Frankly, I think a portrait goes a little deeper than that. Elliott Erwitt's famous portrait of Pablo Casals, taken without the maestro present, is an example that comes to mind. In this photograph there is no likeness of Casals, yet by photographing his cello and bow, resting on a chair in the room in which Casals often played, and by taking full advantage of light and shadow, we are able to see and feel the context in which Casals exists, and thereby get some sense of the man. Is this any less of a portrait than a head-and-shoulders shot of the great cellist.
The point of a portrait is, I think, to show us something about the person, to reach beyond a reproduction of a face or form, and allow the viewer to get some sense of the subject. The famous photo of a Texas death row inmate's hands through the bars of his cell reflects more about the man behind the bars, his environment and condition, than might have been captured with a more traditional portrait. Does one really need to see a likeness of a person in order to know something about that person? Cotty wrote: > > FWIW, my Pocket Oxford Dictionary describes 'portrait' as: > > 'painted, drawn, or photographic likeness of person or animal...' -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ "When a man's best friend is his dog, that dog has a problem." --Edward Abbey - 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 .
