"Keep your portfolios short". "Don't show your process, show beautiful images of the work".
At the same time ...
"Focus on the process. The outcome isn't important". "Become better thinkers and not better software users".
It is quite surprising to see the co-existence of these completely contradicting statements in the same environment.
I have been asked, time & time again, to not include the depths of an undergone process in a portfolio. Yes, I do understand that there exists a difference between a project document & a portfolio but the sheer fact that we are being taught to design for our portfolios to "visually appeal" rather than appeal on other levels is quite contradictory to the teaching pedagogy followed in the college. On the other hand, there lies a mistake in studios as well as companies looking to hire. Why has this become the norm? This "appeal in 2 seconds or go to the trash" thought process has only led to more poorly designed outcomes.
It is because of this want to instantly fulfil a job listing that the world around us continues to design itself into chaos. If students were to carefully create & apply, if studios were to scrutinise and truly understand & if portfolios truly showcased the journey from nothing to something valuable, wouldn't there be a creation of more informed outcomes leading to a better designed world?
I am not arguing against the need of an aesthetic sense in the portfolio but isn't the content and process equally important for a studio to align itself with the kind of thinking the student is inclined towards?
I have always found it hard to walk this line between "not showing enough" and "showing more than enough." I believe, from an individual perspective, (and hope) that someone somewhere sees the merit in this ability to think and we collaborate on meaningful projects that transcend beyond visual jargon.