I have not taken a geometry class in at least 7 years, and I believe I got the definition of a vector confused with that of a ray.

As it applies to Andrew Bush’s interesting, unique work ‘Vector Portraits’, it would be just the opposite — the ‘vector’ of the title correctly refers to a defined magnitude (the stopped action captured in the camera’s frame, and the corresponding distance the car traveled) and the concurrent direction of the photographer and the subject.

Your interpretation of the title misses the point of the imagery and supersedes the possibilities of a photograph. With such a title Mr. Bush implies he has made an portrait of someone during an instant of a journey. If one were to ponder, it is just as easy to do so going back as going forward, i.e. ‘driving on and on’. To imagine where the subject ‘was’ as much as where they ‘will be’. But, in a photograph neither is valid. A two-dimensional vector as well as a two-dimensional photographic image, is a representation of reality, nothing more and nothing less. They don’t tell us anything about what happened before or what will happen in the future, much less about what is happening in the photo. I think that is why Mr.Bush called it ‘Vector Portraits’. To look behind or ahead, well, that’s outside the frame, outside the properties of a vector and way outside what a photograph can do.