Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
Rate my Portfolio
I will be applying to graduate school soon, and it would be great to get feedback on my current portfolio:
https://issuu.com/joycechen71/...
I actually have 6 projects to showcase, but I had to shorten my portfolio a bit to meet UC Berkeley's 12 page requirement. Since Berkeley's deadline is tomorrow I will be submitting this version to them, but I think I can still improve it a tad more before my other deadlines in January. At this point I've looked at my own work for far too long and can no longer tell what else it needs, and any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
I'd give you a 4/10.
Hey, I'm also in the same boat here, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt as a competitor, but I promise I'm not here sabotaging your work! A thought that really helped me when I was working on my portfolio was to imagine it as a pin-up and you're there in person arguing your ideas to the adcoms. There should be a strong narrative guiding the reader from page to page, which I find lacking in yours. A simple "Here is A, then B, so I did C, because D and F etc." is all you need to create the story.
For example, in your first project, EL Salar, you overwhelm me on the 2nd page with a whole lot of studies for some reason, you missed a step in telling me why these studies were made. Sure, I can read your abstract, but I shouldn't have to. What does precedent studies have in common with the order of operations study? Are they connected? If they're not, why are they placed together? What is the connection between altitude studies and salt studies? Why are there two lighting studies on separate pages?
It seems like you put all your preliminary analysis on one page, then all your module analysis on the other, which I think is wrong for this project. It should start with a general analysis of the terrain (salt, altitude), but tell us why these studies then lead you to your design. Then, go into one aspect of your module design. Maybe start with lighting studies, here you can put first your preliminary lighting study, then your module lighting study. This makes sense because you're telling the reader that you first thought about this, then that thought led you to this conclusion. Logically A to B. Do this with all your projects and everything flows much better.
I don't know why all your zone drawings are at the back. What information do these drawings and renderings convey? You should place these renderings and drawings along with your studies, or give us more analysis to go along with them.
On pages 18-19, you have 2 wonderful section drawings that are overshadowed by bad renderings. Make those drawings bigger and leave only one rendering at a much smaller size.
I also think you can switch your project order a bit. Citta Nuova (#5) should be the first project as it comes on as the strongest one, Annex (#3) should be the last project as it's the second best.
Thanks for the input, much appreciated!
I was on the fence about changing the order of my projects as well, so hearing another person confirm what I was thinking helps. I think I’m going to place El Salar in the middle, Citta Nuova first, and Annex last like you suggested. Also, I agree with you that my flow does seem a bit off, I will try to work on that. I think I’ll also try to cut down on the diagrams I have on some pages because it seems like it’s a bit too crowded at times. Could I also get your opinion on my Ponte Gallery and Boathouse presentation if you have time? I saw your portfolio before yo
u took it down, and it was amazing!
Thank you. I actually found Ponte Gallery the most interesting project, so it works well as number 2. It also seems the most complete narrative-wise. I found a typo in your abstract though, so run that thing through word before sending. For Boathouse, I dont like how you used Columbia twice in the text, clear it up more probably. There is also the same problem of too much jumbled stuff with no lead-in diagram or m
ethod. Sorry for being blunt!
Also for Boathouse get rid of the two sketchup screenshots on the right, they show nothing that your physical model doesn’t show already and the model is million times better.
Thank you so much for taking time to look through my portfolio and comment, your feedback is incredibly helpful! I have some study models I can put in place of the renders instead. Sorry to bombard you with more questions, but do you think my Citta Nuova Project would be more understandable if I put the unraveled section diagrams (pg 25) first? Also, the same issue with my Annex project, would it better to put the potential paths and facade development drawings (pg 16) first?
I can't answer that for you, you're supposed to tell me what's important about your project and why we should be looking at it. Remember to craft that narrative.
I like the dinosaur but you have way too many tiny images. Those millions of iterations don't add much.
Thanks! Agreed, I crammed too many drawings on each page.
The dinosaur!
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.