i would like to see kai's as well.

but when it comes to painting what can anyone say other than i don't like it or i like it?

i did the fine arts thing before going to arch school and have had more than enough art-speak bullshit to even bother with trying to appraise art from any other point of view than the personal one. i work now with world class artists (well, venice biennale, and kanazawa 21st caliber, anyway) on various projects and while i like their work i could not say why their work is so popular. and there wouldn't be much point anyway. the stuff we do together is super fun, seriously big, and that's about it. the age of right and wring in art is long gone.

anyway, skeed seems to have said it best. this is not art school he is applying for...i was thinking though that if anyone knew how to make something out of nothing it would be kai (it is after all what you bragged about doing for your portfolio), and this guy has more than nothing. no offense meant, btw. ain't saying nothing you haven't crowed about yoself...

I think skeerd is right, the texture is the best aspect of some of these, focus in close, I'd cut out 75 % of the painting or more, mess around in photoshop, and don't include any figures, they're too easy to critique. think eyecandy, not what your original was supposed to be about.

as a general disclaimer I'd hate someone who told me to do shit like I'm saying, and I completely don't think its what architecture or art is about. However, if admissions commitees are going to merely flip through the portfolios and pick it based of eye candy and percieved content without actually spending the time to understand something, you have to cater to it.

To be honest, I was quite worried to go to an institution that would let me in with a portfolio like mine. I was quite relieved when I got to yale though and discovered that the level of teaching and discussion is very high and is not representative of their admissions process. Also, there are plenty of people who go here who I think completely do not belong, there are people who are just not competent at functiong at a high level of performance,, but they had a snazzy looking portfolio so they got in. This is a serious problem.

I think this just goes to show that there is an inherent problem in the admissions process at architecture schools.

I have no basis to give credibility to this statement, but it seems to confirm my views on the failings of the admissions process. At least it will be what I tell myself when I don't get in anywhere. The problem is, even if the school realizes this, what would be a better way to judge applications? I can't think of a better way, but I kind of hate the emphasis and importance placed on the portfolio.

Maybe it's just considered a default that at an institute of higher learning applicants have the moral decency not to flagrantly deceive anyone.

but i guess that's just me being idealistic again.


really though, if everyone started behaving like kai, they could begin to require insane documentation and corroboration of every image in each portfolio, making this whole process even more difficult.

i don't see it as such an issue. sure someone can copy or steal other people's work to put into an admissions portfolio. maybe they'll get in. unfortunately, if they do they'd be taking the spot of another elligible student but they'll quickly get weeded out. in the long run, i don't think 'cheaters' feel it's worthwhile to go the arch route. the amount of work it requires would not attract cheaters in the first place.

as for students who 'don't belong', well that isn't endemic to architecture. it happens in school and work.

i know kai has received alot of critism regarding his questionable portfolio shenanigans (sp?) but in all honesty, it takes talent to take crappy photos and turn them into something that gets accepted by top schools whether we like it or not.

did i just use the word 'shenanigans'?