[HPforGrownups] How ?alive? are paintings?

[marilyn at gehennom.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 69729

Colin (ravenclawblack) wrote:
> 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)

I agree with what others have said in the past that JK wouldn't bring
back Sirius, even in the form of a painting, because she has been rather
adamant in her portrayal of death as so irreversable.  It is interesting
to me as well, though, the fact that Phineas and the other headmasters
especially are such fully-developed characters as mere portraits; people
that Dumbledore spends evenings with, and presumably he gets advice from
and discusses important matters with them.

I'm currently hypothesizing that the better the portrait artist and the
more skillful spells and artistry, money (?) and time goes into the
creation, the more lifelike it will be.  I have absolutely no evidence
to back anything up, but my gut feeling tells me that the subject of the
portrait must be alive in order to create anything truly similar to the
person as well.

Did other people have any ideas about how the portrait process works?
It's a fascinating concept, imo, and one of my favorite little details
from the WW.  :)

--marilyn

-- 
http://marilyn.suburbanjihad.net/
	"Who do you imagine wants to attack children like yourselves?" inquired
	Professor Umbridge in a horribly honeyed voice.
		"Hmmm, let's think..." said Harry in a mock thoughtful voice,
		           "maybe *Lord Voldemort*?"