On Oct 2, more than 6000 participants (humans) are gathering to create the largest portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Once created, how do we say this without bringing any ambiguity?

Gandhi's largest portrait was created by humans? (But then, only humans create/draw a portrait)

Human-made Gandhi's largest portrait in the world (But then, human made does not talk about what it is actually)

Humans shaped in Gandhi's portrait?

I'm clueless. What is the proper way to tell this?

| improve this question | | | | |

You could use "made up of people". "X is made up of Y" is a way to show the material Y is used to create X.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • 2
    It's Soylent Mandela! – Hellion Sep 30 '14 at 15:42
  • @Hellion I though about referencing that, but I wasn't sure how far reaching Soylent Green was. – Tory Sep 30 '14 at 15:51
  • It's a funny reference (to me, at least), but it really doesn't have the right connotations for the situation at hand anyway. :-) – Hellion Sep 30 '14 at 15:52

You could say that people are coming together "to form the largest portrait...".

But a sentence or two explaining how that will happen (i.e. human pointillism) would be in order.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • form or pose for – user6951 Sep 30 '14 at 20:47
  • 2
    Not "pose for". To "pose for a portrait" means that one's own likeness is being painted. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Sep 30 '14 at 21:44
  • Yes, it can have that meaning. But to pose in and of itself does not have to mean for a (self-)portrait. It can simply mean "to assume or hold a particular position.* So 6000 people could come together and pose (assume a position) for (for the purpose of) creating a living portrait. – user6951 Sep 30 '14 at 22:21
  • Although "to pose" might mean to hold a particular position, "to pose for a portrait" means to sit for the artist in order to have one's own portrait painted. That locution would be misleading here because these people are assembling, and their own individual features are not relevant. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Oct 1 '14 at 11:32
  • It might be that what these people are doing would fit a literal dictionary definition of "posing for a portrait", but if you said that a group of people are posing for a portrait, I don't think anyone would understand that to mean what is being described here without more explanation. It's the sort of statement you could use for a headline intended to be cryptic or amusing, and then explain what you mean. – Jay Oct 1 '14 at 13:22

Do you mean that these people are going to stand in a way that each makes up one "dot" (pixel?) in the picture, and so when viewed from a height the 6000 people will form a portrait of Gandhi? If that's what you're trying to say, this is a rare enough idea that there's no single English word to describe it, you'd have to explain it with a sentence or two.

If you're trying to write a few words that would convey EITHER the idea of people drawing a portrait or of people's bodies making up the image, you could just say "human-made". Or you could leave out the word "human" completely and just say "the largest portrait of Gandhi ever made". As you say, we generally assume a portrait is made by humans unless otherwise specified. (If a monkey drew a portrait or we found a portrait on Mars made by aliens, you'd need to specify that.)

If you're writing a headline, headlines are expected to be brief. You could make the headline ambiguous and then explain in the body of the article. Like, "6000 people to form huge portrait of Gandhi", then explain in the article.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • I mean what you said in the first paragraph. – Maulik V Oct 1 '14 at 4:32
  • Then I'd say something like I said in that paragraph. I don't think you can express the idea clearly in less than a couple of sentences. – Jay Oct 1 '14 at 13:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.