Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 4 / Art Start‑class
WikiProject iconPortrait has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconVisual arts Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portraits Vs Photographs[edit]

-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.

Merge with Portrait painting[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Add Smithsonian Education link?[edit]

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:

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 (talkcontribs)

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

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 Edit this page 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)Reply[reply]

Similar Article to Encarta[edit]

Certain sections are word for word copies of a similar 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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Portrait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]