A portrait shouldn’t aim at a realistic impression of the subject matter, but rather an interpretation of how the artist paints the subject. To paint truthfully and with dedication to one’s art is to interpret the subject matter, the model, the nature, whatever is in the painting.
When painting a portrait, I see myself as the camera lens that imprints my emotions, feelings, and thoughts about the subject, but in a subtle kind of way. The photo from which a portrait is produced is not the highest ideal; rather, it is the painter’s view and understanding of the person that he decides to “capture”.
In the “Sandcastle” (a novel by Iris Murdoch), Bledyard, the school’s art instructor, mentions in a conversation with Mor (the protagonist) that to give form to a human being, employing any medium, is to act as god and to attempt to capture the “divine”. He reasons that, because god created mankind, to depict a human being is akin to “playing god” in reference to his creation. Perhaps he is right, although it sounds like a parochial point of view.
We artists never strive to “correct god” or to mock the divine creation of all beings. To us, the artwork is meant to shine and bring out the best qualities of the subject on canvas, paper, or any other media.
So what is a portrait, in essence? Is it an interpretation, and expression of one’s emotions, a “re-creation”, or simply a realistic depiction of the model? Again, because art is so subjective, it could act as a multitude of functions, once it is complete. And every good artwork that stands the test of time is not intended to “recreate the wheel”, but to give rise to a particular voice in depicting a model in accordance with the artist’s desire to amaze mankind and posterity.