Brief
My passion is designing meaningful and memorable experiences—online and on ground. I have 15 years of experience in web development and visual design. With backgrounds in technology and design, I implement solutions for creating meaningful and memorable user experiences. I bring the value of design thinking to the forefront of strategic planning and collaboration. Though, I've been an artist for much longer...
graphite. 2005
seedlings. graphite. 2004
Process of mural for Bowling Green State University. 2005
some flowers. 2007
Luidhardt family mural. 2009
Indian Springs, Calistoga, CA. 2006.
With experience in full-stack development and the most popular content management systems, why would I decide to use Adobe Portfolio to exhibit my work? Well, its limitations and price are perfect. Since I thrive when working creatively under tight constraints and budgets, and salivate over opportunities to experiment with anything Adobe-related, I wanted to give it a go.
Education
I have a Bachelor of Science in Technology (Visual Communication Technology program) from Bowling Green State University. 2010
I attended the Masters of Fine Arts (Design Management program) at Savannah College of Art and Design. 2011-2016. Earned 95 of 100 credits. I had one remaining class: thesis; but life caught up to me and had to focus on my career.
How I am; how I want to be...
I used to conduct interviews. One question I liked to pose was, "What three adjectives best describe you?" Other variations of this question are "How would previous employers (or colleagues) describe you?" Although there is significance in the latter question, I wanted to know how this interviewee thought of themselves. My affinity for this question gave me a glimpse of the candidate through that all-too-useful Johari Window. A number of observations stick with me still to this day. One such behavior is that people tried to answer quickly—perhaps as a result of their academic conditioning during youth. Another observation was the fact that their answers were always one-word adjectives. When a candidate described themselves as "motivated" or "candid," I couldn't help but wonder how motivated and how candid? Then I started asking follow-up questions to elucidate why they thought of themselves in these ways. An interesting pattern emerged during their explanations.
When telling a story to illustrate how a particular adjective befit them, the majority of candidates would accidentally shift their linking verbs (or auxiliary verbs) between past and present tenses. Since the situations and actions of their stories happened in the past, it was strange to me how they would confuse what happened with what is happening. Now, there are many ways to explain these interesting mishaps in spoken communication. One field might say they committed these mistakes due to the fact that they made up the story on-the-fly; it was a fiction manufactured in order to answer the question and warrant their choice of adjective. Or perhaps the interviewees experienced some emotional sensitivity to specific details of their stories, and hadn't yet reached closure. Another possibility is their discretion in word choice was momentarily inhibited due to opportune embellishment. Mind you, there were embellishments in virtually every interview; however, those disqualifying cases occurred much later during questions of past projects.
At any rate, there didn't seem to be sufficient motive to deceive their (novice) interviewer on a couple follow-up questions tangential to their aspired job positions. And their stories didn't allude to traumatic experiences. They were there to tell me who they were and how they might execute the responsibilities inherent the jobs. Even though the candidates exhibited this past-present shift, many of them deservedly made it through all interview tiers and were hired for those position. As far as I know, they still write elegant code, catalyze brand recognition, and epitomize true leadership qualities. I'm proud of them. So why might honest, well-meaning people mix up was with is when describing themselves? Quite honestly, these were honest mistakes...
Firstly, psychologists' research into belongingness reminds us that we crave acceptance of the communities in which we operate (and aspire to operate within). This is especially true when applying for a job. Secondly, cognitive psychology demonstrated for us that we tailor our responses to what we think is acceptable. So, it's natural for people respond with what they think might sound appealing when rendering a perspective of themselves in hopes of acceptance. Thirdly, we are constantly evaluating ourselves: abilities, accomplishments, skills, and relationships. And we evaluate ourselves for the purpose of determining fitness, which translates to survivability. It's always comforting to know we can reasonably assure ourselves that we'll be able to eat, drink, and reproduce—or participate in acts of its rehearsal. So how does this explain transposition of past and present?
It seems a matter of reconciling self-perception, mixed with wanting to be perceived by others in a manner warranting our acceptance. It's hard to separate our current and former selves, especially when we want to express how we will be. "I've always been this way; therefore, I am what I was." Therefore, explaining who we are at present based on who we were, mysteriously, yet predictably, blends with who we want to be in a given context. Moreover, it's no wonder why people had trouble explaining their past self with their current self.
Alas, audacious absolutes cull critical caveats. Contrary to this rationalization might be the fact that a former alcoholic or addict would describe themselves quite differently today. "I was an alcoholic." "I am a recovering alcoholic." "I will not be an alcoholic." Or perhaps a prospective hire might parse their quality as, "I was a perfectionist." "I am not a perfectionist." "I will never be a perfectionist." And another candidate might describe, "I was spontaneous." "I am not spontaneous." "I will not be spontaneous." It seems my little theory is relegated only to my curiosity surrounding those interviews. Ergo, a qualifier is necessary—or perhaps I will leave it to theorists more lettered than I.
All that said, who am I? In short, I am what I was and what I want to be (now my head hurts). One-word adjectives aren't descriptive enough; they're vague and prone to cliche. I went through each and every project in which I participated over the last 14 years. I even considered my qualities during my early years through present. I asked friends, family, and colleagues—old and new. The most frequent adjectives emerged. Just as specificity hones accuracy (If you don't believe me, then just sit in on scientists discussing papers at a conference or review committee), qualifying adjectives better describes their pervasiveness and limits. This is the most accurate and timeless way I can depict myself, if not a tiring and long-winded way to permit use of compound adjectives.
When presented with a problem to solve or mitigate I was, am, and strive to be:
Candidates that didn't quite make the list, for various reasons: Information sponge (I'm sorry?), Problem Hound (yeah, better I find it than a stakeholder), Walking Analysis Machine (I cant help it!), Conversationalist (that's a noun).