Wizard paintings (was: Something that has been bugging me)

[Klawzie]

No: HPFGUIDX 61374


--- wildfemnight <wildfemnight at yahoo.com> wrote:
> We all know that things in the WW are different.
>Pictures can move and  portraits can talk right? So
how  > come someone can't paint a portrait 
> of Lily and James so that Harry can talk to them?


Well, I have a pet theory on that, being an artist and
(unpublished) author of fantasy myself. :D

I think that wizard portraits are probably only
commissioned by important/famous/rich people
(ministers of magic, Hogwarts headmasters, etc). From
what we can infer, the Potters were important/famous
and James Potter or his family was probably well off.
So we'll say the Potters met those critera.

Now, since we're assuming the Potters have enough
wizard gold to afford a portrait there is at least ONE
thing they'd need:  Time to sit for the portrait. 

That's something I don't think they'd have had. (And
I'll get to why someone can't just paint them NOW in a
moment.) I mean, they were probably (at least in my
pet theory) helping Dumbledore fight Lord V. and the
Death Eaters (unless there was a better reason for
Lord V to attack them. Please don't change the topic
to why Lord V would want to attack the Potters unless
you change the title of this thread. :D ). Doesn't
leave much time for several hours' worth spending with
a wizard portrait painter.... It might not even be
very safe. 

Now, I don't paint much, but what I know of portrait
sitting is that it's always, ALWAYS better to know the
subject rather than to paint 'out of your head'. And
it's even better to have them in the studio while you
paint. It's possible that those people who knew the
Potters best can't paint. (Most people can't, after
all.)

Pet theory:  You have to use special paints and use,
well... 'bits' of the portrait subject for it to 'come
alive' the way some of the wizardly portraits do.
Hair, fingernails, the breath/laughter/sigh of the
person in the portrait. Etc. Sort of like a voodoo
doll, but different.

And, in my 'experience' with magic via the HP books,
at least, having bits of a person - particularly
someone like the Potters - is dangerous. 

So... I don't think anyone painted the Potters for
these reasons, in short:
1) They can't now, since they don't have important
'Potter ingredients' to add to the paints.
2) At the time when it was possible, they didn't have
the time to sit for a portrait and/or didn't want to
risk giving another wizard their breath/ fingernails/
whatever because it wasn't safe.

Of course, I'm not sure ALL art hanging on the walls
of Hogwarts is nessessarily a portrait of a wizard.
I'm sure some of them are 'imaginary people' (which
could be why the Fat Lady doesn't have a name and why
she herself isn't offended by being called "The Fat
Lady" even by the teachers...) - just to be
thorough... I think those paintings use the 'essence'
of the artist.

Remember, ALL of it is just theory. It's possible, I
suppose, that Harry could ask Dean Thomas to paint his
parents looking off some of the photographs and it
turn out like regular wizard paintings. I just don't
think so. :D


~Klawz
http://www.yubrykon.com/
http://www.yubrykon.com/hpart/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com