Those are all pretty meh.... not even that good. The first is easily 100 pages longer than it should be. The second is very pedestrian. The third has nice physical models but very little unique design projects. Lots of filler in all 3 options.
Sharky McPeterson
Apr 19, 16 12:05 pm
Frankly, I think Non Sequitur would only be impressed by his/her own work.
Non Sequitur
Apr 19, 16 12:21 pm
^nope. I'll give credit where credit is due but the above links did not fulfill the headline bait. I also think one of the 3 links is the OP's own and this is a thinly veiled attempt at getting comments without giving themselves away.
whistler
Apr 19, 16 3:23 pm
too many words, too many pictures and not real work / buildings for me.
no_form
Apr 19, 16 3:36 pm
Is the portfolio dead?
When I saw this headline I didn't expect a bunch of issuu portfolios. I was expecting some killer portfolio examples from the past 100 years at least.
And what's purpose of one these days? You can have a website and most clients and employers don't care to see some huge design laden portfolio with diagrams and graphics and text no one reads.
good details
Apr 19, 16 9:38 pm
^^What about for students applying to schools or recent grads looking for their first gig?
no_form
Apr 19, 16 9:43 pm
If that is what the school wants than you're stuck with it.
If you're looking for that first job don't bother sending some 30 page polished portfolio. No one really cares or has time for it. Not to say they won't appreciate it but students stress way too much over portfolios.
Tailor your portfolio to the job you want. These portfolios are not tailored to getting a job. They are made to fit the idea that you need to have an amaZing crazy awesome portfolio to get into grad school or work for Gehry.
Spoons
Apr 19, 16 10:32 pm
The first one clearly has an aptitude for creating certain forms of representation but there is absolutely not any good design work in it. I also found a spelling mistake within the first 5 seconds of looking at it.
The second one lacks graphic subtle, and the diagrams in it just aren't good.
The third one is nice, but I won't remember any of it in half an hour.
When will students stop writing PORTFOLIO on the front of their portfolios?
situationist
Apr 19, 16 11:31 pm
First two: nicely presented diagrams and some good systems thinking. The third one shows some architectural thinking, but there's not much there. First one I think I could probably recreate some of that representation technique - looks more like an urban design portfolio, not an architecture portfolio.
Nothing really that interesting here architecturally. Systems thinking is a good foundation these days, but these are missing any kind of material and tectonic exploration. I'm not really seeing anything here that would get me excited enough to hire these people. Maybe it's the schools?
tairyroll
Apr 20, 16 5:05 am
Yeah Okay People, I may be small minded. I'm just a student who studied architecture for 3 years so my choice was kinda school admission oriented I guess. And that's why I'm asking here to know how you define your best portfolio for job/school. So could someone answer the question or not?
Non Sequitur
Apr 20, 16 6:41 am
I'm pretty sure the question was already answered.
Lee Robert
Apr 20, 16 8:51 am
I feel like If you ask a group of anonymous designers what constitutes good design you will get a lot of different opinions, with hints of resentment mixed in.
If the question is "what makes a portfolio successful", I would say that clearly communicating the perspective of the designer (usually) makes for a good, authentic portfolio. Aside from that, it's more of a graphics design question.
Stephanie Braconnier
Apr 20, 16 12:09 pm
1. too many graphs
2. I don't look at portfolios that say 'portfolio' on the front cover
3. whoever attempts to print their 1500 dpi portfolio at a commercial printer would be mocked mercilessly.
Try again.
wurdan freo
Apr 20, 16 1:30 pm
All of those portfolios have what I consider striking imagery. However, the content and substance is not clearly evident even to someone who is trained in design theory. Do you need it to get into a masters program? Probably. I would prefer to see something like
www.czphx.com/index.html
All portfolios should be online and optimized for mobile viewing.
londonfog
Apr 20, 16 2:54 pm
You know what....
Most bad portfolios are filled with complicated and dizzy diagrams.
And the three that you suggested are all in this case.
Those who do not have the talent to create fantastic "shape" design tend to disguise their lack of design talent by complicated and dizzy diagrams.
A lot of idiots say the shape is just one part of architecture design and emphasize ridiculous "process".
But I think that is justification of those lacks design talent.
The final shape is the essence of all design.
If I were a hiring manager I would require all the applicants to include only the final shape of the buildings in their portfolio not the fxxking pathetic diagrams that make no sense.
It would be really interesting.
I bet most of the portfolio will look like pictures of elementary school students full of ugly design.
archiwutm8
Apr 20, 16 4:41 pm
Everyone's portfolio is shit, we just all do shit work and live shit lives. Go do something else.
forzametro
Apr 30, 16 3:59 pm
@londonfog,
Saying that "the final shape is the essence of all design" is incredibly short sided. A statement like that encourages a conception of the "artists as genius," a sentiment that was popular in the Renaissance era, but has since become laughable. Design thinking has moved on from this Great Man notion of history and production, and values intellectual rigor in the development of ideas and forms.
Even the most beautiful forms are born out of rigorous process. To simply declare that that form appears out the aether shows not only a lack of critical understanding of how form is made (a designer makes decisions that are influenced by a myriad of elements, even for a decision as small as moving a point from one one spot to another), but also a lack of interest in design.
Furthermore, if you look at art, the close ally of architecture, you will see that process – that thing you accuse "idiots" of practicing – is the paramount in the production of provocative and sexy work. To put it simply, process is sexy. Form cannot be sexy on its own, but when put into a larger context, it becomes rich and interesting.
I would suggest you reconsider your position that process is a way of masking bad design. Not everything has to look alike. And nor should it. But design should show development and maturation, as it is indicative of an engagement with larger issues.
Schoon
Apr 30, 16 7:08 pm
++forzametro
londonfog,
I think you may just be biased from seeing too many bad diagrams. Yes, inscrutably complicated diagrams won't help a portfolio one bit. But diagrams that convey information simply, clearly, and effectively are one of the more impressive things that can go into a portfolio, and are actually pretty tough to design, imo. Diagrams, buildings, anyone can design a bad one.
Believe it or not, showing an employer how you arrived at a design gives him or her a hell of a lot more information about your way of thinking and your attitude than handing them a picture of the result would.
b3tadine[sutures]
May 1, 16 8:30 am
Insufferable is the word that comes to mind. Very talented, but insufferable.
I know you all think your own portfolio is the best but hey let's be honest. Everyone must have felt envy for some fantastic works of others.
So here, doesn't matter if it's professional or academic, could you share the best portfolio you've ever seen for our own improvement??
Here is my choice.
https://issuu.com/waishanqiu/docs/relationalmorphogenesis
https://issuu.com/nicolaasvanorshoven/docs/prtfl_isuu_2_a955cae32f64cd
https://issuu.com/wangzigeng/docs/narrator_wang_zigeng_1500dpi
Those are all pretty meh.... not even that good. The first is easily 100 pages longer than it should be. The second is very pedestrian. The third has nice physical models but very little unique design projects. Lots of filler in all 3 options.
Frankly, I think Non Sequitur would only be impressed by his/her own work.
^nope. I'll give credit where credit is due but the above links did not fulfill the headline bait. I also think one of the 3 links is the OP's own and this is a thinly veiled attempt at getting comments without giving themselves away.
too many words, too many pictures and not real work / buildings for me.
Is the portfolio dead?
When I saw this headline I didn't expect a bunch of issuu portfolios. I was expecting some killer portfolio examples from the past 100 years at least.
And what's purpose of one these days? You can have a website and most clients and employers don't care to see some huge design laden portfolio with diagrams and graphics and text no one reads.
^^What about for students applying to schools or recent grads looking for their first gig?
If that is what the school wants than you're stuck with it.
If you're looking for that first job don't bother sending some 30 page polished portfolio. No one really cares or has time for it. Not to say they won't appreciate it but students stress way too much over portfolios.
Tailor your portfolio to the job you want. These portfolios are not tailored to getting a job. They are made to fit the idea that you need to have an amaZing crazy awesome portfolio to get into grad school or work for Gehry.
The first one clearly has an aptitude for creating certain forms of representation but there is absolutely not any good design work in it. I also found a spelling mistake within the first 5 seconds of looking at it.
The second one lacks graphic subtle, and the diagrams in it just aren't good.
The third one is nice, but I won't remember any of it in half an hour.
When will students stop writing PORTFOLIO on the front of their portfolios?
First two: nicely presented diagrams and some good systems thinking. The third one shows some architectural thinking, but there's not much there. First one I think I could probably recreate some of that representation technique - looks more like an urban design portfolio, not an architecture portfolio.
Nothing really that interesting here architecturally. Systems thinking is a good foundation these days, but these are missing any kind of material and tectonic exploration. I'm not really seeing anything here that would get me excited enough to hire these people. Maybe it's the schools?
Yeah Okay People, I may be small minded. I'm just a student who studied architecture for 3 years so my choice was kinda school admission oriented I guess. And that's why I'm asking here to know how you define your best portfolio for job/school. So could someone answer the question or not?
I'm pretty sure the question was already answered.
I feel like If you ask a group of anonymous designers what constitutes good design you will get a lot of different opinions, with hints of resentment mixed in.
If the question is "what makes a portfolio successful", I would say that clearly communicating the perspective of the designer (usually) makes for a good, authentic portfolio. Aside from that, it's more of a graphics design question.
1. too many graphs
2. I don't look at portfolios that say 'portfolio' on the front cover
3. whoever attempts to print their 1500 dpi portfolio at a commercial printer would be mocked mercilessly.
Try again.
All of those portfolios have what I consider striking imagery. However, the content and substance is not clearly evident even to someone who is trained in design theory. Do you need it to get into a masters program? Probably. I would prefer to see something like www.czphx.com/index.html All portfolios should be online and optimized for mobile viewing.
You know what....
Most bad portfolios are filled with complicated and dizzy diagrams.
And the three that you suggested are all in this case.
Those who do not have the talent to create fantastic "shape" design tend to disguise their lack of design talent by complicated and dizzy diagrams.
A lot of idiots say the shape is just one part of architecture design and emphasize ridiculous "process".
But I think that is justification of those lacks design talent.
The final shape is the essence of all design.
If I were a hiring manager I would require all the applicants to include only the final shape of the buildings in their portfolio not the fxxking pathetic diagrams that make no sense.
It would be really interesting.
I bet most of the portfolio will look like pictures of elementary school students full of ugly design.
Everyone's portfolio is shit, we just all do shit work and live shit lives. Go do something else.
@londonfog,
Saying that "the final shape is the essence of all design" is incredibly short sided. A statement like that encourages a conception of the "artists as genius," a sentiment that was popular in the Renaissance era, but has since become laughable. Design thinking has moved on from this Great Man notion of history and production, and values intellectual rigor in the development of ideas and forms.
Even the most beautiful forms are born out of rigorous process. To simply declare that that form appears out the aether shows not only a lack of critical understanding of how form is made (a designer makes decisions that are influenced by a myriad of elements, even for a decision as small as moving a point from one one spot to another), but also a lack of interest in design.
Furthermore, if you look at art, the close ally of architecture, you will see that process – that thing you accuse "idiots" of practicing – is the paramount in the production of provocative and sexy work. To put it simply, process is sexy. Form cannot be sexy on its own, but when put into a larger context, it becomes rich and interesting.
I would suggest you reconsider your position that process is a way of masking bad design. Not everything has to look alike. And nor should it. But design should show development and maturation, as it is indicative of an engagement with larger issues.
++forzametro
londonfog,
I think you may just be biased from seeing too many bad diagrams. Yes, inscrutably complicated diagrams won't help a portfolio one bit. But diagrams that convey information simply, clearly, and effectively are one of the more impressive things that can go into a portfolio, and are actually pretty tough to design, imo. Diagrams, buildings, anyone can design a bad one.
Believe it or not, showing an employer how you arrived at a design gives him or her a hell of a lot more information about your way of thinking and your attitude than handing them a picture of the result would.
Insufferable is the word that comes to mind. Very talented, but insufferable.
Guys, what about this:-
https://issuu.com/sogkarimi/docs/ali_karimi_portfolio2
P..S.: Its not mine, just found it on issuu.
Wasmuth
What's your favorite building? Dumb question OP... There is never such a thing as "the best"