Hi, I posted on a here a month or so ago asking people to critique my resume. Everyone was extremely helpful and I've come a long way since then regarding my resume. Finally firms are becoming interested but I want to make sure my portfolio is sufficient when they do reach out.
I am hoping this is a print and show and not a submission portfolio.
Even so you need to curate, a lot.
A full page spread for a title or single image is unnecessary in either scenario.
You've got some great stuff, particularly the axonometric diagrams, but you need more organization. Pick the most descriptive images only. It's not a cd set, just get the design message across in as few pages as possible.
ilovearchitecture
Jul 31, 17 9:13 pm
I have no idea why people use gradients as a graphic tool.
archietechie
Jul 31, 17 10:34 pm
Ok I'll bite:
- Your projects show potential, unfortunately the graphics/illustration is detrimental to said potential
- Minimize page count by compiling and scaling your partis to a few pages (instead of spreads)
- Renders need more work. I'm aware you may perhaps not be too used to PS, try simpler renderings + linework.
- Don't leave your elevations "floating" on the background. At least draw the ground line
- Color palette needs serious consideration
- ^ With all that said and done, layout needs to be reconsidered too. Goes without saying it should be standardized too, the draft you showed sadly isn't
danielkragskov
Aug 1, 17 5:30 am
A few comments, had some time to actually read through all 95 pages.
It is way too long even for a printed portfolio. Especially considering the abundance of drawings not working, together with the fact that your layout uses double spreads as a title and still leaves little to no white space for the actual architecture.
In terms of projects, I honestly think they are all way too big in scope. At this point I guess this is too late to change unless you have some projects not included at the scale of a single house or maybe even a shed or piece of furniture. To me it shows no understanding of scale and your plans are all very strange. At first I was kinda okay with the performing arts center but when looking at the plans they are neither functional nor aestheticaly pleasing.
You have a love for diagrams which is okay but you overuse them which defeats the point of the diagram. You ought to be able to show the main idea of the project with one diagram.
In your theoretical statement on architecture you promise a lot. I would have expected some examples of data mining, complex Grasshopper productions or some projects with digital fabrication to show your understanding of technology as a tool and necessity. However, this is not the case and as such you don't deliver what you promise. I would go with a more humble approach, because I guess you really have good intentions. The research done with the stadium is actually quite nice and simple and leads to a strange but actually interesting stadium. The way you show this research is a big mess though.
Align verticals for renderings and spend more time on drawing plans. Think about materiality earlier on in the process. All of your projects lacks tactility and sense of basic interaction with light as medium.
Lastly, get rid of the Google project. It is just really bad.
Sorry if it comes off as harsh, but I just want to help you out a bit. Feel free to ask for more specific things.
Hi, I posted on a here a month or so ago asking people to critique my resume. Everyone was extremely helpful and I've come a long way since then regarding my resume. Finally firms are becoming interested but I want to make sure my portfolio is sufficient when they do reach out.
ISSUU Account: https://issuu.com/zaidqumhiyeh...
Thank you for your time!
1. Too many pages, I closed the tab at p.13
I am hoping this is a print and show and not a submission portfolio.
Even so you need to curate, a lot.
A full page spread for a title or single image is unnecessary in either scenario.
You've got some great stuff, particularly the axonometric diagrams, but you need more organization. Pick the most descriptive images only. It's not a cd set, just get the design message across in as few pages as possible.
I have no idea why people use gradients as a graphic tool.
Ok I'll bite:
- Your projects show potential, unfortunately the graphics/illustration is detrimental to said potential
- Minimize page count by compiling and scaling your partis to a few pages (instead of spreads)
- Renders need more work. I'm aware you may perhaps not be too used to PS, try simpler renderings + linework.
- Don't leave your elevations "floating" on the background. At least draw the ground line
- Color palette needs serious consideration
- ^ With all that said and done, layout needs to be reconsidered too. Goes without saying it should be standardized too, the draft you showed sadly isn't
A few comments, had some time to actually read through all 95 pages.
It is way too long even for a printed portfolio. Especially considering the abundance of drawings not working, together with the fact that your layout uses double spreads as a title and still leaves little to no white space for the actual architecture.
In terms of projects, I honestly think they are all way too big in scope. At this point I guess this is too late to change unless you have some projects not included at the scale of a single house or maybe even a shed or piece of furniture. To me it shows no understanding of scale and your plans are all very strange. At first I was kinda okay with the performing arts center but when looking at the plans they are neither functional nor aestheticaly pleasing.
You have a love for diagrams which is okay but you overuse them which defeats the point of the diagram. You ought to be able to show the main idea of the project with one diagram.
In your theoretical statement on architecture you promise a lot. I would have expected some examples of data mining, complex Grasshopper productions or some projects with digital fabrication to show your understanding of technology as a tool and necessity. However, this is not the case and as such you don't deliver what you promise. I would go with a more humble approach, because I guess you really have good intentions. The research done with the stadium is actually quite nice and simple and leads to a strange but actually interesting stadium. The way you show this research is a big mess though.
Align verticals for renderings and spend more time on drawing plans. Think about materiality earlier on in the process. All of your projects lacks tactility and sense of basic interaction with light as medium.
Lastly, get rid of the Google project. It is just really bad.
Sorry if it comes off as harsh, but I just want to help you out a bit. Feel free to ask for more specific things.
Good luck :)