I am more or less new to posting here, however I've been reading posts for a couple years now as a junkie obsessed with getting into grad school.
My background:
Undergrad: Geography major, minor in Art History. Graduated in 2008 with a 3.5 gpa at a small, decent midwest liberal arts school just outside Chicago -- Valparaiso University. My focus in Geography was mostly Cultural. Got into a lot of theory on culture, nature, and landscape. Space, place, landscape, and identity were all explored. Also did a little bit with planning, even interned with a planner. I combined that with Art History, thinking I'd go to architecture or planning school one day. I considered landscape architecture pretty seriously as well, but I'm currently taking horticulture classes at a community college and I'm bored with plants, so architecture it is. It's always been architecture with me, but get too easily discouraged by all you unhappy architects. c'mon.
But, my question:
Is it a bad idea to structure the admissions portfolio around one idea: a series of sketches, photographs, digital art, writing that quite literally represents my "experience" of space and place. It's meant to represent an "unfolding" of self as it relates to memory, space, place and time. Essentially, I argue that "experience" of space and place reveals "self." My portfolio is supposed to be personal. I try to visually represent this idea. Titles of pages include: "Self Remade," "passing through," "structure," "things that are there," "essence," among others. Nothing new here. Yes...Phenomenology, Bachelard's Poetics of Space or Yi-Fu Tuan's Space and Place: A Perspective of Experience, among others. I'm wondering if I'm being cliche. hmm...
I'm only applying to schools that I feel are within reach for me: CU-Denver, University of New Mexico, and University of Arizona. Selling myself short? not so. They also don't require the GRE. hmph.
feedback would be wonderful! I might post my actual portfolio when it's done and I'm not feeling like a total hack. thanks!
GRE aint no thang, just 3 or so hours to get a 60th%+ score if you are a hard-working college grad. And it opens up a bunch of really good, accessible schools. Plus, Tuscon fucking sucks. Go to grad school where you want to spend the next big chunk of your life.
the portfolio sounds more interesting and substantial than what alot of applicants will do i think... agreed, don't sell yourself short...
take the GRE and see how you do...
if you don't feel like taking the GRE, you could always go to a school outside the states which doesn't require GRE... apply to canadian schools: university of toronto, ubc, mcgill, waterloo... dalhousie... all good schools on par with the best in the states imho...
i think alot of what you are describing in your portfolio,might be interesting to some of the profs there, fit with some of the school philosophy at ubc where i graduated... not sure who would be on the review committee...
another thought regarding your background... have you thought about doing landscape architecture? landscape i think is pretty interesting too and sortof misunderstood... if architecture is more about buildings, and planning is about systems, landscape is someplace in between the two...
particularly the field of landscape urbanism which is probably somewhere between landscape and architecture... it's not so much about *greenery* as the performative and cultural landscapes in the urban spaces we live in... a bunch of people harvard and university of pensylvania into this...
these things are useful to architecture too, i think your background would be great for studying architecture as well, depending on what you're most interested in... buildings vs. spaces in between buildings? not that you can't do both... plenty of architects interested in landscape...
i honestly decided to apply to schools this year -- as opposed to next year -- two weeks ago, so getting everything ready in a months time has been a bit daunting. i'd really be happy at any school, as long as it's architecture and i'm comfortable and doing good work. i'd feel uncomfortable at any top school...i know my limitations. of course, i say this now...
bRink...yeah, architecture with a landscape bent is a possibility. i'd really like to do more with history/theory with a focus on memory and place. i know there's a prof at New Mexico doing this. i have to do some more research on the other schools...
Nov 23, 09 2:56 am ·
·
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.
portfolio (non-design background)
I am more or less new to posting here, however I've been reading posts for a couple years now as a junkie obsessed with getting into grad school.
My background:
Undergrad: Geography major, minor in Art History. Graduated in 2008 with a 3.5 gpa at a small, decent midwest liberal arts school just outside Chicago -- Valparaiso University. My focus in Geography was mostly Cultural. Got into a lot of theory on culture, nature, and landscape. Space, place, landscape, and identity were all explored. Also did a little bit with planning, even interned with a planner. I combined that with Art History, thinking I'd go to architecture or planning school one day. I considered landscape architecture pretty seriously as well, but I'm currently taking horticulture classes at a community college and I'm bored with plants, so architecture it is. It's always been architecture with me, but get too easily discouraged by all you unhappy architects. c'mon.
But, my question:
Is it a bad idea to structure the admissions portfolio around one idea: a series of sketches, photographs, digital art, writing that quite literally represents my "experience" of space and place. It's meant to represent an "unfolding" of self as it relates to memory, space, place and time. Essentially, I argue that "experience" of space and place reveals "self." My portfolio is supposed to be personal. I try to visually represent this idea. Titles of pages include: "Self Remade," "passing through," "structure," "things that are there," "essence," among others. Nothing new here. Yes...Phenomenology, Bachelard's Poetics of Space or Yi-Fu Tuan's Space and Place: A Perspective of Experience, among others. I'm wondering if I'm being cliche. hmm...
I'm only applying to schools that I feel are within reach for me: CU-Denver, University of New Mexico, and University of Arizona. Selling myself short? not so. They also don't require the GRE. hmph.
feedback would be wonderful! I might post my actual portfolio when it's done and I'm not feeling like a total hack. thanks!
don't sell yourself short. especially for m.arch, go where you want to go, not where you end up.
GRE aint no thang, just 3 or so hours to get a 60th%+ score if you are a hard-working college grad. And it opens up a bunch of really good, accessible schools. Plus, Tuscon fucking sucks. Go to grad school where you want to spend the next big chunk of your life.
No offense if you like Tuscon.
the portfolio sounds more interesting and substantial than what alot of applicants will do i think... agreed, don't sell yourself short...
take the GRE and see how you do...
if you don't feel like taking the GRE, you could always go to a school outside the states which doesn't require GRE... apply to canadian schools: university of toronto, ubc, mcgill, waterloo... dalhousie... all good schools on par with the best in the states imho...
i think alot of what you are describing in your portfolio,might be interesting to some of the profs there, fit with some of the school philosophy at ubc where i graduated... not sure who would be on the review committee...
another thought regarding your background... have you thought about doing landscape architecture? landscape i think is pretty interesting too and sortof misunderstood... if architecture is more about buildings, and planning is about systems, landscape is someplace in between the two...
particularly the field of landscape urbanism which is probably somewhere between landscape and architecture... it's not so much about *greenery* as the performative and cultural landscapes in the urban spaces we live in... a bunch of people harvard and university of pensylvania into this...
these things are useful to architecture too, i think your background would be great for studying architecture as well, depending on what you're most interested in... buildings vs. spaces in between buildings? not that you can't do both... plenty of architects interested in landscape...
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/19_onlandscape.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Landscape-Essays-Contemporary-Theory/dp/1568981791/ref=pd_sim_b_1
sorry just reread your post... so you were thinking about landscape architecture and abandoned it due to aversion to plantlife... :P
yeah, maybe do architecture w/ a landscape bent?
thanks for the responses...
i honestly decided to apply to schools this year -- as opposed to next year -- two weeks ago, so getting everything ready in a months time has been a bit daunting. i'd really be happy at any school, as long as it's architecture and i'm comfortable and doing good work. i'd feel uncomfortable at any top school...i know my limitations. of course, i say this now...
bRink...yeah, architecture with a landscape bent is a possibility. i'd really like to do more with history/theory with a focus on memory and place. i know there's a prof at New Mexico doing this. i have to do some more research on the other schools...
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.