portfolioEntryValue = ( perceivedSkill / ( timeRequiredToFormOpinion * skillRequiredForAssessment ) )
So if it’s crappy work (low perceivedSkill) that anybody can see is bad almost immediately (timeRequiredToFormOpinion -> 0, skillRequiredForAssessment -> 0)… we end up with an almost infinitely valuable portfolio piece! Yay!
–
Been meaning to reply to this for a while, but I wanted to say this without sounding too silly, and pesky work kept stealing time away. Also, disclaimer, I say this as someone who is very much a generalist, and no expert on tech animation.
A renowned artist once told me that he sees a portfolio as a tool for answering all of the basic questions about the kind of work you can do. An excellent addition to a portfolio would be one which answers many questions while raising few new ones. In this case, I’m guessing the question you’re hoping to answer is “Does she have art eyes?”
With your aiming to be a technical animator, the way I believe this question would best be answered is using character poses that you’ve created using your rigs. It’s about whether you can sculpt a face, or a body part, using the controls in your rig, and allow it to hit truly appealing poses (!!!). If your rigs can’t do that, your animators are screwed. This would be a portfolio piece directly related to your work, and the most clear, direct application of why a rigger should have great art eyes. :D: I feel that, ideally, whether or not you have art eyes should be self-evident in the form of your reel! Sure, it can show some fancy tech, with sliders, and buttons, and automation. But really, it should show just as much (if not more) of the beautiful, sculpted poses. It’s not about whether a mouth can open or close, or brows can go up or down, but whether it can do this with all of the beauty, elegance and energy found in the one still frame of the scribbles of a 2D animator!
Your current reel breezes through the poses, so that it’s sometimes a bit of a blur as to whether something is a hit pose or an inbetween. With a bit of work, I think you could clean that up, make it much easier for someone to see poses without having to scrub a web video, and really work on those poses being able to look great. Get some animator critique if you can!
With the “art eyes” test presented in the form of 2D, the questions I end up asking are, “Why is she showing this in 2D? Is it because her rigging reel doesn’t show this well enough – in which case, why not? Can she see that pieces with very high contrast (especially blacks) all over end up making depth and 3D form much more difficult to see? Can she see 3D form? Does she know that these figures don’t have accurate anatomy? Does she know anatomy? If she doesn’t, would she still be able to make a competent rigger?”
That said, I think you’ve re-arranged your site since you started the thread, and they’re now in an “Extras” category, which is better than it was before I think. If you keep them in your portfolio, and you happen to be painting some new work to replace them, I’d suggest showing other artists and getting lots of critique, or posting the pieces on art forums (like polycount, where candid feedback is quite freely given).
I hope I helped.
pretty good, for a tech-artist!
I know it was a bit of a joke, but there are so many tech-artists that cover such a wide spectrum of technical art. I’d hate to think that technical artists are inferior, or have poorer artistic sensitivity, or aren’t good artists in their own right. Granted, there are those who don’t spend much time actually making art, but I’d hate for that to be the way that people see all of us, and I’d hate for us to see ourselves that way too!
I mean, I’ve seen portfolios of technical artists that do include some ridiculously awesome 2D work (granted, most of them have a good few years of industry experience to their names), and hell, they could totally get “pure” artist jobs if they wanted to. I’d like to think that these aren’t just one or two super special individuals. I hope I’m not wrong.