|
Welcome Clive,
I don't think your question is as impossible as some of those tackled elsewhere on the forum that have tried to answer such questions as "what is art?" but it has similar complexities. I have no trouble with a liberal interpretation of "portrait" but a quick review of earlier discussions will reveal little acceptance of anything outside the conventional use of the term. From a generally useful and practical standpoint it only presents confusion in the market place to raise or argue the question of what is or is not a portrait. The description does become important and is occasionally argued when a painting is placed in competition. And again, perhaps, when our work gets hung in the portraiture section of the Met. Otherwise, I'm not sure there is any useful purpose to qualify it.
Having said as much, I should note that a fine painting like yours can tell a viewer a lot about the subject and friends might recognize her as readily from this painting as any photograph or conventional portrait painting. I like to remind students that we often recognize friends from a great distance and often with their backs to us. While the usual tendency for the developing artist is to dwell on careful measurement, the slant of an eye, shading, and detail, when likeness is often much more about attitude, bearing, and overall disposition of the subject. As much as the mechanical skills are a critical need in portraiture, the ability to capture the whole of the person is prime. For this reason I like to show caricatures to demonstrate that likeness and character can often be achieved more readily by recognizing the special things that make people unique and that exaggeration may be more interesting than slavish attention to detail and risking an overworked and plastic quality.
|