Since Antiquity portraits have been commissioned to represent important people, figures, heroes and gods. Over time, this artistic genre has evolved from the embellished Greek marble sculptures to contemporary paintings, photography and abstract works. While the specific aesthetic style of the portrait often varies over time, the main purpose of portraiture, has remained consistent-to depict the personality, characteristics or essence of a person or important figure by using the face as the dominant feature of the composition.

      The first known portraits can be traced back to prehistoric times (c. 30,000 B.C.E.) when men reproduced the outlines of their shadows as an attempt to preserve their memory in times of absence. Over time these depictions evolved into monochrome representations with simple lines and shapes, which now can be compared to the contemporary “portrayals” and abstract forms created by modern artists such as Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse. This collective work attempts to create a comprehensive outline of the history of portraiture illustrated in both painting and sculpture. In the hierarchy of art theory, the portrait was initially viewed inferior compared to history painting but superior to still life and other genre paintings. Throughout the history of art, theorists have occasion-ally been sceptical or critical regarding the issue of resemblance to the sitter, implying that the artist often portrays his or idealization of the subject. Despite this, the immense number of surviving portraits suggests that portraiture was nonetheless a popular request by those responsible for commissioning artworks across the artistic timeline.

      Portraiture is often overshadowed by other styles and genres of art. Art that qualifies as narrative painting or sculpture is almost always more appreciated amongst the masses than the black and white portrait of a political figure or famous artist. Perhaps this occurs because people assume that a portrait does not directly appeal to the imagination or tell a particular story. The differences between a portrait and a narrative piece of art can be compared to that of a novel and a biography. The first focuses predominantly on plot and action, while the later is more concerned with the development and analysis of a specific individual. Therefore a biography could be considered flat in comparison to a novel that is full of dramatic scenes. However, depending on the nature of the writing itself a biography can be just as fascinating and compelling as a novel. Evidently, in the same respect, a portrait that has been painted in such an exemplary and skilful manner can be just as insightful as an illustration of a particular myth or story. Knowing some background information regarding the identity of the sitter often impacts the accessibility of the portrait, because the spectator instantly recognises the subject and can therefore compare their understanding of the person with the particular representation. But even the portrait of an “unknown” subject can be so charged with meaning and depth that the visitor cannot help but be intrigued. A great portrait artist can illustrate a story so effectively that sometimes a precise title is not even necessary. Therefore, Titian's (Tiziano Vecelli) Man with the Glove, Rembrandt’s (Harmenszoon van Rijn) Portrait of a Man located in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Diego Velasquez’s Lady with the Fan may appeal to us even more powerfully than many of the identified portraits by these same masters.

      The first quality of great portraiture is the power to reveal the inner character, or story, of the sitter. It is said that every man habitually wears a mask in the presence of his peers, and it is only in moments of unconsciousness that he lets it down. The great portrait painter must be able to capture the true essence of the individual, an incredibly complex task given that the spirit of the subject may only reveal itself in fleeting moments. Such an artist, as the poet Tennyson describes, “pouring on a face, divinely through all hindrance finds the man behind it, and so paints him so that his face, the shape and colour of a mind and life, lives for his children, ever at his best.”

      The goal was not only to portray the subject’s physical characteristics but the entire essence of the individual, Aristotle stated that “the goal of art is not to present the outward appearance of things, but their inner significance.” Interpretative portrait painting was often modelled after Leonardo da Vinci’s famous Mona Lisa. The mysterious nature of the Mona Lisa’s facial expression gives depth to her character – the spectator is instantly intrigued and desires to know what she may be hiding. Therefore to attain this level of portraiture, the artist must become cognizant and sympathetic to the spirit of the subject. In addition from a compositional standpoint the Mona Lisa symbolizes perfection, its precise proportions and use of atmospheric perspective also are responsible for its acclaim in the art world. Many portrait painters since, however far from attaining his ideal, have idealised da Vinci and utilised his work as inspiration. James Abbott McNeill Whistler’s power was remarkable in his own circle, while Franz Hals and Diego Velasquez were more universally recognised. Often the personality of the sitter is revealed by a direct gaze that seems to encompass something fascinating about the subject. Whether delightful or solemn, the eyes of the sitter seem to draw the spectator in with a sense of “intimacy” that is difficult to break down and define. This quality is especially evident in the jovial nature of Hals’ portraits, the friendly smiles apparent within Joshua Reynolds’ paintings, the wistful stare captured in Rembrandt’s portraits, and the melancholy appeal within the paintings of Domenico Morone. At other times the sitter’s glance is averted, and he is quite unaware of observation. The artist has illustrated the sitter in the intimacy of his own self-communion; a trait that is often found in Titian’s subjects. Therefore the artist’s ability to depict the inner nature of the sitter became an incredibly subjective art. Initially when portraiture was only reserved for a specific social class, the aristocracy, the church and the upper middle class or bourgeoisie, it was necessary for the portrait to be a flattering representation of the subject. Eventually artists could freely express themselves in their own introspective manner when painting a portrait.

      Obviously the noblest revelation of character is in the artist’s idealization of the figure. When the painter can illustrate his understanding of the soul of the sitter, he fulfils the highest function of his art. Psychological insight is a second quality that is equally important in the portrait painter – the power to give lifelikeness to a sitter. In a dynamic portrait it should seem like blood is actually coursing through the veins of the figure. The spectator should actually feel as though they are looking at a breathing human being, not a painting nor a sculpture. There should be a sense of a real presence or even vitality and liveliness. At times this is achieved through the realistic portrayal of the actual physical traits however sometimes it is less concrete and vitality is achieved by the position of the sitter within the painting. In the early representations of military groups by Hals the figures are so alive that it seems that they could almost walk out of their frames and on to the floor next to the spectator. The quality is flawless even though the subjects are not restricted to a seated or constrained position. Velasquez’s portraits of Philip IV are exemplary of this idea, as they depict the sitter in a more relaxed position.

      The degree that physical resemblance should be valued as essential to a portrait is a matter of varying opinion. The original purpose of portraiture has always been an ostensible, if not real objective of the painter. In the beginning stages of portrait art there was little technique and usually the sitter or the group of sitters were easily satisfied because there were no previous comparable pieces of art. At this point in time, half the challenge was creating an accurate depiction of the person and their attire let alone capturing the essence of a human being. If the main characteristics of the facial features were visible and somewhat recognizable, the resemblance was considered a marvel. With the advancement of technique and style a more photographic accuracy was expected, much like the work of Domenico Ghirlandaio and the Jan van Eyck. Often portraiture was pursued for more practical reasons it wasn’t until later that artists chose to illustrate the portrait in a more aesthetic manner. This was the primary aim of the Venetians who believed that the decorative