ouch.
why is it so painful to look at old curriculum vitaes that you did back in the past?
at least for me, it is. ick.
and the scary part is that they only begin to improve around 2001.
–> 1995′s was well-intentioned and creative, but, like, ick.
–> 1996′s was a fatal embarrassment, padded to no end. then again, i was an IBTC member then (and kicked out later), so this might not be a coincidence.
–> 1997′s was slightly less-bad than 1996′s, but still bad. at least you could see that i was making an effort.
–> 1998′s was a slight step up and pursued a different presentation approach, but it was needlessly overformatted.
–> 1999′s was novel in concept, but novel is worthless when the dimensions aren’t 8.5×11. but hey, it was the dot-boom, and it got me a job, so who knows?
–> 2000-2001′s was also oddly-dimensioned, and it was a slightly better-executed spinoff of the previous iteration, borrowing from the look and feel of my small agency’s branding.
–> 2001′s was probably the first good c.v. i did, but i chose for the “list” format when i should have just picked some descriptions for the most important experiences and run with those.
–> 2002′s is probably the first time that i can come back to my c.v. and in good conscience, know that it isn’t a dog (and though the c.v. is real, the names and personal stuff have been changed to keep the guilty party from being known). in fact, i know that, as a creative director myself, i’d be compelled to pick up and scan it over, especially that printed version on the special white stock called Stardream Quartz. mmmm, i [heart] Stardream Quartz.
the combination is also prolly why agencies have phoned back. still, we’re in a horrendous, recession-riddled market for the kind of stuff i do, so it’s all relative. or something.
send me back to skool. please.
* * *
curiously, my first c.v. was made in 1991 as a high school project for my marketing education class. you’d think i’d have figured out the way to make one of these. but what no one ever talks about is that writing a c.v. isn’t an impartable skill.
well, not exactly.
for instance, you can teach a person how to move the pieces on a chess board, but you still haven’t taught them how to play chess, see.
similarly, this tenet applies to creating a good c.v. it’s why my eyes roll askance whenever i see a display of “writing the resumes that knock ‘em dead”, or “resume writing for the woman professional” and other silly, untired catch-titles.
it’s an art. like learning to play an instrument, or learning how to direct or produce a visual piece of work. plain and simple.
but if it were so simple, then why did it take me nearly twelve years to figure this out?