photo vs. painting in magical world/DD's legilimency & 1st OoP/worse than de

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 80505

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wry1352000" <wry1352000 at y...>
wrote:
> Hello!
> 

> I wonder why there should be such a difference between the arts of 
> photography and painting in the magical world. ...edited...
>

bboy_mn:
A theory... ...just a theory.

I think images in artwork are like actors in a play. The difference
between photos and paintings is like the difference between the actors
in a TV commercial and the actors in a film biography. 

The actors in a TV commercial represent their characters in a 15, 30
or 60 second window of time. Hence, the photo that Colin Creevey took
of Harry and Lockhart in the school courtyard, continues to reflect
both Harry and Lockhart's attitudes and demeanor in the tiny window of
time.

To extend that, you could say that photos have context. The context is
the intented purpose of that photo. The photo of Lockhart and Harry
reflect the context of the moment in which the photo was taken. But
let's remember the photos of Harry that appeared in various
publications take on a context in relation to the context of the
article that accompanied them. If the article showed Harry in a bad
light, then the photo of Harry looked shifty and devious. If the
article showed Harry in a good light, then the accompanying photo
showed Harry bright eyed and smiling. Again, this re-enforces my
belief that to a limited extent photo images are like actors in a
play, they reflect or play out the context of the moment.

One important fact about paintings is that the enchanted painting
actually contains a piece of living tissue from the person represented
in that painting. The living essense of the person is embedded in the
painting. This and the magical complexity of creating an enchanted
painting, make it a more powerful and fully developed magical object.

Using the actor analogy, a painting reflects a much greater context.
Again, I equate this is as the equivalent of an actor portraying a
person in their film biography, where the context is the entire
lifetime and personality of the person. Not just a tiny snapshot, but
a window into the very essense of that person, his personality, his
actions/history, and his life. Because this enchanted painting contain
the actual living essense of the person in the form of living tissue,
the actor does not play an idealized version of the person; he
portrays both the light and the dark; the good and the bad.

On a more superficial level, a painting is a much more complex magical
object than a photo. It seems that exposed film can be developed in a
potion and the images become animated, but not really much more that
animated and reflecting the context of the moment in simple and
superficial ways. A painting, on the other hand, I veiw as magically
much more complex. It takes a exceptionally talented artwizard,
perhaps magical paints, enchanted canvas, assorted potion, spells, and
charms, and as I mentioned, some living tissue from the person being
painted. So, you get a more complex and more complete final product,
because it requires an infinitely (figuratively) more complex process.


 
> Another idea that struck me sometime after I read OoP was how 
> Dumbledore, if he possessed the skill of Legilimency could not know 
> who was the traitor in the first Order of the Phoenix.  
>
< ,,,edited,,,
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Zinaida.

bboy_mn:
Although, I cut it out of the previous post, a summary of the key
point was, why didn't Dumbledore use Legilimency to detect that Peter
Pettigrew was the spy. Here in lies the fallibility of Legilimancy.
Being as pathetic, fightened, insecure, and generally unreliable as
Peter was, it's possible he was always giving off 'bad vibes'. It's
possible that people even with limited Legilimency skill, always pick
up nervousness, fear, and insecurity, so he could have been a very
hard person to 'read'. Plus, I suspect lying was a normal course of
events for someone like Peter; an everyday occurance.

It's possible that Dumbledore had some suspicions, but given the
general paranoia of that time in history, I suspect everyone was
picking up a degree of suspiciousness from everyone one else; no one
trusted anyone. Even a person you had absolute trust in could be under
the control of the Imperious curse; so really, even the most trusted
person couldn't really be trusted. Paranoia everywhere.

Just a thought.

bboy_mn