I often wonder what exactly the limitations of a portrait can be. Does the definition begin and end with a literal, physically derived depiction of a person or can it extend to include others forms? Could a prison or social security number be an accurate representation of a given person? How about the sound of their voice? Or a particular symbol that perhaps provokes the image of a person, such as a white wig might recollect Andy Warhol? Is the actual likeness of a person of more importance than the "idea" or, for lack of a better term "essence" of that same person?

I also question who or what, in fact, a portrait is about. The preconceived notion seems to be that the portrait is "about" the subject or object or "sitter" opposite of the artist. I would argue, however, that once the artist achieves a certain fame or status a portrait rendered by them becomes less about the subject and more about the artist them self. While Andy Warhol's portrait of Mao does indeed include the leader's likeness and, it has been inferred, holds significant underlying meaning beyond a simple physical representation of a person the portrait itself, as an object, could be said to be representational of a "classic Warhol." At this point the subject of the portrait becomes less important than the name of the artist. As soon as the artist’s style is apparent to an audience the subject could be anything so long as the artist has put his or her hand into its creation.