotes, all well worth hearing and utterly unforgettable. JM is immensely knowledgeable and thoughtful about modern typographical developments, and hearing his remarks on the subject was invaluable. 3: Hearing JM tie together type and social history, and synthesize stretches of history from disparate sources. And, of course, the previews of JM’s work-in-progress. 4: The instructor’s willingness to share his tremendously broad knowledge and experience. 5: JM’s wonderful asides may have, at times, have seemed tangential, but they were all of great interest. 6: Subject matter and instructor. 7: Teacher, vivid displays of letters. 8: The instructor. 9: Erudition and manner of the professor. 10: JM in all respects.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: JM might wish to spare himself some and prod us by assigning a short exercise session, such as gentle type identification quizzes or a type-face selection “job.” Might be fun...and keep us on our typo-toes. 2: Perhaps cover French, and especially German, Dutch, Russian, and Italian avant-garde developments in the c20 more deeply. As noted above, I thought just a little too much emphasis was placed on English and American developments. 3: I would have enjoyed more emphasis on the continental story, as I suspect JM could give a much better overview than available here in the U.S. 4: Perhaps a few more “active learning” activities. The instructor invited interjections and questions, but otherwise students passively absorbed the material. 5: Questions not really relevant to the subject might have been addressed after class. 6: Two weeks. 7: I haven’t got a clue. 8: Don’t know. 9: No thoughts here. 10: I cannot conceive of any improvement.
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?
1: Well: bland-ish, run-of-the-mill typo books designated Special Collections, could be freed up for touchy-feel encounters. 2: No complaint here, except for the unavailability of certain books from Special Collections, as noted above. 5: See number 4. 7: N/A 8: None. 9: Transition year, so no comment. 10: No suggestions.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Yes, but don’t quote me. Warren Chappell was a poor illustrator. Nice guy, he was. But have to say this. 2: Yes. The Monday evening lecture by DVM was the best that I have heard in my five visits to RBS. 3: The Chappell talk was most delightful. 4: The Sunday lecture delivered a helpful history of RBS, but also seemed too much of a fundraising pitch. 5: I only attended the Monday lecture, and thought it was excellent. 6-7: Yes, excellent. 8: Monday’s talk was one of the best “book talks” I’ve ever heard. 9: Yes. 10: Excellent.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
2: Yes, as always. 3: Yes. I missed the pen-ruling video, however. 4: Yes, more useful and informative than I expected. 5: Absolutely. The expanded Museum Nights were great and provided much information. 6: Yes. 7: Very interesting. 8: The Museum Nights on both nights were superb in every way. The collections and presentations both live and written were magnificent, and a great added value to the specific course content. 9-10: Yes.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: This course, lacking the many RBS impressions of the first part, is not, in its thematic setting, quite as perfect as part one. Some cultural dimensions were, of necessity, a bit glossed over. But this point of criticism is only offered to authenticate the praise: a wonderful course. 2: Yes, overall. 3: Although you’ve enjoyed reading articles by JM, he is even better in person – the anecdotes are alone worth the trip to Charlottesville. 4: Content of the course was exactly what I had hoped it would be. Boy have I learned a lot! JM is a priceless resource, and this seems to be the kind of knowledge and attention one can only get here. I’d like to come back for more. 5: I never cease to be both pleased and amazed with the splendid precision and preparation that goes into making RBS such a great experience. Keep up the good work! 6: Course was well worth the cost. I would encourage others with an interest in this topic to take this course. 7: Yes, take this course without reservation! 8: Very much so. 9: I wish all the best for RBS’s expanded quarters! 10: Absolutely. Very worth doing again!
Number of respondents: 10
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
60% 60% 40% 60%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 40% 60% 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
40% 0% 0% 0%
There were two rare book librarians (20%), one archivist/manuscript librarian (10%), two general librarians with some rare book duties (20%), one teacher/professor (10%), one retired (10%), one book-collector (10%), one curator/administrator (10%), and one attorney-at-law (10%).