I adopt here Graham Gibb’s reflective cycle model as a structure.
What happened?
In this session I introduced the class to some manuscripts and books – an illuminated manuscript c.1450; a printed book from 1485; a printed book from 1896 (fig. 1) – to encourage them to think about the co-evolution of technology and design. One can read in these items how technology radically changed the production, dissemination and social meaning of literature while simultaneously culture and tradition fixed their visual identity. To this end I encouraged the class to apply the Critical Visual Methodology of Gillian Rose to the items with the help of a prompt sheet (fig. 2). In addition, I introduced the communications circuit diagram (fig. 3) of the book historian Robert Darnton, to assist in our exploration of the changing lifecycles of these works, adding a text-specific context to Rose’s ‘audiencing’ stage. I decided to present without slides and to concentrate all attention on the works, the task of slow looking and group exchange leading the class toward developing an understanding of material, production and audience change across the objects.
- 1-5 mins: I gave a short introduction to the works explaining their context in the LCC Printing Historical Collection, title information and place of making. The students were encouraged to complete the prompt sheet by noting thoughts on production, layout, circulation and audience. I referred the class to a large print version of Darnton’s diagram, asking that they reflect on it when considering audience reception.
- 5-15 minutes: slow looking.
- 5-20: minutes group discussion.
Fig. 1. Books and manuscript. Clarke. G (2026).
Fig. 2. Prompt Sheet (2026).
Fig. 3. The Communications Circuit. Darnton. R (1982)
Feelings – what are you feeling?
Somewhat dissatisfied with my presentation for reasons outlined below. Although this does seem like a largely redundant stage in Gibb’s model, perhaps registering dissatisfaction can be motivational.
Evaluation – what was good and what was bad?
Fig. 4. Post-it feedback from Eddie, Eva, Ilia and George.
Good: The class was highly engaged in the presentation, tasks, and discussion. The richness of the works is a boon to engagement, but responses centered on my enthusiasm, knowledge and manner of suggesting continuity of culture through design. In response to questions I discussed some paratextual elements present in the works as ‘skeuomorphs’ and helped explain that term and phenomenon by analogy with theatre and film, this seemed to make clearer the general point of the task. Bad: Introduction of Darnton over-complicated the session and distracted the class from the task of critical examination. I did not adequately manage the 10 minutes allotted for slow looking and this became more of a discussion section. I assumed knowledge which led to my introducing some terms (codex, gatherings) which were unfamiliar or vaguely understood and was asked to explain them.
Action – what could you do next time?
Slow down. Set-up expectations and learning outcomes more clearly, giving structure of session and its relevance to the brief/module via visual aids at start of session.
Reference List:
Darnton, R. (1982) ‘What is the history of books?’, Daedalus, 111(3), pp. 65–83. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3403038
Image List:
Figure 1. Clarke, G. (3026) LCC Books and manuscript.
Figure 2. Clarke. G (2026) Prompt sheet.
Figure 3. Darnton, R. (1982) ‘What is the history of books?’, Daedalus, 111(3), p. 68. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3403038
Figure 4. (2026) Post-it feedback notes.