moving pictures ... paintings vs. photos

[Matthew Dawdy]

No: HPFGUIDX 19700

I just has another thought on the moving pictures.

A painting takes longer than a picture.  So, a picture is pretty much a one
frame snapshot of someone's life -- how they are feeling in the picture
indicates how they were feeling when it was taken, probably.  Happy, sad,
etc -- one emotion or state of mind.

A painting takes so long, they are bound to go through plenty of other
emotions during the sitting.  Which gives the characters in the paintings
more depth if you will.

Take Sir Cadogan for instance -- he is an overly exaggerated character.
However, while he was being painted (in full armor, etc) imagine the
thoughts running through his head.  "I AM the hardiest knight in the world!
I RULE!"

If this is true (and it by no means is proven or anything else), then would
it be possible to start a painting while someone was a baby, put strokes on
it over a period of many years, and then the painting really would embody
most of what that person is like?  It would be interesting if there was one
of Lily and/or James.  Then Harry could really sit down and get to know his
parents.  Or maybe not -- if the transfer of the persons experiences only
took place at the precise moment that the brush was moving along the canvas,
then no way.  No continuity.

I don't know -- half baked idea.  Anyone else have thoughts?

Matt