Re: How ‘alive’ are paintings?

[Indigo]

No: HPFGUIDX 69724

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ravenclawblack" 
<RavenclawBlack at C...> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I am curious as to everyone's thoughts on the paintings in the
> potterverse.  Until book five, I thought of the paintings a bit like
> automatons.  The fat lady was like a computer program that checked 
who
> could be let in the door, and the other paintings didn't do much.
>  But
> now, in book five, the paintings seem very lifelike.  Phineas
> particularly comes to mind.  Are the paintings like ghosts?  Can
> wizards choose to leave themselves behind in that form, or are they
> copies of the wizard's personality?  Can a painting be done while
> the
> person is alive, or postmortem?  (I'm thinking about Sirius here)
> 
> Anyway, I would like to hear what others think on this topic.
> 
> -Colin

I think they're more like Xeroxes of the personality.

You're forgetting in book 3 that the Fat Lady was so traumatized by 
Sirius slashing up her photo that she refused to be the Gryffindor 
entrance painting for a while and Sir Cadogan was the only one who 
would accept the job because the other paintings were too spooked and 
frightened.

Sir Cadogan also chased or followed Harry through paintings.

Percy's girlfriend ducked out of her photo when she got spots/pimples 
until they were gone.

Dumbledore's Chcoolate Frog card from book 1 was occasionally absent 
of its photo.   Which leads me to believe that's how Dumbledore knows 
so much.  I think he, still being alive, is in touch with his 
reproductions on photograph and canvas.

Gilderoy was too vapid and self-centered to be interested in these 
things.  

Fudge is too much of an ostrich to want to.

But there were a lot of examples of the animated paintings having 
minds of their own all through the series, IMO.


Indigo