Wizard Photographs

[grey_wolf_c]

No: HPFGUIDX 42365

mariahisabel wrote: 
> Anyone have and answers/ideas for me?

You've just have to ask... Let's see what I can up with in the spurr of 
the moment. /Dulce est desipere in loco currente calamo/, I like to 
think.

> Which brought to mind another question for me.  How did these 
> paintings get drunk off chocolate liquers?  Were these drinks painted 
> into another painting and therefore they just went and picked them 
> up? 

I'd say that for christmas and other special hollydays Dumbledore must 
arrange some painter to paint assorted delicaties for the paintings. 
These tidbits are hunged all over the castle and the paintings go 
around choosing their favourites. The rest of the time, however, they 
can't be allowed to eat food from other pictures, since it could cause 
trouble (if someone ate the ticklish pear that allows entrance to the 
kitchen they could have big trouble, after all). I'd say that I 
wouldn't like the pictures to eat my favourite "Dead nature" pictures, 
even if they aren't providing entrance to some place, anyway.

> That of course leads to more questions...
> 1) Since these paintings can drink somehow, does this mean they need 
> to eat as well?

Don't confuse "can" and "must". I'd say that the pictures of people    
*can* eat and dring but *don't have to*. That is, they eat only for the 
pleasure of it. They can't change from what they were painted, so no 
amount of chocolate will put any pound on their frames, and spending a 
year without eating or drink won't kill them.

> 2) How do they procure their food?  Is it painted within the picture 
> or can they exit their frames and eat "real" food and/or bring 
> something non-painted into their picture?

As I've said previously, I'd imagine that there are specially prepared 
pictures for them to eat. I'd discount being able of introducing real 
things into the picture dimension, since it could cause some very heavy 
consequences (consider that the magic picture dimension works in three 
dimensions, while we live in four[1]).

> 3) If the food is painted into the picture itself, does it last 
> forever, always reproducing more or does a painter have to come and 
> add more food every now and then.  I would think either way would 
> cause problems, someone can't constantly be repainting pictures and I 
> think eating the same meal over and over again for eternity (because 
> presumably paintings can die) would be very tiresome.

I'd imagine that the food is consumed and the picture needs to be 
replaced. On the other hand, as I've said, I don't think the pictures  
*need* to eat, so a prolongued absence of food woudn't hurt them 
(unless they had been painted while being hungry, of course, but in 
that case I don't think any amount of food would help anyway).

> 4) I know the paintings can move from one painting to another, there 
> are many examples of this throughout the books, but do you think they 
> can step completely outside the frame into the real world?

No, As I've said, I don't think they can cross the fourth wall into the 
four-dimension universe from their three-dimension one[1].
 
> *sigh* So many questions and virtually no answers.  The sad thing is 
> that this whole topic probably has nothing to do whatsoever with the 
> plot lines for the next three bookds and yet several people are 
> avidly discussing it. Oh well, have to have something to talk about 
> while waiting for number five right?:)
>
> mariahisabel

Um, mariahisabel, I should point out that this discussion is being 
great fun, which should be one of the prime reasons for participating. 
My score in out-guessing JKR is so low over the first four books that 
it's a mathematical certainty that she will continue to surprise me. 
Thus, I realised a long time ago that most of our discusions -fun as 
they are- are going to miss the mark by a wide stretch. It's nothing to 
worry about. In fact, it's sometimes even more fun to discuss something 
that we will never be able to solve since, if we solved it, what would 
we discuss about?

> I wrote:
> > Grey Wolf, who hopes there are no Picassos or Munchs in the WW, or 
> > else that they're non-ultra-realistic styles are not used to create 
> > living pictures.
> 
> to which Frankie said:
> I am now going to have nightmares about Francis Bacon, thank you very
> much *Gray* Wolf. Perhaps the nonrepresentational artists in the WW
> would create large canvases of perpetually shifting areas of color.
> That could be very soothing, actually... [emphasis mine]

Gray Wolf? *Gray* Wolf? Ohmygod what have I done to deserve that? Would 
you like me to call you Frankia? Hum? ;-P

Hope that helps,

GrEy Wolf. Not "Gray", not "Wolfe". Grey. Got it? Grey.

[1] In case you're wondering, our four dimensions are the three 
dimensions of space and the *time* dimension. The magical pictures only 
exist in two dimensions of space, and of course time. Strangely enough, 
normal pictures *can be considered* to exist in only two dimensions, 
since -if properly consevated- they won't change in time.