Portraits - Additional: Actors Playing a Role

[Donna]

No: HPFGUIDX 75027

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboy_mn at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboy_mn at y...> wrote:
> >
> > ...edited...
> > 
> >> Portraits are actors in two senses; they are playing the role of
> the person in the portrait and the are playing the role OF a 
portrait. <<
> > 
> > ...edited..
> > 
> > bboy_mn
> 
> bboy_mn:
> 
> I want to add some additional thoughts about how and why I concluded
> that protraits are actors playing a role.
> 
> Actually, I base this on enchanted photographs which are not as
> sophisticated, refined, or as subtle as portraits and therefore 
their
> action are a little easier to read.
> 
> You will notice that photographs in newspaper and magazine articles
> while they to to a small extent reflect the person in the photo, 
they
> more often reflect the content of the article. 
> 
> If Harry is pictured and portrayed as unstable, then the photo of 
him
> looks very shifty and menacing. In the articles that portray him in 
a
> good light, the photo takes on the demeanor of the rosy cheeked,
> smiling faced all-American boy, or in this case, the 
quintessentially
> clean cut, bring him home to mama, All-British boy.
> 
> Now encanted portraits which are much more sophisticated, and stand
> alone without the context of an article to influence them, so they
> retain more of the natural personality of the real person. But I 
also
> suspect that since they are actors portraying a role, they do to 
some
> extent reflect the world's perceived belief in who they are. So a
> wizard who was perceived to be evil, would reflect an essence of 
evil
> in his portrait. Although, I think that would be more hinted at, his
> real personality would dominate.
> 
> Just some additional thoughts.
> 
> bboy_mn

I think, and I could be wrong, but photographs, as Colin pointed out 
need to be developed in special solutions to make them move.  Move 
only not communicate.

With portraits, since they would be painted by wizards/witches, would 
be enchanted someway to reflect the personality of the person 
posing.  And it would definately have to involve a living person.  
How else would that person's personality be transferred.   I don't 
think that a "piece of the person" need be imbedded in the paint.  At 
least I don't recall that being said in any of the books.  Unless JKR 
actually said that in an interview, when a portrait is painted 
it "captures" the essence of the person at the time it was painted.

If you remember, in GoF, when Hermione takes Harry and Ron to the 
kitchens, she tickles the pear, it giggles and turns into a 
doorknob.  How do you explain that, if a pear is not a person?

Donna