Since the National Portrait Gallery re-opened in recent months, the art world has flocked to enjoy the revamped facility. It has also sparked an age-old debate amongst critics regarding art, likeness and essence. In this article, Peter Lamarque explores whether we can truly capture someone’s inner character by their external appearance.

What is the hallmark of a great artistic portrait? A simple answer might be: the presentation of a true likeness of its subject. But that answer is far too simple, indeed altogether inadequate. Family snaps offer true likenesses of their subjects, but few are works of art. Picasso’s cubist portrait of Dora Maar is hardly a true likeness but is judged an artistic masterpiece.

What about Van Dyck’s Equestrian Portrait of Charles I (reminiscent of the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome), or Ingres’s lavish portrait of Napoleon on his Imperial Throne, or even Gainsborough’s portrait of Mr and Mrs Andrews in their country estate? Were the artists aiming for a true likeness? Surely not. They were in the business of flattery and aggrandisement. They sought to project an image of power, or status, or wealth, something that transcended the ordinary, that spoke of superiority. A mere likeness? No. Truth? No. These images are self-consciously exaggerated, a kind of fantasy. We might call them glorification portraits.