On 8/4/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
To me, everything you said above is what makes a portrait a ~good~ or ~great~ portrait. It's what a portrait artist (in whatever medium) strives for. However, I stick by my guns that a portrayal of a human or animal is sufficient to be a portrait in the loosest sense of the word. Mind you, I'd never take you to task for your position. You're entitled to it, and it's a most reasonable one. You're allowed to like it. <vbg> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
