Thoughts on Portraits

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 164930

---  "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn wrote:
> > 
> > Well, first and foremost, the Fat Lady isn't NUTS.
> > She is not as nutty as Mrs. Black or Sir Cadagon, 
> > so, not being nuts, she is able to act more 
> > rationally. But she is far from realized. ... But
> > what about letting Sirius Black into the Gryffindor
> > Tower simply because ...? 
> 
> Carol responds:
> But don't you have it backwards? The Fat Lady refused
> to admit Sirius Black .... Sir Cadogan let Black into
> Gryffindor Tower....I certainly agree that Sir Cadogan
> isn't a "rational person," but we can't judge the Fat
> Lady's capacities by his.
> 


bboyminn:

Oy Vey! Mea Culpa! You, and others who contacted me off
line, are absolutely right. The Fat Lady did not allow
Sirius Black in. 

But I still stand by what I said. The Fat Lady is not
nuts, so she is more easy to interact with and more
rational then other nutty portraits but she is not as
realizes as the Headmaster's portraits.


> Dov wrote:
> 
> > > The concept of "leaving an imprint" is from the
> > > conversation about ghosts, ...
> 
> bboyminn responded:
> > 
> > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> > JKR-A: "...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...."
> > 

> >Carol:
> Thanks for providing that quote. But Dov is also right.
> Snape uses the word "imprint" to describe ghosts in HBP:
> ... So both the portraits in DD's office... and the 
> Hogwarts ghosts are "imprints" of a dead witch or 
> wizard or of that person's soul).
> 
> While the dictionary definition of "imprint" doesn't 
> give us much help with regard to JKR's use of the 
> word...

bboyminn:

I think you are placing way too much emaphasis on JKR's
use of a common word and concept - imprint. Just because
Snape used the word and then JKR used the word doesn't 
not mean they are using them in the same way and in the 
same context.

JKR clarified her statement. The Headmasters leave 
behind a faint imprint of themselves, an AURA, in the
office of the Head, that gives them the added 
intelligence to 'give some counsel to the present
occupant'.

This AURA or faint residue that they leave behind
clearly allows the existance of a level of 
'realization' that allows them to be of some value
to the new Head. 

I'm not saying other portraits are not of value, they
clearly are able to do limited jobs. But they don't 
have the added essense that allows them to 'give
counsel' they way the Head's portraits can.

Once again I trot out a bit of information that I am
absolutely sure I read, but have never been able to 
find a reference to. I'm sure JKR said in some 
interview that a small bit of the portrait subject is
added to the portrait to magically animate it. More 
than animate it, to give it personality. So, a bit of
skin, a drop of blood, maybe some hair, some physical
essense of the person is added to the portrait, and
it is from this that the Portrait derives it's 
personality. But even still, in general, it is never
more than an actor playing a role. A very convincing
actor playing a very convincing role, but an actor
none the less.  The difference is, because of the
Aura left behind, the Heads are better actors than
normal portraits. 

> Carol:
> 
> So is a portrait a kind of two-dimensional, fully 
> colored pseudo-ghost with limited mobility but all 
> five senses intact? (If the Fat Lady couldn't feel 
> that knife, why was she so terrified?) 

bboyminn:

Oh, you had to bring that up, and it just so happens
that I have a theory on it (like you didn't already 
know that).

So, what was the Fat Lady scared of, she can't be 
killed because she is not alive. I think this goes
back to the actor playing a role. On one hand she
plays the role of someone who has been attacked and
reacts appropriately. Very good acting I might add,
a bit 'hammy', but still good. But on another level 
I think it is actors vanity. She fears that if her 
painting is too damaged and can not be restored then
she will loss her job, she will lose the role of The 
Fat Lady on the stage of life (OK, the stage of 
portrait life). Metaphorically speaking, "The Fat
Lady" show will close.

As to the senses, just as stage and TV actor pretend
to eat and pretend other sensory interaction, doesn't
meant they are eating or experiencing them. Portraits
are actors, but they have a very dynamic and free-form
stage on which to play. They have their own closed
universe in which to play out their roles. They have
other characters to interact with in their private
portrait universe. That makes for very dynamic role
playing. 

The actor play Violet and the actor playing the Fat 
Lady many have real life history and may be playing out
the role they lived. Or they may simply be playing the
role of friend in the confines of their current portrait
universe. Persumably, even if they lived at different 
times in history, they have personality characteristics
that would naturally bring them together to play out 
their roles as friends on the portrait stage. 


> Carol:
>
> Of course, a witch or wizard can have only one ghost
> (if he or she so chooses) but multiple portraits, even,
> conceivably, both a ghost and a portrait though we 
> haven't seen any character with both. ...

bboyminn:

Back to my unreference theory of a drop of character
essense being added to each portrait. A ghost really
is that person in every way, shape, and form. By 
clinging to earthly life, they cling to the earthly
identity of this incarnation. I think if you truly 
pass on, you retain aspect of your earthly identity
but you take on a higher more general spiritual 
identity. This gets a bit metaphysical, so I won't 
go into detail; none the less it serves the discussion.

So, by staying behind as a ghost, what you are really 
clinging to is you current earthly identity and 
everything that goes with it except a tangible
physical presence in the worth. Instead you have an
INtangible physical presence. 

Portraits have, based on my unreferenced theory, a
bit of the person they emulate attached to them that
they can draw on. That is, a bit of skin, a drop of
blood, a strand of hair, whatever. But that small 
trace is hardly more than a clue, hardly more than
a well written script for the 'actor' to follow. So,
a portrait can be very well realized, but can never 
truly be the person they portray.

Note that while only one ghost can exist, because only
one person existed from which to creat that ghost, there
can be many many one man stage shows of Mark Twain going
on at the same time. For every portrait that exists, a
drop of blood was given for that portrait to draw on. 
Just as every one man show, draws on the same bank of
information regarding Mark Twain. Consider that drop
of blood a biography of the character being portrayed,
each actor is drawing from the same biography.

But here is an odd thought. If there are several portaits
of Phineas Nigellus in existance, do they argue with
each other, do the disagree? If Dumbledore asks one of
them to deliver a message, do they argue over who is 
actually going to do it? Do they share a common bank of 
knowledge, or does the knowledge of each individual
portrait grow independant of the other portraits? Or
do they all sit down to tea once a day and hash out 
the details? Enquiring minds want to know.

Here is my hierarchy of realization -

- People
- Ghosts
.
.
- ghost-ish apparitions from the Brother Wand Effect
.
.
.
- Headmaster's Portraits
.
.
.
.
- General Magical Portraits
.
.
.
.
.
.
- vague cast-spell signature brought forth by the Prior
Incantato Spell (hardly more that identifiable images,
lights, whisps of smoke, etc...)


> Carol:
>
> ...
> 
> Ghosts and portraits, whatever they are, are not the 
> spirit or the soul of the dead person. Nor are they 
> animated by fragments of soul, or they would be 
> Horcruxes, and only a murderer can create a Horcrux.

bboyminn:

Sorry, I'm confused. I agree that portraits are not the
spirit or soul of a dead person, but how can ghost not be
EXACTLY that. They are souls who have clung to earthly 
life and identity rather than moving on. Maybe you are
making a point, and I am completely missing it, but
ghost are indeed the soul and spirit of a person.

Portraits, on the other hand, do not draw on the soul
of a person, but magically transform a small bit of 
that person into a form of historical and personality
biograph that they can draw on. Again, actors playing
a role, but with deep, yet still limited, insight into
their character.

I wish I could find that reference to a bit of tissue 
from a living person being used to create a portrait.
I've tried searching for it, but as I recall it was 
such a small part of a larger discussion, that it is
unlikely to stand out. And it was a long time ago that
I read it. I have search and I haven't found it. But 
I'm absolutely sure I read it somewhere. Frustrating...


For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn