Good News, bad news, navel gazing.

Since the point of this blog was to work things out without annoying my friends & neighbours with meandering drivel, I thought I would slap a post together to talk about my portfolio. Also, before I forget, I'm delighted to say that the School of Architecture and Landscape Archtitecture has asked me to put together a submissision for the 2007 Canadian Architect Student Awards of Excellence. Only downside? Putting together the submission.

Okay.

Now I've finished my thesis, the next step is to find a job and to do that I need to put together a portfolio. Usually I just slap stuff together, but since this is a big-girl job, I want to put a lot more thought into it. While I was in the States this weekend I purchased a VERY expensive portfolio case, so now what is in it needs to be of equal quality.

I want to include work from four or five semesters. My first semester is a write-off -- not only is the work jejeune (I love that word), but a computer crash in the middle of my second semster has destroyed the few files that I was able to produce and the work was not adequately photographed. I don't see this as a great loss.

I am definately going to include my thesis project, and will likely devote twice as many pages to it as to my other studios as it was essentially a year long project.

The middle studios are the Power Studio in the beginning of third year, the Comprehensive studio I did with JBass, and the Process studio with Pat. While the Comprehensive and Process studios focused on one building in particular, the Power Studio had relatively little emphasis on the building as final product so the project is not very resolved.

I'm trying to find similarities between the projects so I can use a consistent layout. I have found that aside from an obsession with people-scale in buildings, I produce similar kinds work to represent my projects.

• Diagrammatic Process work. Power studio has puzzle pieces to look at relationships between furniture, Comprehensive studio has a million chipboard models, Process used collage and physical models and Thesis used drawings (and later 3-D models). I produce many similar iterations to chose between for each of my projects. One of the ways to represent this could be to have a side-bar for each of the projects that shows the iterations next to each other. One thing to consider, however is that it doesn't really matter how you get to a project: it's much more important to show the final process. That's a little confusing. What I mean to say is that while I have a brazillion cardboard model images leftover from my comprehensive work, they are not useful in a project because they do not adequately describe my final project. They are significantly different from the puzzle pieces from the power studio which were part of the final presentation.

If I want to look at my obsession with iterations, the puzzle pieces from the Power studio, the louvres from the Comprehensive studio, the articulations from the process studio and the charts from Thesis should suffice.

I could also look at each of those things in terms of human dimensions: while the puzzle pieces may be a stretch, the louvres, articulations and charts are all investigating the relationship of architecture to the human body. I have diagrams for this for the comprehensive and thesis work, but I don't think I represented this properly for the process studio, and I'm going to have to dig to find it for power.

So, let's say that for every studio there should be one or more diagrams showing how this design relates to the human body. (archigeek pauses to write this down in her moleskin, deploring her lack of internet at home) There are existing diagrams like this for my first vertical studio as well that investigated existenzminimum (w/Jwo) which might be worth including.

What else do each of my studios have?

• Repetitive elements. Is this true? It's linked to the human-scale thing if it is. Power has a giant axo of the cage-thing that supports services, Comprehensive has the obessesively repeating louvres, Process has the glass panels on the inside elevation, Thesis has the material study and detailed ground plane. Does the JWo studio have this? It has the buckminister fuller dome, which I suppose counts. I guess I should draft up a CAD version of this, and then I can use the louvres, cage, glass panels, ground plane and dome CAD work as a grey-scale line drawing as an underlay for the pages from each studio.

So (archigeek reaches for her moleskin) each studio needs to have a line drawing of this small & repetitive element.

What else?

• Perspectives. I like 'em, you like 'em, everybody likes a good perspective. They describe a lot and are pretty. Including these is a no-brainer. I should have enough good ones that I can show two for each project.

• Models. Each project has at least ONE model. Some have two. Whenever there are two models, one shows material details and human scale while the other shows the extent of the project and some site. Power, Process and Thesis have two models. Comprehensive and JWo are the exception: JWo has a detail modeled and rendered in Maya, which should be adequate. Also the JWo maya model is scaled to the hand: it shows connections. This is understandable given the size of the project, but it doesn't fit properly. Comprehensive is a little tougher. I did produce a detail model but it was really ugly and I'm not sure if I want to include it.

This needs more thought (how many posts have I ended like that?) but I'm going to let it percolate while I hit yoga. I may find some answers there or at least a clear path to a cohesive design strategy for this damn portfolio.