What makes a great portrait?

To many people it’s how well the artist copies the face and captures the light and the surrounding atmosphere.

It’s all about making an accurate copy of a face and skill and techniques dominate the assessment of success (for both the artist and the viewer).?

However, if it is just copying a face, why isn’t everybody able to do it??

Many people can and do, but it takes skill, persistence, time, resources and many other factors. So whilst there seems to be lots of people who can, there are still people who don’t manifest their creative dreams..

But look at it differently.

If a portrait isn’t primarily about copying a face. If your abilities and resources weren’t a barrier.?

Then what happens?

Some would think this a ridiculous notion. How can someone make a portrait without first having the skills and equipment. These are probably the same people that think that a meticulous copy of a face is all that is required.

So what if skills and techniques become a secondary factor (or even an unnecessary factor) in the pursuit to capture the soul of another human…

What then?

We see this all the time, we saw it with David Hockney’s portrait of Harry Styles. People couldn’t accept that this was the artist's response. There were cries of “charlatan” and “con man”, which sounded remarkably similar to what the salons of Paris would claim when confronted by what we call great work today.

It’s always going to be difficult to convince people that art is more than the marks on the paper, particularly with portraits, although resemblance to the subject no matter what is often people’s first judgement.

But here’s the thing.

If merely copying a face is the goal, where will it end up???

Anybody in theory could learn to do it.

Bloody Ai will do it.

If you’re an artist start first with your emotional response and if you’re a viewer think first that what you are looking at is the unique emotional response of the artist.?

Great portraits aren’t what you think they are.