Photographs vs Portraits

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 183187

---  "Cat" <CatMcNulty at ...> wrote:
>
> Greetings All!
> 
> ... A friend
> of mine who is reading the books for the first time asked me
> a question ... Why can paintings/portraits move, talk and 
> interact(they have sentience), whereas photographs only move
> but not talk (just amimated images)?
> 
> Is there anything in canon or from a JKR interview that might
> shed light on this?
> 
> Or maybe one of you could help me out with a theory?
> 
> Thanks!
> Cat
>

bboyminn:

First, in a manner of speaking, the portrait characters are 
like actors, they can give some impression of the character
but they are not that character fully realized. 

It use an analogy, photographs are like actors in a TV 
commercial, you understand who they are instantly (the stupid
husband, the frustrated housewife, the clueless parents) but
however you perceive them is superficial. They are more like
caricatures than characters.

Standard painted portraits are more like actors in a TV show.
You get a better sense of the character but they are far from
fully realized. You get a better sense of the person, but 
they lack any real substance. Life goes a little too easily
and simply for them. Notice that Mrs. Black's portrait is 
rather limited. Also notice that some of the portraits at the
hospital, while they are able to talk, are not that bright. 

Hogwarts' portraits are more like actors in a movie or a stage
play. Just as an actor can fully inhabit a character and make
it very real and believable within the context of that movie
or play, there does some a point, if you probe too deeply,
where the character breaks down. No matter how convincingly
the actor plays his role, he is limited by the script and his
personal knowledge of that character. 

Hogwart's portraits are more fully realized, according to JKR,
because of the strong magic at Hogwarts and because the 
Headmasters leave an imprint of themselves at Hogwarts that is
able to enhance the apparent reality of the portrait. 

But even the best portrait when probed at depth will break down.
Just like an actor in a stage play, the illusion can only be
carried just so far. JKR said that if Harry has access to a
portrait of his parents or of Dumbledore, he would find it
very unsatisfying because the essence and depth of the true 
person is not really there. 

Now regarding this last bit, I swear I read this somewhere in 
a JKR interview and have fallen back on this information many
time, but I have never been able to find the interview or
verify it, so take it with a grain of salt.

I remember reading that JKR said that part of the process of
creating a 'living' portrait require some of the physical 
essence of the subject of the portrait - some skin, hair, a 
drop of blood. It is from this physical essence of the actual
person that the portrait draws its knowledge of the character. 

That explains part of the magic that allows portraits to be 
as 'living' as they are. But again, JKR has clearly said that
the portrait is not the person. But merely a very good, but
none the less superficial representation of the person.

Does that help?

Steve/bboyminn