portrait in GH -Nature of Movement (long)

[Eustace_Scrubb]

No: HPFGUIDX 97675

> bboy_mn:
> <Much SNIPPING>
> Let's look at what we know.
> 
> All portrait characters appear to be able to move between portraits 
> at the location where they are hung. 
> 
> So, we have now establish that portrait characters can move from
> portrait to portrait, but it seems inferred that Hogwarts portrait
> characters in general can not leave Hogwarts castle.
> 
> Now Dumbledore adds a new concept, portrait characters who have
> portraits in other locations can move between those portraits. Based
> on the wizard who ran to find the injured Mr Weasley, once at the 
> new location, they are again able to move from portrait to portrait.
> 
> This second character's movement ability (location to location) 
> seems a reasonable extension of the first ability to move (local 
> portrait to local portrait). I see no reason to restrict it to
> Headmaster/headmistresses. 
> 
> Portraits of this nature are not going to be very common. Hand 
> painted portraits are usually only found in rich people's house and 
> public buildings (government offices and museums).
>  
> Logically,if you have a portrait character that you don't trust, you
> wouldn't put him in a location where he couldn't overhear or see 
> much. 
> bboy_mn

Now Eustace_Scrubb:

The whole subject of magical portraits (and potentially other art)
interests me a lot.  Perhaps if there were art courses taught at
Hogwarts, we'd know more about this by now--come to think about it,
maybe that's one reason art courses _aren't_ taught, to limit Harry's
and therefore the readers' knowledge of how this works.

Your conclusions make a lot of sense, especially that magical oil
portraits are probably only available to well-to-do individuals and
institutions.

I wonder what the other properties of these portraits are?  The
portraits appear to be complete representations of their subjects. 
That is, they are not merely physically accurate images, they also
move as the subjects did and, most importantly, have all of their
subjects' knowledge, prejudices, emotions, etc.  They can carry on
conversations with living persons and with other portraits.  

They can apparently be harmed by the living and they definitely know
fear.  What would have happened to the Fat Lady had Sirius' knife
struck her image before she was able to flee?  If he'd prick'd her,
would she bleed?

The portraits can also be bound to act in certain ways despite their
own wishes...Phineas Nigellus reluctantly obeying Dumbledore being an
example.  Is this a matter of honor...do the subjects voluntarily
agree to serve the future Headmasters when the portrait is
commissioned?  Is a spell used to ensure such behavior?

If a portrait's behavior can be constrained magically and the
portrait-person can be physically harmed through use of a muggle
weapon like a knife, would it also be logical to believe that a wizard
could employ spells on an existing portrait for evil ends.  We already
know that portraits can serve as spies or at least that they know
things that could be damaging in the wrong hands.  Could Lucius, for
example, use Imperius or Crucio on a portrait of Phineas Nigellus in
order to extract information about the activities of Dumbledore and
the Order?

There's no canon on this, as far as I know, and I'm just trying to
work out in my mind whether this is a logical extension of canon.  And
I'd love to hear other thoughts about this.

Even if we only accept the clear canon, I think that the wizards and
witches who create such portraits must be highly skilled and I'd love
to know more about them and the process involved.  (And what could
they do with landscapes?)

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb
hoping this doesn't disappear into a 5-hour Yahoo gap!