This is a thought that was bugging me. Now, as far as I can tell, wizarding pictures are a snapshot of the subject's personality. But then, why do wizarding pictures change with the personality changes? Like I'm thinking of the picture of Percy. Somewhere in book 5 we see an old family picture of the Weasleys, where Percy has walked out of the picture. Why/how do the photographic selves change? How do they know that their real selves' personality has changed? To what extent are the wizard photos sentient?

It would appear that wizard paintings have not just their image, but there personality painted with them. If I were to make a theory it would probably have something to do with the paint and/or the brush that makes the subject of the painting come alive. It seems to me that there is a painted world, where the people in paintings have friends, and rivals, and people they don't like, and all that jazz. But, then, there's the fiction vs. reality conflict. Let's say Sir Cadogen and the Fat Lady are both just made up. They were made up and painted to have their personalities. But the people like Mrs. Black and the old headmasters and headmistresses were real, and their personalities apparently mimick the personalities that they had when they were alive? But does that mean that anyone's painting would act just like them if they were painted? Or do you have to be dead for your portrait to be imbued with a personality? And how come wizard paintings have personalities, but wizard photographs seem to just wave and smile? Or well, do just a simple imitation of the personalities of the subjects? Why do they not talk?

These are questions that are just on my mind. If you have any ideas I would LOVE to hear them.

Todd

Well that is the difference between paintings and pictures. Pictures only seem to be able to wave and smile, whereas paintings seem to be completely autonomous and sentient.

Todd

Thanks for the good idea.... next question.... how do I find out when she's going to do another one?

Todd

that is the question mate........that is the question*sighs*

but u know the wizarding photographs/portraits thingy is the number one on the 'confused abt harry potter' list. honestly........anyone i speak to(i just realized.....I HAVE NO LIFE!!) are wholly confused abt it
ive always felt that jk has never maintained an actual standard abt it u know? like she's set the basic 'they move' thing but hasnt developed it further- and has used it as when she needs it. like if she just needs us to see the photo we see them waving and smiling( the weasleys in poa) and when she needs it to talk it talks like mrs.black
but then to satisfy myself i thought u know the whole theory abt since photography is an electronic experience and therefore it is less fulfilling but a portrait painter has to sit with u for ages and for days together and it is done by the human hand so somehow it becomes more personal
like the painter somehow gets ur personality cuz she/he spends more time with u and it subconsciously affects the way he paints you(like ud know if the subject had been the painter's loved one)
and ive noticed that jk takes a lot of the metaphorical sayings and makes it real- gives it an actual physical shape and form(dementors....)
so this is perhaps her way of expressing the belief that a photograph doesnt capture ur true essence whereas a portrait does
therefore wizarding portraits have ur personality whereas a wizarding photo doesnt?
frankly i dunno mate.............im just thinking out loud
and to answer ur other question, it might have some intelligence- some mental capacity u know but i dont think if harry carried a portrait of dumbledore to his exams, dd would tell him all the answers(ignoring of course the fact that dd wouldnt unfairly help students like that)

I really like Euro's caricature theory- it would explain how Percy, Phinneas, and Mrs. Black behaved so one-dimensionally- Percy was angry, Phinneas was unfeeling, and Mrs. Black was prejudiced, and that's all they were. That's only how people see them. Photographs just seem to capture about five seconds of your life. The exception, though, is
Penelope Clearwater's nose getting blotchy and hiding her nose under the frame. I've never understood that part.

It is a really good point, and one that I don't reallly understand either.

Because surely if the paintings captured their personality too, almost like a brain, even when the person was dead, then everyone would get paintings done. Like if there was a painting of Sirius would Harry be able to talk to it and ask it questions? It would seem so easy then. But the Phineas painting was quite real and had opinions and everything, very much involved in the real world, helping Dumbledore.

It's almost too good to be true. Maybe paintings like that are rarer, or harder to do. I think you're right, the only person who understands is JK. And maybe she didn't want us to think about it this much. I really don't know.

This is a really interesting topic and I'm going to bump this thread up for other members to join in this discussion.

Very interesting. Some Aboriginals believe that when you take a picture a part of your soul is captured. Hmm.. maybe it's along those lines. And do all pictures talk? If so; why don't Harry's parents talk to him in the photos that Hagrid gave him? Will Dumbledores photo in the Headmaster's office talk to Harry and offer him advice on Horcruxes?

I've always wondered about this as well...just how "intelligent" are Wizarding pictures anyway? For example, in the Headmaster's office, Dumbledore (or was it one of the former Heads?) once said that the past Heads portraits are "honor-bound" to give assistance to the present Head. Just how much assistance could they give though? So far we've seen them comment on the goings-on in the office, but not so much big help. We dd see Phinneas going back and forth from the Office to Grimmauld Place to bring messages. But so far, none of the portraits have really given any wise advice or anything.

Maybe some paintings done by greater magicians, and probably more expensive, like the Hogwarts headmasters, have personalitites because its a higher form of magic. Maybe photos that just smile are cheaper. you get what you pay for.

i thint might have something to do with how the person in the picture realife counterpart is feeling about its current situation. like percy is angry at his family so his photographic self wont stand in the picture. also when harry did that interview harry was happy about it so his photograph grinned sheepishly from the cover. in other words im probably blabering on

Great question. I could be wrong but if I remember correctly, the Native American's did not like being photographed because they believed that with every picture taken a part of the person's soul is captured. So maybe since the person in the picture is directly linked to the living person not in the picture it automatically feels and knows the feelings of the original source. Awesome questions. My answer is most likely wrong but you never know.

Hmmm great question! I was just wondering about that myself having just finished HBP again and thinking how much help Dumbly's portrait might offer Harry.

Maybe it has something to do with photos being just a reflection of you through the lense of a camera, where-as a painting is an image of you carefully crafted and more elaborate?

Hmm... good question. We may never find out truely! Make a guess. It may just be the mood they were in then.

I think that it all plays a part some way or another. Persy was so far over the limit that he wanted to leave. So the picture knew that. It all is just on how the person fills at that time.

Has anyone considered the relationship of these paintings and horcruxes? Are the souls, which have split at the death of the subject, trapped in the paintings? Perhaps the process for these two items is similar.

You could be on to something there... I'm going to have to ponder this some but I really think you could really be onto a really, good theory here.

Yea i agree thats a really good idea. I just don't really buy it though. It makes sense but their's a lot of different types of pictures in the Wizarding world. I mean, I remember in PoA, their were pictures of Sirius on the front cover of the Daily Prophet and they could move and stuff. But i doubt if Harry were to find one of those he could talk the the soul of Sirius so I don't think its for all paintings/photographs that the soul is imprinted on. But, going on the facts that these people can only be in one of their portraits at once, it makes sence that the portraits would have to have some sort of soul. It would seem like the people in photographs don't have souls, but then Percy can leave his portrait and that obviously show's theirs more than just a mindless body in the picture. My best guess is it's just an imprint of a soul, sort of a copy. I have absolutely no idea though, this whole thing is really confusing and my post is seeming to confuse me more as it seems that every theory i have has something that contradicts it. I'll have to think more on this lol.