>Does one really need to see a likeness of a person in order to know >something about that person?
I don't believe so. Your recounting of the cellist scenario illustrates this point well. However, to be pedantic, the definition (in internationally accepted terms) is as previously stated. It's how we each individually (and also as a group) interpret that definition that forms our opinions in the manner that we do. A photograph of a bow and a cello may well be described as a portrait, and there will be those that understand this, and those that don't. A traditionalist will perhaps challenge the example, offering only that there is no person present in the image, and so (by accepted standard definition) cannot be a portrait. Those of us with perhaps a wider, lateral rather than literal expectation of the definition (in fact *any* definition) will interpret accordingly, and react accordingly. IMO, there is no right and no wrong human interpretation of what a portrait is, or is not. There is only an internationally accepted lingual standard that happens to say that the likeness of a person or animal needs to be present in the image for it to be called a portrait. It's all a load of bollocks anyway. Rules are there to be broken. I tend to sit with the traditionalists, but like most people, I love the renegade. Doubtless we'll cheer the shot of the bow and the cello, if it appears, in any guise. As Frantisek often writes: 'Good light' 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 .
