Does this count as portraiture?

[lukitas]

 

[lukitas]

 

[Vobluda]

No.
(10 char..)

 

[bgetty]

love these.

 

[yanchep_mike]

Yes, Why not. Animal (Pet) portraiture is just that.
And they are great shots, beautiful.

 

[Keith]

Most dictionaries define a portrait as a likeness of a person created by various methods, so I guess if you're going to split hairs you'd have to say no!

Forget the dictionary though because to me they are portraits in quite a unique way because these primates are our ancestors ... the creationists are free to disagree here!

 

[lynnb]

They're primate portraits.. and very good ones. Nice work!

 

[lukitas]

(snip)Forget the dictionary though because to me they are portraits in quite a unique way because these primates are our ancestors ... the creationists are free to disagree here!

Cousins, really. They'd have to be really old to be ancestors 😉

For me they are quite as fascinating to look at as human faces. I know this is completely irrational, but I do think I can guess what they are feeling, the sort of connection I get when looking at a photograph of a complete stranger.

 

[swoop]

No. A grown man standing by the glass for 45 minutes so you can get a photo of an ape while 37 children are trying to see an ape for the very first time is not a portrait.

 

[liamC]

Most dictionaries define a portrait as a likeness of a person created by various methods, so I guess if you're going to split hairs you'd have to say no!

Forget the dictionary though because to me they are portraits in quite a unique way because these primates are our ancestors ... the creationists are free to disagree here!

you are wrong.
they are not our ancestors.
we and they share the same recent common ancestor.😀
if you go back even more years, we share the common ancestor with this guy as well.

 

[squareshooter]

I believe this is what them young whippersnappers call a "selfie."

 

[helen.HH]

Yes I view them as 'Portraiture' ... 😉
Sweeeet !

 

[Keith]

So which one is the real movie star here?

Clint or Clive? 😀

 

[Jack Conrad]

Ooh. Ooh. Ooh. Primates are people too. 😛

 

[noisycheese]

Yes, Why not. Animal (Pet) portraiture is just that.
And they are great shots, beautiful.

What he said. 😉

 

[Uncle Fester]

lukitas... How in the hell did my baby pictures come into your posession???😀😀😀😀😀😀

 

[Shirley Creazzo]

you are wrong.
they are not our ancestors.
we and they share the same recent common ancestor.😀
if you go back even more years, we share the common ancestor with this guy as well.

Well, that sure made him laugh!!

 

[Shirley Creazzo]

So which one is the real movie star here?

Clint or Clive? 😀

Okay keith, I choose the one with hair on his chin. More manly, you know? [And look at those bedroom eyes - like Robert Mitchum's.] See that smug smile. Clive knows who's who. Clint just looks doubtful to me.

 

[smiling gecko]

hmmmm...

hmmmm...

hmmmm, i do not recall the day you made that portrait of me 😱....you really made me smirk there 😀 ...
...oh we'll, just another day at the primate habitat for me. 🙂

seriously, i think they are marvelous portraits, not just documentary rendering.

breathe, relax and enjoy. 😀 😛 😀
laugh more, smile more...i know i do every time i get near a mirror.
smiling gecko, aka kenneth, aka "hey you, with the camera"

 

[lukitas]

Thank you for the lively debate. grunt. Nice to see such diverging opinions. Huh Hoo Hoo HOO!
I especially liked this one :

No. A grown man standing by the glass for 45 minutes so you can get a photo of an ape while 37 children are trying to see an ape for the very first time is not a portrait.

How about a grown man standing on a street corner for 45 minutes so he can get a photo of a human while 37 beggars are sizing him up for change. Does that count?
(looks around for feces to throw)