>> Henry >> AnnSan >> Lovely composition, good use of black and white film. Nice shot! >> > >Thanks, Cotty - especially since you are not a fan of animal portraiture. >(in this case, more precisely, bird portraiture - is that your lack of >interest in > animals or just the use of the term for these portraits? )
Hmm. I have thought long and hard on this, but it still troubles me. On the contrary I have a great interest in animals. We have two cats that are as much a part of the family as they possibly can be. I'm fine with all animals, sometimes having to go into strange and wonderful enclosures and pens to film them. I have been nearly trampled by a camel. I have been sniffed at by a boa constrictor. I have been chastised by penguins. I am an expert at getting dogs to look quizzically my way. My bark has been literally taken as genuine and provides minutes of entertainment for the owner as he/she tries to figure out where the strange dog is. Yet, when I see a picture of a dog or a cat or a bird or an elephant, I have a real hard time calling it a portrait. It's not that I disagree with the dictionary definition. It's just that I wonder where the line is drawn? We had a charming picture of a ladybug (or ladybird as we call them here - don't ask) and so what if we had had a picture of a tadpole? Or perhaps some frog spawn? Or an amoeba? If we define a 'portrait' as a likeness of a person or animal, then where's the limit? I am not a religious chap. In fact although I was once a committed Christian for a few years when I was 18, I am now an atheist. Yet, I recognise that there are basically two types of life form on planet Earth: human beings, and the rest. Without getting too deep into this little can of worms, and trying desperately to stay on-topic, I trouble with referring to images of any member of the animal kingdom as a portrait. When I look into the eyes of a picture of a person, I have some idea of how that person lives, or has lived. Some 'bonding' for want of a better word. All humans feel a collective 'consciousness'. If I see a pic of a child with tears in its eyes, I know only too well, as does anyone, what that child might be feeling. What pain, anguish, or indeed elation and ecstasy, anything. Being a fellow human means that we at least have some sympathetic reference point, some ability to perceive a similarity. (I'm finding this difficult.) When I look into the eyes of a chimpanzee I don't get these feelings *at all*. Nor a bird, nor my cats. And certainly not a ladybird. I'm afraid if I were to be able to redefine the word 'portrait', it would not include the reference to animals, much as I do enjoy their company. No offence to anyone (or any animal) intended! I hope I haven't tread on any toes - it's late here. Gotta get some zees. Cheers, Cotty _______________________________________________________ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
