Portraits

Pentax MZ-5 Pentax-M 28mm f/3.5
HP5+ @ISO400 in XTOL 1+1 12m 20C

med_U27021I1550467725.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Yokosuka_Mike said:
New meaning to what a portrait is!

Anything goes, yes? No? Maybe so?

Mike
Click to expand...


There is no definition of the word "portrait". See the famous portrait of Gandhi by Cartier-Bresson. On this portrait you see Gandhi's back from a distance of about ten meters, not his face. Could not be used for a passport photo. Nevertheless it is a great portrait.

A portrait can also be a picture on wich the person himself can not be seen, for instance a picture of the the M2 that was used by Nick Ut.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
There is no definition of the word "portrait". See the famous portrait of Gandhi by Cartier-Bresson. On this portrait you see Gandhi's back from a distance of about ten meters, not his face. Could not be used for a passport photo. Nevertheless it is a great portrait.

A portrait can also be a picture on wich the person himself can not be seen, for instance a picture of the the M2 that was used by Nick Ut.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure you're right, carry on, do as you please, enjoy; I know you will.

All the best,
Mike
 
Erik van Straten said:
There is no definition of the word "portrait". ......
Click to expand...

I respectfully have to disagree. Like all artistic definitions it is broad but certainly not all images of people are portraits. Artistic educational materials and common usage gives us some characteristics that classify what is and what is not. My quick take is there are some commonly accepted characteristics.

* A portrait is an image whose specific purpose is to convey information about an individual or individuals. Not their environment, not their clothing, not some specific object in the image, but them.

* There is some level of agreement and cooperation between the subject and the artist. This can be momentary but the subject must be aware.

My comment should not be construed as anything negative about the images in this thread. Only that some of them may not fit the definition of "portraits". But I love this thread because it gets members thinking about photos of people.
 
A great essay on the subject in British Journal Of Aesthetics
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1093/aesthj/ayv018

One could think that it is over-restrictive to use the phrase for only a specification of an image of a person.
But then one could think it is instead an oversimplification to use it for every image of a being.

That said, I agree with the open interpretation of the word, and also its' metaphorical extensions, like Erik suggested.
 
Bob Michaels said:
* A portrait is an image whose specific purpose is to convey information about an individual or individuals. Not their environment, not their clothing, not some specific object in the image, but them.

* There is some level of agreement and cooperation between the subject and the artist. This can be momentary but the subject must be aware.
Click to expand...


With the first suggestion I agree fully, but with the second absolutely not. I am sure that you can make very good portraits of people that are not aware of being portrayed, not only on photographs, but also sculpted or painted. Many examples prove this.


Erik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom