It is a little late in the season to be asking for crits regarding my portfolio, but here it is.. Please feel free to tell me what you think. By the way, I am a non-arch applying to M.Arch A.
I like the cover. IMO it needs more text and a comprehensive, unifying layout. Also, (I don't know this) I always feel that a section on photographs isn't necessarily welcome - it's distracting and more often than not acts like filler. Maybe its more forgiveable coming from a non-arch, but all the same it's generally it's taken as fluff.
@arc.affect Berk, UVA, UT, and U of BC. I agree with you. In retrospect one notices the shortcomings and in this case the portfolio needed a little more cohesive layout. However, given the the amount of time that I worked on it I am satisfied with the outcome. IMO it looks a lot better than other ports posted by non-arch majors.
1: Needs way more content, both in quantity and also fleshing out the material that is already in here. For example, you have one "architecture" project that is allotted 1 page... not even a full spread. This project alone (if this is the only architecture related project you have) should be given a lot more attention and also should be the first project in your portfolio. You want the application committee to see first and foremost your interest in architecture AND THEN the other work that demonstrates your various design skills. I would work on making this project more a feature... make those images larger, explain the process, show some diagrams, drawings, etc. If you don't have this material, than start making it. Also the project description here sounds like it was borrowed from the syllabus. Frame it in your own words and tell us what you did, not what the intention of the assignment was.
2: The layout and design... something about it seems dated to me, like a relic from the 90's Rave Scene or something. Just the vibe I get when I look at it. I think it has to do with the heavy use of black and the font choices. It's a personal call, but I would venture towards something that doesn't feel so designed. Good graphic design should almost be invisible, it shouldn't feel forced.
3: I would question some of the content. Blurry photographs? Arm X-rays? Full Frontal? I don't know if these things are really going to win over your intended audience.
4: Going though your CV, it sounds like there are a number of other projects that are design related that are not included in here. What gives?
However, given the the amount of time that I worked on it I am satisfied with the outcome.
Given that this a graduate school application, there is no amount of time that you could spend to make your portfolio and be happy with it. This is one of the most important documents you will make in your life and it should be given the care and attention something of such importance should warrant.
Hope this can be constructive. I don't have that many specific criticisms to give, but all in all I think what is most evident is that you aren't showing everything you have to offer. That, and I find your portfolio to be highly confusing.
- I'm a photographer, but I do understand how photographic work in a M. Arch portfolio can be seen as filler. I by no means think that it is inherently the case. I was told by someone on Berkeley's review committee last year that the strongest portfolio that they had seen consisted of just 8 photographs. Often times, from the few portfolios that I have seen, the photos just don't seem to have much focus in comparison with the other projects. Now, in regards to your photographs, what are you trying to say? They either need some kind of sensational explanation, or the content needs to be stronger. I honestly don't understand what is going on with that page. The longer I look at it the more frustrated I get.
- Also, as much as a photograph could be considered filler, I'd assume dedicating a page to a one hour charcoal drawing might fall into the same category. I've seen some pretty impressive brief sketches included in portfolios, but your nude drawing just reminds of a first year drawing studio. If it was accompanied with more, it might contribute to a stronger whole.
- I'm a minimalist when it comes to layout. Graphically your portfolio is a bit much for my own liking. I don't find it to be overly flashy however, so you have probably found a nice middle ground. That being said, I don't understand certain decisions that you have made. On page 7, your "Visceral Vestiges" drawing is significantly cropped with the majority of the page left empty. The piece probably benefits from not taking up the entire page... and maybe it benefits from running off the page, but I want to see the last third of the drawing! It looks as if you have digitally imposed a grid on top of your mixed media works. I don't see how it benefits the work. Perhaps show some details of the work instead.
- There are tons of problems with the title pages, and I wouldn't include them anyway. Taking a page to introduce one or two projects is just not necessary... it's probably the greatest filler of all.
Overall I completely agree with Cherith Cutestory. I think if you were to spend more time with this, you would come up with something entirely different.
Two examples that have not only benefitted me, but were also accepted into many strong programs:
Portfolio Critique
It is a little late in the season to be asking for crits regarding my portfolio, but here it is.. Please feel free to tell me what you think. By the way, I am a non-arch applying to M.Arch A.
Degree: Art History some Arch background.
http://issuu.com/edwavila/docs/portfolio_avila
I like the cover. IMO it needs more text and a comprehensive, unifying layout. Also, (I don't know this) I always feel that a section on photographs isn't necessarily welcome - it's distracting and more often than not acts like filler. Maybe its more forgiveable coming from a non-arch, but all the same it's generally it's taken as fluff.
what programs are you applying to?
@arc.affect Berk, UVA, UT, and U of BC. I agree with you. In retrospect one notices the shortcomings and in this case the portfolio needed a little more cohesive layout. However, given the the amount of time that I worked on it I am satisfied with the outcome. IMO it looks a lot better than other ports posted by non-arch majors.
_
1: Needs way more content, both in quantity and also fleshing out the material that is already in here. For example, you have one "architecture" project that is allotted 1 page... not even a full spread. This project alone (if this is the only architecture related project you have) should be given a lot more attention and also should be the first project in your portfolio. You want the application committee to see first and foremost your interest in architecture AND THEN the other work that demonstrates your various design skills. I would work on making this project more a feature... make those images larger, explain the process, show some diagrams, drawings, etc. If you don't have this material, than start making it. Also the project description here sounds like it was borrowed from the syllabus. Frame it in your own words and tell us what you did, not what the intention of the assignment was.
2: The layout and design... something about it seems dated to me, like a relic from the 90's Rave Scene or something. Just the vibe I get when I look at it. I think it has to do with the heavy use of black and the font choices. It's a personal call, but I would venture towards something that doesn't feel so designed. Good graphic design should almost be invisible, it shouldn't feel forced.
3: I would question some of the content. Blurry photographs? Arm X-rays? Full Frontal? I don't know if these things are really going to win over your intended audience.
4: Going though your CV, it sounds like there are a number of other projects that are design related that are not included in here. What gives?
However, given the the amount of time that I worked on it I am satisfied with the outcome.
Given that this a graduate school application, there is no amount of time that you could spend to make your portfolio and be happy with it. This is one of the most important documents you will make in your life and it should be given the care and attention something of such importance should warrant.
Hope this can be constructive. I don't have that many specific criticisms to give, but all in all I think what is most evident is that you aren't showing everything you have to offer. That, and I find your portfolio to be highly confusing.
- I'm a photographer, but I do understand how photographic work in a M. Arch portfolio can be seen as filler. I by no means think that it is inherently the case. I was told by someone on Berkeley's review committee last year that the strongest portfolio that they had seen consisted of just 8 photographs. Often times, from the few portfolios that I have seen, the photos just don't seem to have much focus in comparison with the other projects. Now, in regards to your photographs, what are you trying to say? They either need some kind of sensational explanation, or the content needs to be stronger. I honestly don't understand what is going on with that page. The longer I look at it the more frustrated I get.
- Also, as much as a photograph could be considered filler, I'd assume dedicating a page to a one hour charcoal drawing might fall into the same category. I've seen some pretty impressive brief sketches included in portfolios, but your nude drawing just reminds of a first year drawing studio. If it was accompanied with more, it might contribute to a stronger whole.
- I'm a minimalist when it comes to layout. Graphically your portfolio is a bit much for my own liking. I don't find it to be overly flashy however, so you have probably found a nice middle ground. That being said, I don't understand certain decisions that you have made. On page 7, your "Visceral Vestiges" drawing is significantly cropped with the majority of the page left empty. The piece probably benefits from not taking up the entire page... and maybe it benefits from running off the page, but I want to see the last third of the drawing! It looks as if you have digitally imposed a grid on top of your mixed media works. I don't see how it benefits the work. Perhaps show some details of the work instead.
- There are tons of problems with the title pages, and I wouldn't include them anyway. Taking a page to introduce one or two projects is just not necessary... it's probably the greatest filler of all.
Overall I completely agree with Cherith Cutestory. I think if you were to spend more time with this, you would come up with something entirely different.
Two examples that have not only benefitted me, but were also accepted into many strong programs:
http://www.issuu.com/ncro54/docs/march_rosenbergnaomi_portfolio
http://issuu.com/its.bird/docs/bird_m.arch_portfolio
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.