My point is that in the human case at least, besides the two initial requirements that I have said a portrait must meet — physical delineation and indication of interior states — there is a third condition: the subject consciously presents a self to be conveyed in the resulting artwork. And I baulk at saying that animals (or animal portraits) can fulfill this third requirement. For in addition to presupposing that an animal can actually have a self-concept, in addition we are expecting the animal to sahre with us some concept of artistic representation. Even if the former possibility is realized by some (presumably advanced) animals, as I think it is, I do not believe that any animal can present itself to an artist with the aim of posing for or taking part in the creation of a portrait.

 

       On the first point, it does seem claer that many animals are self-aware and possess some sort of self-concepts. Scientific researchers hold this to be true of some among what we often call the higher animals, such as dolphins, chimpanzees, and perhaps elephants. At least one elephant has been able to pass what is now the standart measure of such self-awareness, the mirror test. ‘The mirror test asks something quite hard’, says Patricia Churchland, a professor of philosophy at the University of California at San Diego. ‘The animal has to say “I’m here, that is a perfect replica of me, but it isn’t me”.’

 

       On the face of it, however, it seems implausible to impute even to these animals enough self-awareness to be able to recognize the nature of the interaction and the general aim of portraiture. Animals simply do not create art, or at least, not this kind of art. In the case of animal portraits, the interaction between the two parties to the process will be quite different from the portrayal of humans. It is probably much simpler and, we might say, more one-sided, than it typically is in the case of most humans portraits. The photographer Jill Greenberg, an artist especially well known for her glamorous celebrity images, confirms this point in commenting about a project she undertook called Monkey Portraits. She found it difficult working with monkeys as portrait subjects in one way, since they could not communicate easily and got bored and distracted. However in another way the process was much easier, because they had none of her usual clients’ worries about ‘looking beautiful’ for the camera.

 

       If some response is brought by an animal to the portrait encounter and thus revealed in the resulting picture, it will probably reflect the particular and often unusual conditions of the portrait studio or situation rather than the animals’ aim of self-presentation in a picture. I would say just the same thing about portraits of very young babies, people in comas, or, in certain cases of elderly persons with severe dementia. The animal (or baby or adult) may display emotions about the encounter, such as anxiety under the bright lights of a photography studio, happiness about being with a companion at the center of attention, distraction by reflections off a camera lens, etc. Hence it might behave in the studio in particular amusing or intriguing ways. But his does not amount to ‘posing’.

 

 

FREELAND, Cynthia (2010), “Animal Self-Awareness and Self-Presentation” in Portraits and Persons — A Philosofical Inquiry, New York, Oxford University Press.