Empty picture- Portraits- General Info & Links

[Eustace_Scrubb]

No: HPFGUIDX 127135


bboyminn:

> In addition, we have new statements by JKR from Edinburgh in here
> latest book reading.
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. 
> They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If 
> there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain 
> advice from them?
> 
> A: That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they 
> are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed.
> 
> The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office,
> primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and
> headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They 
> leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some 
> counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. 
> They repeat catchphrases, almost.
> 
> The portrait of Sirius' mother is not a very 3D personality; she is
> not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when
> she was alive.
> 
> If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a 
> greatdeal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much 
> more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of 
> Phoenix_I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you 
> probably know what he explained_there are some people who would not 
> come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of 
> death.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Recently, were discussed whether Sirius would return to the story
> as a Portrait. Although not everyone agreed, most of us concluded 
> that a portrait might be long on personality, but it would be very  
> short on substance. JKR's recent comments seem to confirm that.
> 
> Short Version Summary-
> 
> This ties in very nicely with my posted theories that characters in
> photos and portraits are like actors in a play.
> 
> Portraits are like the movie version of that persons life, they 
> have a significant degree of personality, and some substance, but 
> they are not the complete person.
> 
> 'Actors' in a photograph have the equivalent character and 
> substance as that of a person in 15 or 30 second TV commerial. You 
> do get a sense of their personality, but there is virtually zero 
> substance to them.
> 
> So, basically, photos don't say much because they are idiots.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Eustace_Scrubb now:

I agree fully with you on the photographs.  The photographs don't even
have the capability of speech.  It's just a silent film loop, really.

On paintings, I'm not sure I think JKR's explanation is completely
consistent with the evidence within the books.  I guess my primary
nitpicks are with the travelling portrait subjects, Phineas Nigellus,
Everard and Dilys.  They have sufficient substance that they can
understand and carry out instructions as well as understand 
and respond to rather complex discussions in Dumbledore's office. 
They are capable of learning...Phineas Nigellus probably wasn't alive
at the time of Sirius' birth but he understands their relationship. 
There's a lot more than "catchphrases" going on there.

The other question is related to the concept of "realisation."  None
of the paintings are as "fully realised" as ghosts; Mrs. Black is "not
very fully realised," presumably when compared to the headmasters and
headmistresses at least.  So why is one portrait more fully realised
than another?  Does it vary with the skill of the artist?  or with the
length of the sitting? can the sitter affect the degree of
realisation, say, by cooperating more or less with the artist?

Some of those questions become meaningless if the portraits are only
created after the subject has died, although that's not exactly what
JKR says.  She just parrots the questioner:
"Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people..."
"A: ...They are all of dead people..."  

So all of the paintings we've _seen_ are of dead people; we don't know
whether the paintings were created during their lifetimes or not.

My own guess/leap/intuition would still be that some level of
interaction between magical artist and sitter would be necessary to
create these portraits and that the level of artistic skill and
artist-sitter cooperation would determine how "fully realised" a given
portrait would be.  Mrs. Black, being an intolerant, prickly
personality, undoubtedly was a most difficult sitter--hence her
unpleasantly batty portrait.  The headmasters, mindful of their place
in history, undoubtedly cooperated better with the artist.  I'll bet
that powerful wizards and witches could also manage to ensure that
their preserved personality/intellect showed their best sides,too.

If this is right--and I don't think what JKR has said above rules it
out yet--then we won't be seeing any portraits of Sirius unless one
was completed before his death.  And I know there's been some
speculation about Dobby's picture of Harry--unless Harry was actually
sitting for the portrait _and_ Dobby's a competent magical artist
(maybe house elves have different methods than wizards, of course),
then I doubt there's much hope that will have any role to play.

In the muggle world, having an oil portrait of one's self or one's
family has been an economic status symbol over the centuries.  Further
the number of artists generally considered competent has been small. 
However magical portraits are created, it seems unlikely that  there
would be loads of competent artists (especially as it doesn't seem to
be a subject taught in Hogwarts) or a huge customer base. 

And as to the genre pictures that seem to abound at
Hogwarts...presumably these are much closer to the photographs.  The
people may simply be artistic creations, fictional characters.  What
personality we see in these folks was probably a creation of the
artist him/herself--there may be bits of various real people in some
of them, but they're just characters in a landscape.

Anyway, that's my current 2 knuts.

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb