I am always intrigued at the definition of a portrait, an age old question maybe, but still unanswered. To many the definition of a Portrait is an image of a person, simple eh, but when we look at art nudes and in particular a figure study the question becomes more of a mystery.
So, following this logic an image of a torso surely cannot be a portrait as the subject is anonymous, its basically a body part.
Ok, lets include the head but use lighting or a viewpoint that conceals the identity of the person, still anonymous so still a figure study. Easy. But is it ? At which point does the subject become a recogisable person, an individual with a sole and not just an object for art or a subject for artistic appreciation ?
There is another school of thought that preaches that for an image of a person to be a portrait then the subject must be fully recognisable and maybe even with eye contact to the viewer, in which case is this a portrait ...??
... or these ??
If you are still with me you may be asking where this is going, and also who really cares ... good point.Well, actually I care for one simple reason. Going back to the beginning I shared the view that a portrait is simply an image of a person, and this I agree with, at least when I am creating a 'portrait' for a client or a friend, and it's that word 'person' that is key. To me a portrait needs to show the character of or something about the person, it needs to be personal, it needs to portray their personality or their lifestyle be it real or fantasy. And to achieve this whether or not they are recognisable or fully visible is not important, what is important is does the image tell me anything about the person, their life, or their fantasies ?
This recent shot of model Joceline does not allude to her as a person, well, apart from me happening to know that she has a passion for sitting on old tree roots in the buff and going all windswept but that's for another day !!
Now take another model Raphaella, these were shot for my portfolio as a sample of a style of portraiture, whilst to me this does represent her romantic character she is actually modeling so arguably it is an acted rather then real personality, but so what, a portrait can be fantasy.
And finally some natural and personal images of Jelly, a student (at the time) who wanted to try something different, no posing, no pretending, just Jelly being Jelly seeking liberation through a nude photo session.
4 comments:
Interesting examination of the portrait.
But must the portrait always be an image of a person?
Years ago, I submitted a print to a group exhibition. It was a simple black & white study of three calla lilies titled "3 Callas". Yet in the exhibition program, where the image was printed on the fronts-page, it was titled "Portrait of 3 Callas". Surprisingly, the change in title brought about a change in my perspective. I understand most people will continue to classify only images of people as portraits. However, since the title change, I often tend to view still life studies of various objects as portraits of those objects. Why not?
Can a photograph of an object with said object as the clear subject of the photograph be considered a portrait? By the way, I never knew if the change in the title was in error or deliberate. Regardless, it provoked an interesting response.
Something to stir the pot a bit more...
Bill, thanks for adding a touch of confusion ...
According to Wikipedia ...
"A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant",
but think I may be with you, does not the word come from the term 'to portray' ? at least the term Portrait does apply to pets and other animals ??
"Bill, thanks for adding a touch of confusion ..."
I do what I can... ;)
I'm in agreement with the root term portrait meaning 'to portray.' And yes, pets and animals can be and have been portrait subjects since art has been around. A friend of ours is writing a book on 'rescued' or 'shelter dogs' and asked for us to provide a 'portrait' of one of our dogs for the project. Note she didn't ask for a picture; she asked specifically for a portrait.
However, not being one to always add confusion, I tend to classify my own works, sans faces or people, as a 'study' or 'studies.'
Interesting discussion guys and one close to my heart. I reckon a portrait is about the person being photographed, and a "good" portrait should capture a natural expression and "look like them" On the other hand I don't think a model headshot is a portrait as it probably does not look like the person, it probably has hair and make up and retouching that make the image not look like the model. A shot of Harrison Ford playing Han Solo wouldn't be described as a good portrait of Harrison Ford, but it could be described as a portrait of Han Solo. Lastly I've heard top class glamour and model photographers critise images by say "its just a portrait" meanin the photographer has made a portrait of the model rather than taking a "model" shot.
Post a Comment