On 4/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >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
I can see where Shel is coming from, and to some extent I agree with him. Take 'Portrait of Tofu' (next PESO from Frank) for instance. Because there is more than one person in the frame, are we to assume that the subject is the closest person to the camera? Is there any rule to say that it couldn't be one of the people in the background? Yet a portrait of a person does not preclude there being anyone else in the frame. Questions..... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
