Talk:Portrait

This page is much to cluttered with images--The_stuart 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

40px This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aly Casillas.

{{small|Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}

==Portraits Vs Photographs==

-Most people consider photographs as more practical than portraits, yet certain philosophers and writers expressed a sense of nostalgia towards painted portraits. In his novel The Journey of The Fool, Fady Bahig puts on the tongue of his protagonist those words:

... portraits, with their blurred edges fall much closer to the heart of the beholder than photographs with their well-defined edges. Portraits have always given me the feeling of perceiving people as eternal or as manifestations of eternity, as if I have been familiar with them for the whole eternity that preceded my essence.

The Portrait page is cluttered and disorganised. Portrait painting seems to be much better in both aspects, and I can't see a real reason for the separation of the two pages. I propose merging Portrait painting into this, a more general page on portraits.

Jameshfisher 11:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• When you see the history of this article, especially the revision as of 09:32, 3 February 2006, you will find a reason for the separation. "this is about portrait, not about painting". In fact Portrait painting has been created to save the information that had been removed by this edit. Merging the two pages into one again seems a good idea. -Koppedia 07:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

:*I propose we rename Portrait painting to History of portraiture or similar and keep it as a sub-article of Portrait. Sandstein 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge The two articles are very separate and should stay that way. --211.29.198.148 07:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge in as a section, it's absurd for a (historically probably the) major graphical art discipline concerned not to have one Fastifex 11:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge --- Portraiture with Portrait
• Don't merge --- Portrait Painting and Portrait

:I think it would have been more clear to have different discussion pages. Portraiture is merely the process of creating a Portrait. Portrait Painting is one of several processes. SteveHopson 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge --- Portraiture with Portrait WiiWillieWiki 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge -- Separate concept. TonyTheTiger 16:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes _Smithsonian in Your Classroom_, a magazine for teachers. An online version of a recent issue titled "Portraits, Visual and Written" is available for free download at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/portraits/index.html

Mark Twain and Louisa May Alcott are the focus of this issue. Students compare National Portrait Gallery images and postage stamp portraits of the authors with written self-portraits.

If you think the Wikipedia audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs)

When i click on the "self-potrait" link it goes staight back to portrait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.242.16 (talk • contribs)

:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the {{MediaWiki:edit}} link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Sandstein 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Certain sections are word for word copies of a similar [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559633_2/Portraiture.html Encarta article].I haven't had time to go through and check exactly which sections are identical, but I know the Baroque/Rococo section is. I would suggest that this be cleaned up and re-written. That, or Encarta should be contacted over a possible copyright infringment. I would also suggest contacting User:Koppedia

--Chris Lloyd 02:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was "Depiction" redirected to this page?!?!!? Depiction is a much more general term than "portrait," even if it does happen to have a particular meaning within painting.

The article needs to be given an overall flow. As is, it's more of a collection of random bits that haven't been made to fit together into a nice, clean, readable whole. Ben Aveling 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is a statue or a bust a portrait as well? I was under the impression that only 2d works, primarily paintings, could be called portraits (perhaps the word portrait if a false friend to the Polish portret...)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

:No, in English a work in any medium can be a portrait, though often a phrase like "Portrait bust" is used. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Portrait. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=686142488 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724131845/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2211142,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2211142,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Has this page been vandalized? John Mark Wagnon (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:yup - reverted. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)