[the_old_crowd] Canned memories

[Neil Ward]

David proposed:

<< What *I* foresee is a truly heartrending scene in which Harry finds out
the limitations of portraits.

He will dash into the HM's study, and start asking Dumbledore's portrait
questions.  The portrait will start by courteously, and  twinklingly, no
doubt, asking Harry who he is. >>

Catherine responded:

<< Yes, the idea of that was quite upsetting, but I'm now quite confused by
JKR's assertion that
these portraits are mere imprints.  Phineas Nigellus is probably the
portrait we have seen the
most of, substantively and his character seems fully formed; he seems to
have a fairly good grasp
of his own past history (certainly remembers what it was like being
headmaster, for example), he
is capable, as all of the ex-head teachers are, of having fully formed
opinions on everything, he
is alert and able to understand the context of what is going on around him
and he is capable of
reacting to current events on an emotional level - hence his reaction to the
death of Sirius.
What is missing?

So I'm thinking that Dumbledore's portrait could be a useful devise in the
final installment -
both from an emotional perspective, and from imparting important exposition.
>>

Me:

This portrait thing has always intrigued me.  At first, I assumed portraits
were only given life when the subject died.  This raised a few questions:

1) Who paints the portraits?

Okay, we've never - AFAIK - had mention of wizards painting pictures, or
taking photographs for that matter (how *do* those photographs appear in the
absence of what can only be Muggle technology?  (Okay, strike that - I just
remembered Colin Creevey)

2) Does the style of painting matter?

Let's assume Dumbledore is painted in the style of Picasso.  How lucid is he
going to be with a blue face and both eyes on the same side of his crooked
nose?  Can we assume a photorealistic or traditionalist style in these
paintings?  What if someone painted a simply godawful painting of
Dumbledore - would the rendering be suitably removed from the original
personality?

3) How about paintings of living wizarding folk?

Although I can't think of an example, I'm assuming there are paintings of
living subjects. Are these merely imprints (cf. photos), in contrast to the
post-mortem versions of people, which seem to take on a sort of enhanced
afterlife personality?

The appearance of Dumbledore's picture in his former office suggest that
portraits may not be painted at all, but created as a sort of
ghost-surrogate.  Perhaps a communicative portrait appears in the natural
home or homes of the deceased and thus is able to travel from frame to frame
of its suite of pictures?  In some cases, the person may be confined to one
frame, in others, there may be multiple locations.

If we assume paintings are *painted*, do we imagine Dumbledore thinking,
"Okay, death is on the cards with this cockeyed plan - better knock up a
quick self-portrait for the old office, just in case...".  Perhaps he then
thinks, "Hmmm - should I do myself like Michael Gambon, or Richard Harris,
or perhaps that sketch JKR did on the back of a napkin when she did'nae have
two ha'pennies to rub together?"

To me, it seems a bit daft to kill Dumbledore (okay, he's actually
*D.E.A.D* - I accept that) and then have an 'all singing, all dancing'
portrait that can guide Harry neatly to each of the hot cross buns in turn.
No, it makes more sense that, as David implied, we'll see a merry,
twinkling, airhead version of Dumbledore, possibly with both eyes on the
same side of his head.

David:

<< David, who doean't understand why people keep asking after Neil >>

People are under the impression that I alone hold the power to release them
from the chains of their highly imaginative use of spoiler space.  However,
despite Talisman's poetic pleas, I made an Unbreakable Vow to my fellow
moderators.  I am bound, but soon, my dears, very soon...

Neil