Hi Frank ... Well, before getting it to what i consider a portrait, I'd like to say that I'm glad we don't always agree, and that we sometimes see and feel things from a very different perspective and POV. While i can't speak for you, I know that seeing some of your work, and understanding some of your views, has allowed me to "loosen up" a bit.
A portrait to me allows one to see someone's character, a bit of their soul, something of what makes them who they are. A picture of a face is not, IMO, always a portrait, just as much of a photo of something else, like a working man's dirty and bruised hands, can be a portrait, or the Erwitt shot of Cassal's cello, or, if you recall, my photo of Janet Chin's chair in her living room. In all cases, to some degree, we're seeing something of the character of the person, something that shows in some detail who they are and what they do. In this case I think you missed the boat on everything that I consider a portrait. I know that others on this list and elsewhere have a much different view on this, views that are similar to yours, and may even take me to task for my position. But, paraphrasing your comment, I rather like my position. Shel > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault > On 8/4/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Frank ... I don't see this as a portrait at all, nor do I see it as much > > of a snap, either. There's no eye contact, which, in and of itself isn't > > always necessary, but in this case I think it would help. PP has a very > > "goofy" expression on his face, his head is at an awkward angle, he shows > > no relationship to anything else in the frame or to the photographer, and > > the guy on the right has no relationship to anything else that might be > > going on, adding neither interest nor story content to the overall photo. > > Cropping him out may be a good idea. > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Shel. > > I rather like the photo. If we all agreed on everything, it would be > a dull world. I very much appreciate that you took the time to > comment. > > Why don't you see it as a portrait? I certainly agree that it's not a > "traditional" portrait, but it's the likeness of a human face, and in > loose terms, that certainly makes it a portrait in my eyes. > > What requirements do you require to consider a photo or drawing or > painting to be a portrait? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm very > interested to know your views.
