Talking porttraits/photographs

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 104092

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrflynn6" <mrflynn6 at y...> wrote:
> I looked in the VFAQ and did a search and didn't find anything on 
> this, so hear goes:  
> 
> Why can people talk with portraits and not photographs?  Why not have 
> a portrait done of Harry's parents (or anyone for that matter) so 
> Harry can converse with them?  Obviously the previous Headmasters are 
> important people, but the what about the Fat Lady and all the other 
> portraits in the castle and other places?  Could Harry have portraits 
> done of Sirius and hang one at the headquarters and one his dorm room 
> for information about the progress of the Order?
> 
> 
> Just an odd though after rereading the series, again.
> 
> mrflynn


Asian_lovr2:

Here is an old post of mine on this suject. This post and a very long
detailed thread are located in this group but they are pretty far
back, and it would take quite a while to find them. To save everyone
time, I'm posting it again. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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 intended purpose of that photo. The photo of Lockhart and Harry
reflect the context of the moment in which the photo was taken. As an
illustration, think of photos of Harry that appeared in various
publications taking on a context in relation to the context of the
article that accompanied them. If the article shows Harry in a bad
light, then the photo of Harry looks shifty and devious. If the
article shows Harry in a good light, then the accompanying photo shows
Harry bright eyed and smiling. Again, this re-enforces my belief that,
to a limited extent, photo images are like actors in a very short
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 (from an interview with JKR, which I haven't been
able to find again). The living essence 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 complete detailed 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 essence of that person, his
personality, his actions/history, and his life. Because this enchanted
painting contain the actual living essence 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 view 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.


I amend this idea with these additional thoughts-

I've always thought that the portraits were not the full and complete
personality of the person pictured. They are not the person to
perfection; as I've previously said, they are more like actors playing
a role.

However, they are exceptional actors with exceptional insight into the
character they are playing. We see many muggle stage and screen actors
playing the parts of historic figures, and capturing their essence and
character extremely well. The living portraits have the added
advantage of having a piece of the living person to draw on; some true
living essence of the person does exist in the portrait. But I don't
think a portrait could ever be quite as good as the real person. I
guess you could sum it up by saying that portraits very accurately
portray; portray but don't become.

Portraits are actors in two senses; they are playing the role of the
person IN the portrait, and they are playing the role OF a portrait.

When the Fat Lady runs from Sirius after he slashed her portrait, it
isn't because she feared for her life, because she isn't alive. She
didn't fear for great bodily harm, because she has no body; she is
animated paint. Although, it does indicate that she was damaged, so
she could certainly have some fear of damage.

However, I think more than anything she was feeling a sense of shame.
She could no longer fulfill her role as 'portrait', she could no
longer contribute the aesthetic beauty and personal essence she was
created for. When she was restored and returned to duty as guard of
the Gryffindor entrance, the sense of fear she displayed most
convincingly was just her playing her actor's role as the Fat Lady;
Actor's role as both human personification and physical portrait.

I guess the point is that we have to weigh the reactions of living
portraits against two measures; one, the role of the character they
are playing, two, the role of a work of art.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboy_mn
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hope that helps.

Steve/(now)asian_lovr2