The Definition of Portraiture

I have always maintained the belief that one cannot possibly define art, I thought the same of portraiture. However, through the selection of my chosen portraits, I noticed a collective theme; the sitters are all distinctly identifiable. I had not chosen one portrait in which the representation of the sitter had appeared in some abstract form, each portrait was a literal interpretation of the subject, serving as a point of reference.

A portrait is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “A painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders,” but surely it cannot be so simply defined, summarised in a sentence of no more than 20 words? No, I do not share this ideal that the complex art of portraiture can be pinned down to such a precise and claustrophobic definition.

I believe the difficulty in creating a categorical characterization for portraits is the simple fact that every person’s beliefs are entirely unique. Our definition should celebrate these differences, not limit it to a fixed idea of what a portrait must be to us.

Personally I much prefer art historian, John Gere’s definition, “an image in which the artist is engaged with the personality of his sitter and is preoccupied with his or her characterization as an individual”. In this way a portrait becomes much more than just a painting of some arbitrary person, rather a complex relationship between sitter, artist and viewer, the living attributes of an individual. It is also widely believed that some portraits come to reveal more of the artists themselves, than of the actual subject of the portrait.

Many factors influence the direction a portrait takes; the relationship between artist and sitter, are they friends, family, lover, stranger, patron client or the artist themself? Has the portrait been commissioned? Who is the painting for and why is it being painted? These questions play a pivotal part in the process of better understanding...