Artstation : Showing progression VS keeping the best
polycounter lvl 7
Hey guys,
I'm currently wondering about a subject that I found not everyone agrees on.
Considering the special format of artstation, that is at the same time a portfolio, and a social network/art blog.
Would you rather keep pretty much everything you posted and let it show some progression over time, or once in a while sort through your artworks and just dump everything that's not close to your current level in the trash ? Do people even notice the date an artwork was posted on ?
Improvement VS consistency ?
This thread is not officially a portfolio review thread but feel free to comment on my stuff if you'd like. I already dumped half of the projects I had, but if I wanted to go on the consistency route I could throw another half of what's left and if I really wanted my artstation to reflect my current level, well my profile would be close to empty.
It's been 8 months since I posted something and the fresh feeling of pride for achieving a new piece that's stronger than the rest is long gone, and everytime I look at my own artstation now, all I feel is extreme cringe, hence that whole question.
I'm currently wondering about a subject that I found not everyone agrees on.
Considering the special format of artstation, that is at the same time a portfolio, and a social network/art blog.
Would you rather keep pretty much everything you posted and let it show some progression over time, or once in a while sort through your artworks and just dump everything that's not close to your current level in the trash ? Do people even notice the date an artwork was posted on ?
Improvement VS consistency ?
This thread is not officially a portfolio review thread but feel free to comment on my stuff if you'd like. I already dumped half of the projects I had, but if I wanted to go on the consistency route I could throw another half of what's left and if I really wanted my artstation to reflect my current level, well my profile would be close to empty.
It's been 8 months since I posted something and the fresh feeling of pride for achieving a new piece that's stronger than the rest is long gone, and everytime I look at my own artstation now, all I feel is extreme cringe, hence that whole question.
Replies
It just takes up space. Why should an art director care what you made back in 2006 or 1999, when they're clearly hiring someone to make 2018 stuff? You can already show progression in modern projects, by showing the complete breakdown and any iterations that took place (i.e, did your final model/scene end up more optimized compared to when the project first began? Did you originally start with multiple concepts and selected the most aesthetically pleasing/functional one in the end? Did you redo any textures etc).
I also noticed job interviews go by really fast, that spending time talking about your past work will just bore people to tears when you could be talking about all your modern skills/achievements that will prove more substantial in the studio pipeline. I think this is where a resume's purpose may finally be justified. All your old work should only be titles you shipped in the past.
for your gallery I would try to have it represent your current skill set, and audit out old work that you have blown past skill wise. I would leave that stuff documented in the blog, because it shows your progression for those who really wanna dig deep, but with your gallery it is the surface level "how good is this artist"
I would actually be impressed if I scrolled through 2 years of artstation blogs and saw all the old work, but then noticed it wasn't in your portfolio gallery. It would tell me you have the self awareness to audit your own work, and put quality first. But documenting your journey can provide value to others who can learn from your mistakes and experiences.
my 2 cents anyways.
In my case, I just try to post every new stuff I do, be it a substance render, be a 3d model, and then, when I feel like it, delete the stuff that makes me cringe, but that doesn't mean it has to be the oldest submissions.
Harsh fact, but true.
As a hiring manager, I'm trying to cut through the bullshit as fast as possible, make my judgement and move on. I have 30 other candidates to get thru after yours!
I'll look at your best, and at your worst, and figure your day-to-day talent level is likely closer to the lower end.
Best piece you likely spent a ton of time on, which is impossible in a real production setting. So that typically gets a lower weight in your "score".
Sorry it's not a rosier picture. Keeping it real folks!
We have some good articles about this process in the sticky at the top of this section: Game Industry Career Resources
There's no telling in which order someone may look at your work. They may start at the very end and lose interest half way through or they could google your name and it's your oldest work that shows up first.
Are any of the respondents here actually hiring people? Day to day? I don't think so, but please prove me wrong.
Seriously these replies paint the wrong picture.
Make a blog if you must. It's a nice way to connect with other entry-level artists. But it's going to be completely ignored by whoever is hiring. We just don't have time.
If you only read two articles about this,
What Game Recruiters Really Think About Your Application by Gavin Goulden
and/or
Your Portfolio Repels Jobs by Jon Jones
Don't be a lazy git tho.
Nope.
We'll start from the link you put in your resume (and it better be clickable, don't make me type dammit! do us a favor, make it a PDF.).
Then we'll scroll down the page, slowing on whichever pieces match our needs the best. Looking for the worst piece, cut to the chase.
If you make us click on pages, we'll look in one maybe two tops. But that's less time on your art, and just more chances for us to quit. On to the next!
I dunno, don't want to sound like a jerk. It's just the reality of how it works. You guys deserve it straight.
From what I saw I agree on the fact that there are so many applications especially for popular types of jobs, that this is literally impossible to make in-depth reviews for everyone. Most of the time just looking at the thumbnails of the work on artstation is enough for a nope.
I've had people in interviews tell me that in a good portfolio, it could also be nice to see older work to get a sense of how well and fast that candidate is growing. And that it could show a potential of even greater progression once in the studio. Guess that applies mostly to long-term oriented junior positions.
The whole point is to see that the candidate now has a better trained eye and is more aware of anatomy/silhouette/composition/materials/younameit.
But on the other hand, not removing weak stuff is also showing lack of awareness towards said artistic qualities, and degrade the overall impression of the portfolio at first glance.
Both points on their own seem to make sense.
What's your opinion ?
Not sure if its my best piece, I try to maintain a good level of quality across my work, I think the cuteness factor is creating a fair bit of bias towards the bloody creature.
Hope the outcome is good though.
Also depending on the studio I'm applying to I send in a few work samples that match their style and might interest them.
Perhaps they pop in to my portfolio and browse through the other work at the link, don't think there's any work there that might put them off.
Me thinks though that the best way to know if an artist is right for the job (provided other basic factors are met) = art test.
Also I understand the reality of "you are only as good as your worst piece" but sometimes I wonder if that is how it shouldn't be, and all of us should try as much as possible to show a bit of humanity towards every artist trying to be one of the greats.
I find it refreshing to meet an passionate artist that still sees merit and humor in Cool3dWorld style art and be a bit silly from time to time.
For every Michaelangelo, there's a Picasso, and I still don't get a Picasso, but I see merit in them.
So even if it might not be the best fit for the job, every chance I get I try to discover something I like in every work I see and motivate the artist in the process.
Mind you I'm not saying this as a recruiter that's inundated with a lot of applications, so I understand that the work load might make their job get on their nerves. But then maybe its the workload that's creating this unfortunate reality and something should be done with regards to that.
Its nice to be nice and build meaningful relationships in the process. Don't want to hire just a number. Who knows, might have some crazy collaboration down the line.
Its great to see good art, better to be a good person in my book.
Would that be useful to include in a portfolio? I guess it's something somebody could easily lie about... but if you interviewed the applicant and got the impression they were honest, would it help if you could see that they usually take x amount of time to finish such and such type assets?
Art tests will tell the studios what they need to know about how fast you work.