PPP Portfolio and Golden Studio interview
Last week I received a DM from a lady called Catherine from Leeds based studio Golden (@togetherwearegolden), to say some representatives had attended our Out of Context exhibition for the COP practical work. This was the first I had heard of the studio as was a very affirming message to receive. She asked for my portfolio which of course instantly inspired panic as I didn't have one at all but I said I was updating it and would send it over asap. This was, of course, perfect timing due to the upcoming portfolio crit that happened yesterday and allowed me to get it all sorted way before the Tuesday. Golden replied via email a day after I submitted last Thursday to say they would like me to come in for an interview, which I attended this Monday just gone... a quick turn around. The interview itself went okay, I felt like the two representatives liked my work and thought my type was engaging and interesting. However, I fully didn't know how the practicalities of their studio worked, in part due to them having no information about it anywhere apart from a hugely outdated website with little to no information on it and their Instagram which was a far more promising sign of the type of work they do. A branding studio really, it turned out they had no direct work with primary typographers but instead, all dabbled in type. I had assumed that they must work with typographers per the projects that came in so this was a bit of a wake-up call and has made me reconsider how type-based I want my portfolio to be. Perhaps I should have two, one for type foundries and type lead studios one more for general branding and graphic design practices. I could tell by the end of the interview and asking my own questions that I wouldn't be a perfect fit at the studio based on the work I showed which is a shame because I do feel I am very versatile despite always being most interested in type.
Anyway, after my first proper excursion into the world of interviews and portfolios, I felt well prepared for the feedback of peers on the Tuesday session. Having already written rationales for most projects the prep mainly involved sorting out my formatting and employing a grid as well as playing with borders and placement of self-branding. My first effort from last week was a fair way off being perfect:
I liked the idea of a consistent border to in part match with a decorative first page but upon peer critique last week the border round just the images is odd and detaches the type from the context. Also, some slides had far too many images that distracted the viewer and made details very hard to see. The personal branding at the bottom corners and empty top made the general composition very off balance.
Taking these reflections on board I had to make a few changes before shooting it off to studio golden. The first was a formatting change as I went from standard A3 uniformity to a much wider and narrower digital display that suits a MacBook or other widescreen laptops of computers at around 16:9. This helps ensure that the fullscreen fits the entirety of a digital display. However, when I arrived at the interview they had printed my portfolio out on a4! but allowed me to show it on my mac anyway - this is definitely something to consider further. I also changed the borders so that any colours backgrounds spread across the entire composition and the icons were in the bottom left and top right to balance it. The text became fitted between two bookends and centralised within the border. The CV section was moved from the start of the slides to the end and in general, components had more room to breathe. In future, I would like to only use my own type for the informational text as well but in the meantime, I used the ever legible and classic Baskerville. As the majority of my projects featured suit a white background I thought it made a lot of sense to have colour appropriate background throughout as the slight inconsistency would only add to the interest. Below is a few of the pages:
When it came to class feedback the comments were predominantly positive, especially with regards to the personal branding which was really nice to hear.
The first question I asked the critters was (in the context of typography) is there enough variety within the type and its applications? To which the answer was pretty much entirely yes, the only caveat discussed was around the border either being too distracting or one person suggested customising it for each project. I could envisage this second point working on a level, for example, the logo of the commissioner or a semiotic related to the project could fit into the top right corner. Over elaboration is also something that I've thought about, I should try having a half borderline maybe that only goes halfway along each side.
The first question then lead perfectly into my second question which was pondering whether the border decoration is too much. Some reviews suggested that it wasn't and is complimentary whereas with the leading question in place a few people said maybe it was a little overpowering on some slides due to the decorative nature of the type with is a fair comment although I feel like the elaborate layout is a take it or leave it kinda thing. Again it was suggested that the top right symbol could go to help ease the issue so I need to play around with this.
The third and final question was on the slight inconsistency in the grid layout to which most responses were 'no its not an issue'. But it was suggested that I should stop changing the background colour, a fair comment but one that I think is more down to taste within reason. Personally, I found consistent background portfolios boring and inappropriate on certain slides. It was suggested that I should go fo the most simplistic layouts possible due to the elaborate type and borders which is very true and a principal I have stuck to on most layouts but not all.
The second round of questions was more general a quickfire. With sensible suggestions such as my full graphic educational CV not being necessary, some pictures needing to be retaken e.g. UPPERCUT and in context specification snaps for SOLACE. Also, a question was raised about the hierarchy and whether the central rationale is too overpowering an element that should definitely be ironed out a bit.
Anyway, after my first proper excursion into the world of interviews and portfolios, I felt well prepared for the feedback of peers on the Tuesday session. Having already written rationales for most projects the prep mainly involved sorting out my formatting and employing a grid as well as playing with borders and placement of self-branding. My first effort from last week was a fair way off being perfect:
I liked the idea of a consistent border to in part match with a decorative first page but upon peer critique last week the border round just the images is odd and detaches the type from the context. Also, some slides had far too many images that distracted the viewer and made details very hard to see. The personal branding at the bottom corners and empty top made the general composition very off balance.
Taking these reflections on board I had to make a few changes before shooting it off to studio golden. The first was a formatting change as I went from standard A3 uniformity to a much wider and narrower digital display that suits a MacBook or other widescreen laptops of computers at around 16:9. This helps ensure that the fullscreen fits the entirety of a digital display. However, when I arrived at the interview they had printed my portfolio out on a4! but allowed me to show it on my mac anyway - this is definitely something to consider further. I also changed the borders so that any colours backgrounds spread across the entire composition and the icons were in the bottom left and top right to balance it. The text became fitted between two bookends and centralised within the border. The CV section was moved from the start of the slides to the end and in general, components had more room to breathe. In future, I would like to only use my own type for the informational text as well but in the meantime, I used the ever legible and classic Baskerville. As the majority of my projects featured suit a white background I thought it made a lot of sense to have colour appropriate background throughout as the slight inconsistency would only add to the interest. Below is a few of the pages:
When it came to class feedback the comments were predominantly positive, especially with regards to the personal branding which was really nice to hear.
The first question I asked the critters was (in the context of typography) is there enough variety within the type and its applications? To which the answer was pretty much entirely yes, the only caveat discussed was around the border either being too distracting or one person suggested customising it for each project. I could envisage this second point working on a level, for example, the logo of the commissioner or a semiotic related to the project could fit into the top right corner. Over elaboration is also something that I've thought about, I should try having a half borderline maybe that only goes halfway along each side.
The first question then lead perfectly into my second question which was pondering whether the border decoration is too much. Some reviews suggested that it wasn't and is complimentary whereas with the leading question in place a few people said maybe it was a little overpowering on some slides due to the decorative nature of the type with is a fair comment although I feel like the elaborate layout is a take it or leave it kinda thing. Again it was suggested that the top right symbol could go to help ease the issue so I need to play around with this.
The third and final question was on the slight inconsistency in the grid layout to which most responses were 'no its not an issue'. But it was suggested that I should stop changing the background colour, a fair comment but one that I think is more down to taste within reason. Personally, I found consistent background portfolios boring and inappropriate on certain slides. It was suggested that I should go fo the most simplistic layouts possible due to the elaborate type and borders which is very true and a principal I have stuck to on most layouts but not all.
The second round of questions was more general a quickfire. With sensible suggestions such as my full graphic educational CV not being necessary, some pictures needing to be retaken e.g. UPPERCUT and in context specification snaps for SOLACE. Also, a question was raised about the hierarchy and whether the central rationale is too overpowering an element that should definitely be ironed out a bit.
Comments
Post a Comment