I haven't been following this thread, but Ann's response to Cotty has drawn me in.
If you had asked me a month ago, I would have sided with the curmudgeons who say a portrait must include a person. I say "include," and not "be chiefly composed of," because no one who has seen the arresting portrait of the famous pianist at the very edge of a photo of his piano could doubt that it is a consummate portrait. (The names of the pianist, the photographer, and the piano escape me. Anyone?) At any rate, Ann's response, as well as others I've glimpsed, have broadened my understanding of what a portrait can be. A closeup of the clasped wrinkled hands of a long-married couple? You bet. An animal? Absolutely. A shadow? If it showed a barber at work, yes. A shadow of an animal? If it showed a cat pouncing at its prey--at work, as it were. (For that matter, sleeping would qualify for a cat.) At the recent Bat Mitzvah dance, I took a photo of the shoes that the 13-year-old girls had doffed in close, haphazard formation before racing to the dance floor. I regret not taking a floor-level shot of their dancing feet. Would these have counted as portraits? In my book, yes. As Forrest Gump remarked, "My momma always said, 'You can tell a lot about a person by the shoes they wear.'" Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
