No, Oscar, it isn't about flightless birds: it's about a sense of balance, of bearings.
There are recognized forms of portraiture that are dedicated to our furry or feathered friends and even, for all I know, to goldfish; that's fine, and insofar as it goes, perfectly laudable. Those who are into these esoteric forms of life and photography are all aware and highly cognizant of what makes them tick. (Ouch.)
There is no believable way to stretch that "winning portrait" to fit any sound definition of the portrait genre for which, basically, you are obliged to include the subject as a basic ingredient. If you abandon that, you could photograph a football and call it Beckham, and then find yourself getting sued by Rooney for invading his privacy and/or using his image without an existing contract. Do you see the problem when one abandons basic, common sense rules?
It's why anarchists are such dumbeffs.
;-)
Rob