Portraits - Additional: Actors Playing a Role

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 164981

---  Scott Santangelo <owlery2003 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Donna <deemarie1a at ...> wrote:
> >"Steve" <bboy_mn at y...> wrote:
> > Portraits are actors in two senses; they are playing 
> > the role of the person in the portrait and the are 
> > playing the role OF a portrait...

> Donna :
> I ...suspect that since they are actors portraying a
> role, they do to some extent reflect the world's 
> perceived belief in who they are. ... I think that 
> would be more hinted at, his real personality would 
> dominate.
> ---------------

> owlery2003:
> 
> Interesting theory, but I tend to think the "real 
> person" is somehow represented (and not by an "actor").
> In DD's office, we see the former headmasters, and I 
> can't imagine they are anyone other than the "real" 
> thing. ...
> 
> owlery2003

bboyminn:

Owlery2003, you are taking my 'actor' analogy too 
literally. I don't think for one second they hire an
actor, throw him into the painting, and let him
spend his life pretending to be someone else. No,
the 'actor' metaphor simply illustrates how a portrait
can portray a character with great depth, but still
not be as fully realized as the represented person.

The point is that the Portrait is NOT the real person
but a /representation/ of the real person. A 
representation that has deep and intimate knowledge
to draw on via the bit of the living person that has
been placed in the painting. But, there is a limit to
the portraits ability to draw from the bank of 
knowledge of the orignal person, just as an actor has
a limited bank of knowledge to draw on to represent
the character they play.

This is a metaphor to explain the very strong persence
of character and personality, but at the same time
explain the lack of true depth and meaning. The actor
can not really reach beyond the script he is given to
play. The portrait can not reach beyond the limited
information it has to use as a means of representing
the subject of the portrait. 

The real portrait can play the role of the real 
person personality and all, and do so very 
convincingly. It is only when you search for depth
and meaning that you discover that the depth and
meaning aren't really there. It is all show and no
go. 

Like any real-world portrait, a magical portrait is
not the real person, it is a representation of the
real person. Magical portraits are simply animated,
interacting, personality portraying representation
of the real person who is the subject of the
protrait.

So, again, the whole point of using the 'actors'
analogy was to address the limited depth we find
in portraits. Their job is not to be the person,
but to represent the person to the best of their 
limited ability.

just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn