What do you think is 'Photographic Portraiture' ?

[Cage]

I brought this up in another thread, since closed, but I am still none the wiser as to just what constitutes 'Photographic Portraiture.'

The Olive Cotton Award for Photographic Portraiture .... http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/olive-cott...24-gxhr4y.html

If you look at the winning entry, you will possibly see the reason for my confusion. I googled 'Portrait' and 'Portraiture' to get a better understanding of what the competitions guidelines may have been.

Portraiture seems to involve the act of creating a portrait.

Merriam-Webster defines a Portrait thus:

Definition of portrait

1... picture; especially : a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face

2... a sculptured figure : bust

3... a graphic portrayal in words

The other dictionaries all more or less follow the theme that a portrait is a recognisable interpretation of the subject.

The artist, Justine Varga, was quoted as saying ... "She was quite bemused that I asked her to inscribe on the negative and basically spit on it," she said. "You know, she's my grandmother. She's not really into that sort of thing."

Her winning entry, Maternal Line, may have 'artistic merit', but I fail to see how it can be considered a portrait, and one that can be identified as a representation of her grandmother, without an accompanying description. Surely Photographic Portraiture doesn't need an addendum to tell the viewer what they are looking at.

What do you think?

[Tannin]

The phrase "a portrait is a recognisable interpretation of the subject" seems to sum it up pretty well.

It is unwise to insist that a portrait be recognisable in any particular way (e.g., in the same way that a passport photograph must be) and I can imagine a perfectly valid portrait that captures recognisable aspects of a person in a highly abstract way - but note that even here they key word "recognisable" remains.

For example, if you could photograph the way Person X laughs (not what they look like when laughing, what the laugh itself is like), then I'd regard that as a perfectly valid portrait, provided of course that the work is recognisable as a view of Person X. Far-fetched example? Of course. But consider what some of the greats in ages past have done with abstraction. Think of Monet's random-looking dots on canvas: his ostensible subject is often near-unrecognisable, and not even important, but his real subject - light itself - has never been shown so clearly and vividly.

[jim]

Well, beyond being produced by some sort of photographic process, and having as its main point that it reveals something of the nature or character of the sitter, I don't really see why you need to worry too much about definitions.

[Cage]

Well, beyond being produced by some sort of photographic process, and having as its main point that it reveals something of the nature or character of the sitter, I don't really see why you need to worry too much about definitions.

I don't worry to much about definitions, but after viewing the winning entry I felt I needed to update my understanding of what constitutes a portrait.

Jim, if you viewed the portrait , could you please explain to me just what it revealed to you about the nature or character of the sitter.

[jim]

I hadn't seen that particular work before, and having done so I confess to feeling a little lost. Mind you the resolution of that image is very low. If I saw a better reproduction no doubt all would become clear.

[bobt]

Well, according to the APS Rules, "A photograph is a visible image originating from the action of light or other forms of radiant energy upon a photographic medium or device." The definition of portrait is less clear as it doesn't separate portrait and people (which to me is a little too ambiguous). That definition says " People/Portrait (P) - A photograph of a person or persons that may range from a head study to fill body length. This section includes candid photographs and formal portraits." I would have thought that "portrait" could be a bit wider than that because I think you can create a portrait of someone in a less structured manner than suggested by the APS rule.

I guess each competition organiser can specify whatever definition they like, and I'm not sure what the parameters were for that "photograph" you mentioned, or whether that "image" actually complied. Judges have been known to accept images which are not really legitimate.

[MissionMan]

My personal take:

1. Judges are a bunch of morons
2. It will have an impact on entrants who will be annoyed at how the judging was handled and won't bother to enter again
3. Judges are a bunch of morons (no matter what their interpretation of a portrait is)

[feathers]

If it was a people's choice award, l'm sure the outcome would have been different. But l don't mind creativity either, so another category needs to be in there somewhere, when the presentation is so obscure. Can't see how both can live in the one room, vying for the same prize?......
As is. this pic could take out any category

[farmmax]

No, I couldn't by any stretch of imagination call the winning work a "portrait". Obviously my imagination must be extremely lacking

[ricktas]

I find it really hard to see that as a portrait, even as some sort of expressionistic aspect of the subject. Considering the photographer told her grandmother what to do on the photographic film, and the grandmother initially did not want to, the resultant 'portrait' does not give us any insight into the grandmother, her life, or her passions, in any way.

A photo of a flower then telling me it is a portrait of a life long enthusiastic gardener would at least give me something to think about and relate to the gardener.

I suppose though if I was running a competition and wanted some free advertising in the SMH, picking a winner like this one would certainly get me a lot more exposure than I could afford to pay in advertising. Ah the cynic in me comes forth.

[Hamster]

To me, outside the context of a wildlife competition, a portrait is a picture of a human, not another type of animal. Am I being too narrow in my definition?

[ameerat42]

To me, outside the context of a wildlife competition, a portrait is a picture of a human, not another type of animal. Am I being too narrow in my definition?

No, because you said "to me".

To me, however, the idea of a "definition" as such, could be problematic.

In the case of the picture in question - Er [cough] did I say "picture? [/cough] - my ultimate rationale
is: WHACKO!

[Ionica]

" Portrait " - what portrait?

[bobt]

If I saw a better reproduction no doubt all would become clear.

So if it was clearer then it would become clear? That's pretty clear. I'm glad we cleared that up!

[Hamster]

No, because you said "to me".

To me, however, the idea of a "definition" as such, could be problematic.

In the case of the picture in question - Er [cough] did I say "picture? [/cough] - my ultimate rationale
is: WHACKO!

Good point re the "to me" part.
I think I'll just look at the entries in the upcoming portrait comp over in Fremantle and see if, to others, the portrait definition includes non human images.

[arthurking83]

I'm thinking; solid proof that global warming is having an adverse effect! Almost certain to be a result of heat stroke affected judges!
What infernal brain fading conditions were they forced to operate within, is my initial thought here ...

Anyhow .. confirmation that the world is getting madder every day.


I reckon Rick got it in one ...

.... I suppose though if I was running a competition and wanted some free advertising in the SMH, picking a winner like this one would certainly get me a lot more exposure than I could afford to pay in advertising. Ah the cynic in me comes forth.

[Ionica]

Good point re the "to me" part.
I think I'll just look at the entries in the upcoming portrait comp over in Fremantle and see if, to others, the portrait definition includes non human images.

Looked at this out of curiousity, and this is their definition ( under Rules and Regulations ) .


" DEFINITION OF A ‘PORTRAIT’ FOR FiPP and FiPP-Phone 1 ) Entries must feature an image in which a human being (or more than one), or part thereof, is the key element. 2 ) The image may range from a head to a full-length study or depict a part of the human form. It may include accessories and backgrounds in character with the subject. 3 ) Ideally the portrait should show some aspect of the personality of the subject. 4 ) A self-portrait is acceptable. 5 ) When relevant to the portrait's impact, text may appear on the image, provided that it does not serve to identify the author "

[jim]

Their definition of a portrait is only relevant to their competition, though.

[Hamster]

Their definition of a portrait is only relevant to their competition, though.

So where's the universally accepted answer?
And yet again the photographic definition de jour comes down to the answer "whatever you want it to be"
Anyone else seeing a pattern....?

[jim]

Well, there isn't a universally accepted answer, but that doesn't mean that a portrait is whatever you want it to be. I have a fine award winning photo of a hoverfly buzzing some flowers that I'd be keen to submit, but I'm pretty sure that even the Olive Cotton Award wouldn't accept it as a portrait.

In fact I refer you to my first post on this thread as the definitive standard. Trust me.