>>3111338Next up, is the presence of the person (or people because group portraits are a thing) even necessary in frame for it to be a portrait of that person?
This leads to the question of what exactly is a person. It also leads to the question, even if we circle back to your simplistic assed definition of "photo with a person as the subject" how we capture this essence of person-ness. The presence of this abstract quality must then be the differentiator, which then speaks to how those images that I posted earlier aren't portraits, not because I dunno whatever asinine reasons you might have wanted to think up, but because they de-individualize the subject. They take away the individualization, the person-ness and replace it with a generic human shaped object. Which is what is going on in your photos.
>>3111336Because I'm here to entertain me.
