Questions about portraits

Is a portrait like the real person? It seemed to me like it was the real Dumbledore, it gave Snape instructions and knew as much as the living DD. I wonder what the portrait really is?? I'm sorry if I should know this, it's just that this painting in particular seemed different from any other I have seen along the books. It could have told Harry the truth about everything if it wanted to or had the chance.

JK seems to have broken her own rules with Dumbledore's portrait. As you will see from the quote below, she previously said that portraits mostly repeat catchphrases:

J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival,
Sunday, August 15, 2004.

Question from the audience:

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?

JK's reply:

That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; 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, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

JK seems to have broken her own rules with Dumbledore's portrait. As you will see from the quote below, she previously said that portraits mostly repeat catchphrases:

J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival,
Sunday, August 15, 2004.

Question from the audience:

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?

JK's reply:

That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; 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, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

I had heard that question and response as well, so I, too, was confused about Dumbledore's portrait. The only explanation that I've been able to come up with is that Dumbledore was not an ordinary wizard - he was extraordinary. He even said himself that he was rather more clever than most, so maybe it holds true that his portrait would be more clever than others. I don't know - I guess there's no definitive answer unless it comes directly from JKR. She did seemingly contradict herself, but I don't think that's the kind of thing she would overlook, so surely there must be more to it...

I fail to see the problem. Dumbledore's portrait acts in the same way that all other portraits have acted. He retained the knowledge that he had up to the point of his death, and his portrait was able to glean and retain further information learned by it. It doesn't break any of the rules we've seen as set by the descriptions of other portraits. The Fat Lady experiences a range of emotion and can also understand current issues. All the rest of the headmaster portraits are able to have conversations with Dumbledore and offer him advice. Phineas Nigellus knows who Sirius is, despite more than likely having passed away prior to Sirius's birth.

I fail to see the problem. Dumbledore's portrait acts in the same way that all other portraits have acted. He retained the knowledge that he had up to the point of his death, and his portrait was able to glean and retain further information learned by it. It doesn't break any of the rules we've seen as set by the descriptions of other portraits. The Fat Lady experiences a range of emotion and can also understand current issues. All the rest of the headmaster portraits are able to have conversations with Dumbledore and offer him advice. Phineas Nigellus knows who Sirius is, despite more than likely having passed away prior to Sirius's birth.

th eproblem is that jkr basically said the portrait wuldn't be able to help, because it isn't fully reliazed. yet we see the potrait giving orders to snape. so she did contradict herself.

JKR indicates that the portraits would not be of much help to Harry, yet could offer some amount of counsel. The portrait of Dumbledore does not give orders to Snape, it merely reinforces the instructions Dumbledore had left with Snape before he died. If Snape had been unwilling to heed Dumbledore's portrait, the portrait would not have had any authority over him. It was Snape's choice to follow Dumbledore's instructions that leads to a feeling of Dumbledore giving orders.

Further, there have been many contradictions between what JKR has said in interviews and what actually occurs in the books, but this does not mean that there is a contradiction within the books themselves. She should be allowed, as author, a measure of artistic license; it is not unheard of for an author to stray from their original ideas. At any rate, Dumbledore's portrait still does not seem out of the ordinary to me. As I said, his portrait does not display any more power than any other we have seen.

Since Dumbledore spent a lot of time planning for Harry, wouldnt the scehmatics of the entire plan be his catchphrase? He wouldnt be able to repeat the whole plan, Im sure, but he would remember specific major details about it, like things about Voldemort, the Horcruxes and Hallows, Harry's special abilities, etc.

JKR indicates that the portraits would not be of much help to Harry, yet could offer some amount of counsel. The portrait of Dumbledore does not give orders to Snape, it merely reinforces the instructions Dumbledore had left with Snape before he died. If Snape had been unwilling to heed Dumbledore's portrait, the portrait would not have had any authority over him. It was Snape's choice to follow Dumbledore's instructions that leads to a feeling of Dumbledore giving orders.

Further, there have been many contradictions between what JKR has said in interviews and what actually occurs in the books, but this does not mean that there is a contradiction within the books themselves. She should be allowed, as author, a measure of artistic license; it is not unheard of for an author to stray from their original ideas. At any rate, Dumbledore's portrait still does not seem out of the ordinary to me. As I said, his portrait does not display any more power than any other we have seen.

My impression of portraits are that they are imprints of their previous hosts, and thus they have the knowledge and counsel that the previous hosts would but they cannot absorb or learn new information and then act on that information, which is exactly what DD's portrait does both when talking to Snape as well as Harry at the end. When talking to Snape, it listens to Snapes information on how the order want to move Harry, then it tells Snape what he should do next. We haven't really seen a portrait do that up until book 7, before DH portraits have at most taken orders or relayed messages.

As far as 'authority' goes - it's true the portrait has no authority because it has no ability (as far as we know) to cast spells or attack anyone. As it seems post DH however, this is the ONLY limitation that a portrait has, and if so then it would seem that, for someone who merely wants to use a portrait to connect with a loved one who is passed away or something, they are basically interacting in the same way. That's a problem for me, just because it seems stupid for a potrait to be able to think and reason and learn, which is exactly what Dumbledore's portrait does.

I was always under the impression that the portraits were just as smart as the people were before they died. Plus, they just get smarter as history unravels around them. They pick up on things that happen and can tell others and think things over. It's like.... the dead person's brain is in those portraits. But that's just me

We haven't really seen a portrait do that up until book 7, before DH portraits have at most taken orders or relayed messages.

I can see your point, but I must partially disagree with this, as well as with your very last sentence. While I agree with you that it is a bit of a stretch that portraits should be capable of absorbing new information, that is exactly what we see all portraits doing, particularly the portraits in the headmaster's office. But then again, the portraits would be essentially useless if they could not reason and conjecture with the headmaster.

The basis I am using for this is that, as I said, there is no way Phineas would be able to know who Sirius is, or who Harry is, if his portrait was incapable of taking in more information. All the portraits would be useful only as sources of history if they could not advance using current information.

In my opinion, what JKR meant when she talked about the limitations of the portraits was not that they could not imbibe further information, but that they were incapable of making character changes. Essentially, Dumbledore remained the same person he was. From his words, I gather that Dumbledore had told Snape everything he had intended to tell him before he died, thus the phrases "Do not forget..." rather than direct orders.

One thing that struck me about Dumbledore and his portrait - the first time Harry went in the headmaster's office to use the Pensieve for Snape's memories - the book says that all the headmasters' portraits were empty - that they were most likely following the action in the Great Hall. Even Dumbledore was not in the office - he was "hanging out" with the rest of the gang/Headmasters to watch the action - sort of a benigh existence and it was then that I realized that Dumbledore was just a portrait now (my desire to see him come back from the dead was partially met in the King's Cross chapter).

One thing that struck me about Dumbledore and his portrait - the first time Harry went in the headmaster's office to use the Pensieve for Snape's memories - the book says that all the headmasters' portraits were empty - that they were most likely following the action in the Great Hall. Even Dumbledore was not in the office - he was "hanging out" with the rest of the gang/Headmasters to watch the action - sort of a benigh existence and it was then that I realized that Dumbledore was just a portrait now (my desire to see him come back from the dead was partially met in the King's Cross chapter).

The subject in the portraits moved to others often. In OOTP, for example, there was the portrait of the healer who told Ron he had Spattergoit and that Ron was going to be gruesome. Also in OOTP, one of the headmaster portraits ran throughout the Ministry of Magic portraits to alert the injury of Mr. Weasley. Phineus Nigellus has lengthy conversations with Harry in OOTP and even questions why Dumbledore would assign the task of getting Slughorn's memory in HBP. The portraits have to retain some of the personality of the previous headmaster.

In the end, Harry does not receive much help from the headmasters' portraits because he is not at Hogwarts to recieve the help.

Any idea why?

Maybe because photographs are just mechanically captured moments, but painted portraits are created by the skill and (if you will) soul of an artist, so some of that life-force of creation is infused into the portrait, allowing it to achieve some semblance of life? Also, if one is sitting for a portrait, one is spending several hours with the artist and the portrait, whereas a photo takes just seconds to make--the longer time allows the painting to absorb some of the personality and vitality of the subject. I have no idea if these are right or just gibberish, but it's what I always thought.

BTW, no intent to dismiss photographers as being less than artists--I'm an amateur photographer, myself, and I appreciate the artistry of photography, but I also know some people think of it just as taking snapshots.

Portraits are more like spiritual imitations, they carry the most vivid memories, ambitions and quotes of the person. The portraits are able to give advice and consult whenver possible. Photographs are just visual representations of the event that was captured in the photograph, they do not carry any magic inside, except for the magic that allows the people inside the photograph to move, though limitedly.

My impression of portraits are that they are imprints of their previous hosts, and thus they have the knowledge and counsel that the previous hosts would but they cannot absorb or learn new information and then act on that information, which is exactly what DD's portrait does both when talking to Snape as well as Harry at the end. When talking to Snape, it listens to Snapes information on how the order want to move Harry, then it tells Snape what he should do next. We haven't really seen a portrait do that up until book 7, before DH portraits have at most taken orders or relayed messages.

As far as 'authority' goes - it's true the portrait has no authority because it has no ability (as far as we know) to cast spells or attack anyone. As it seems post DH however, this is the ONLY limitation that a portrait has, and if so then it would seem that, for someone who merely wants to use a portrait to connect with a loved one who is passed away or something, they are basically interacting in the same way. That's a problem for me, just because it seems stupid for a potrait to be able to think and reason and learn, which is exactly what Dumbledore's portrait does.

This is very much along the same lines as what I was thinking. I gave Dumbledore's portrait much consideration pre-Deathly Hallows. One possible explanation for why Dumbledore's portrait seems capable of more than the other portraits might be because, as Hagrid said at the end of HBP, "No headmaster or headmistress ever gave more to this school." There are still a lot of unanswered questions, though. I had been convinced that a portrait simply couldn't be all that the person had been in life, minus a body (as Dumbledore's appears to be in DH). That would cheapen death, I reasoned, something Jo would never do when she had made death such a major theme in the books. It would make Dumbledore's death pointless if a version of him were still around to give advise. I assumed that the reason for his death lay in the narrative necessity for Harry to lose his mentor and strike off on his own, but Jo handled this by arranging for Harry to have no access to the portrait instead of limiting the portrait's capabilities.

I find myself wondering about how portraits are created, and why everyone does not have portraits of their loved ones who have died. It seems like it would be very tempting (even if they were very expensive), but the only person we have seen who had a portrait of a dead relative was Aberforth. Who (if anyone) paints the portraits? Dumbledore's portrait appeared in the Head's office so quickly, it seems as if the portrait came into existence without anyone creating it. Did Hogwarts itself create the portrait? If so, what about portraits outside of Hogwarts?

And what about Mr. Weasley's injunction "not to trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain"? There are two sides to this question: (a) Can portraits actually think for themselves, or are they simply repeating patterns or echoes of the personality of the person they portray? (b) If they can think for themselves, where do they keep their brains? Could there possibly be a bit of soul in them, left behind in some way that did not bind to life or damage the owner?

I have to admit I spent a lot of the book expecting Harry to suddenly realise that Dumbledore would have a portrait now, and want to try and break into Hogwarts to try and speak to it.

I think that between ghosts, poltergiests, people pulled from heaven by the stone (reunion scene), portraits and inferi - JKR hadn't worked it out all that tightly because she just used everything as necessary along the way. If she needed some entity to do something, it suddenly could.

I find myself wondering about how portraits are created, and why everyone does not have portraits of their loved ones who have died. It seems like it would be very tempting (even if they were very expensive), but the only person we have seen who had a portrait of a dead relative was Aberforth.


I have a feeling the all wizards don't have portaits because it would be hard to see a deceased love one in a portait that is somewhat life-ike but also very empty and hollow. Kind of like a ghost. There but not there.

I would think that Dumbledore would have done the spell work to create his own portrait that could assist Snape with his plan. If the portraits can not leave the school, then it was the only safe place to leave instructions. So his portrait might not have been bound my the same restrictions as the others.

I have to admit I spent a lot of the book expecting Harry to suddenly realise that Dumbledore would have a portrait now, and want to try and break into Hogwarts to try and speak to it.

but would Dumbledore's portrait have been much use to Harry? I mean they were there to advice the current Headmaster not a renegade dropout no matter how noble his misson was? Because Dumbledore doesnt actually say much to Harry when he's in the office at the end more just agrees with him.

I agree with YellowPoofBall on this, the portraits had to be able to gain new information otherwise how would Phineas know Sirius? Besides I dont think Dumbledores portrait adviced Snape on much more than the real Dumbledore would have known before death so surely this knowledge was passed onto the portrait?


oh and totally off topic YellowPoofBall your avatar is sooo cute!

A lot of Harry's ideas weren't all that useful though, it was more the thought that it might be able to help him that made me think it

I agree with YellowPoofBall on this, the portraits had to be able to gain new information otherwise how would Phineas know Sirius? Besides I dont think Dumbledores portrait adviced Snape on much more than the real Dumbledore would have known before death so surely this knowledge was passed onto the portrait?
!

Yes yes, those points are what I was thinking. The portrait just seemed to know and deliver more information than were are led to believe and expect a picture/portrait should have. Out of all the things in DH that just didn't' fit, felt rushed, or annoyed me though this one is much lower on the scale. I was expecting DD to speak to Harry through a portrait, I didn't expect it to be actually communicate with him on such a level. What if LV captured the portrait ... could he force information out of a painting?

I doubt he would be able to force information out of a portrait. The portraits are honour bound to assist the current headmaster of Hogwarts. Even if Voldemort became principal they might bend the rules - Phineas Nigellus seemed to be able to bend the rules and act like he wasn't going to go to Number 12, Grimauld Place when Dumbledore told him to.

Speaking of portraits having information, why did Dumbledore (who knew full well he was about to die and be replaced as Headmaster) allow the portraits in his office to hear the "private lessons" he had with Harry? We know that portraits are not always sleeping even when they pretend to be, and even if Dumbledore ordered them to tell no one about the Horcruxes, would the new Head not be able to override that command? We know that Dumbledore did not want the rest of the Order (including McGonagall and Snape) to know about the Horcruxes, but what could have prevented them from interrogating the portraits, even Dumbledore's? Would they both have respected Dumbledore's opinion that the best way for the portraits to serve them was by keeping quiet about the Master Plan? It seems that neither of them ever found out about the Horcruxes, in spite of intense curiosity: "And you still aren't going to tell me why it's so important to give Potter the sword?" There must be an explanation. Any theories as to what it might be?

I think that Dumbledore's protrait may be different from all the others. I think with Dumbledore any thing was possible. Just like the Chapter Kings Cross what was Dumbledore there. To me this holds some of the same questions as to what he is in the protrait.

I think that Dumbledore's protrait may be different from all the others. I think with Dumbledore any thing was possible. Just like the Chapter Kings Cross what was Dumbledore there. To me this holds some of the same questions as to what he is in the protrait.

I believe in King's Cross we were meeting the real Dumbledore. King's Cross was Harry's interpretation of the other side of the Veil (or at least the near reaches of the Other Side, before one goes "on"). The real Dumbledore was on the other side of the Veil, so he was able to come meet Harry and talk to him.

I think I might agree with you about Dumbledore's portrait being different from the others. It makes sense.

I had thought that portraits are kind of like ghosts.

I had thought that portraits are kind of like ghosts.

Do you mean in the sense that the subject of the portrait left some sort of "imprint" behind? I considered ghosts as I was trying to understand portraits, but I always came back to what Nick told Harry at the end of Order of the Phoenix, and many of the people we see in portraits (such as Dumbledore) would not choose to become ghosts. Always a person's portrait hangs in a place where they were important in life, so I suppose it might be possible that they left something of themselves behind. What I wonder is how this might be accomplished without tying the person to life. Any theories?

Does the person in the portrait remember their entire life? It seems like when Dumbledore certainly did, but is the dead Dumbledore aware of the alive one in the portrait?

What I wonder is how this might be accomplished without tying the person to life.

The only thing i could understand about this is that they are two separate people, but their can only be one person and many portraits. I guess it would be similar to a ghost, but the Dumbledore that died is unaware of the Dumbledore in the portrait. Otherwise it is pretty much the same thing as a ghost except you are trapped in a frame.

I fail to see the problem. Dumbledore's portrait acts in the same way that all other portraits have acted. He retained the knowledge that he had up to the point of his death, and his portrait was able to glean and retain further information learned by it. It doesn't break any of the rules we've seen as set by the descriptions of other portraits. The Fat Lady experiences a range of emotion and can also understand current issues. All the rest of the headmaster portraits are able to have conversations with Dumbledore and offer him advice. Phineas Nigellus knows who Sirius is, despite more than likely having passed away prior to Sirius's birth.

I agree. I don't see how Dumbledore's portrait was different, since he was talking to Snape about things that he already knew and even discussed before he died. It was like councelling another headmaster. Even when he was talking to Harry, at the end, he didn't break the rule. He was with tears in his eyes but at that point all the portraits knew about the events and received Harry with a standing ovation. So they were reacting to the news as much as Dumbledore was.

photos are just magicked so they can move, portraits are of the dead, sort of like a ghost

Maybe it has to do with the different mediums.

Hmmm....well, portraits and paintings are created by hand, so they have much more personality put into them. I assume that talking and being able to leave their frames to go visit another one is restricted only to portraits because a special spell must be placed on them, and the spell cannot be placed on something that was created in such an inpersonal way as taking a picture......maybe..

Just wondering, have we ever seen a potrait of a live person, would it still move and talk if the person was still alive or can you only make potraits of dead people?

Any idea why?

No, I don't know why - but the question that comes to my mind is this... if you want to talk to someone who is dead, can you just paint a picture of them, and then hold conversations?

I've always noticed that Portraits are almost alive. You can tell a painting a joke if you want. But I doubt you can do the same with a photo. I imagine photos to be a small clip that repeats itself a little differently each time. (If I remember clearly, Colin Creevey [in Chamber of Secrets] mentions how to make photos mobile, by putting it in a specific potion).

Has anybody every read the The Picture of Dorian Grey? Well his soul was caught in a portrait. The portrait displayed the consequences of his actions. Maybe a portrait captures part of their sould in a more positive way compared to a horcrux.

The only thing i could understand about this is that they are two separate people, but their can only be one person and many portraits.

I'm not sure there can be multiple painted versions of a person. Many portraits, certainly, but we've only ever seen one actual paint-person to live in them. Take Phineas Nigellus, for example. There were two portraits of him, one in Hogwarts, the other in 12 Grimmauld Place, but there was only one Phineas to divide his time between the two.

I'd still like to know who paints the portraits. The paintings on Luna's bedroom ceiling seem very interesting, as they are the only paintings of living people we've seen. Without moving, they have "a certain magic about them" and seem to breathe.

I rationalized it this way: What we see of Dumbledore's portrait in The Prince's Tale is through Snape's memory. So, the portrait could have said something bland and vague but characteristically Dumbledore-esque, and since Snape was thinking about what he was giong to tell Voldemort, he interpreted the comment based on what was occupying his own mind, and thought "Oh, Dumbledore would probably tell me to tell them the correct date of Harry's departure," or whatever. So it's all about perception.

Does that make sense? It's kind of like Trelawny's predictions (I just reread PoA)--she says something like "That thing you're dreading will happen soon," which is just some random thing she would say for shock value, but then as soon as something bad happens you're like, "zOMG, she warned me about that!"

what an interesting topic... although it scares me somewhat to think of the powers of dead people!
I think, DH had a lot of new things that JKR hadn't thought to mention before (Which left many of going 'huh?' at first before the explanation, as it seemed like something the trio etc. had known about all along!) and although we have a quote, I think it was a mistake, personally in my own humble opinion, that she spoke without thinking of DH (I don't know when the quote was from).... because Dumbledore seems to know an awful lot about what's going on in the current time and I think he is able to give advice... you lot may not agree but that is your choice, I am just telling of my views.

I think the whole series is proof that rules can be broken. Dumbledore was a lot like "The Voice Of God", he was the one calling all the shots. We had to have a way to receive his council. A portrait was the best way to do that without stooping to the obvious "resurection tactics" used so many times in the past. I liked it.

Photos can make squeaky protests if they are mishandled, so they can make some noise, just not anything coherent.

Maybe because photographs are just mechanically captured moments, but painted portraits are created by the skill and (if you will) soul of an artist, so some of that life-force of creation is infused into the portrait, allowing it to achieve some semblance of life? Also, if one is sitting for a portrait, one is spending several hours with the artist and the portrait, whereas a photo takes just seconds to make--the longer time allows the painting to absorb some of the personality and vitality of the subject.

Well I think that sums it up doesent it?

Can't Harry have simply commissioned a portrait to be created of Sirius/his parents/Dumbledore (for himself) in order to speak to them instead of having to resort to a Hallow? (sorry if this has been clarified before)

I thought while we are disscussing all this, it might be helpful to have Jo's relavent quotes for easy reference:


Sunday 15 August 2004

J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival

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?

That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; 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, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.

Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005

EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND
MA: One of our Leaky “Ask Jo” poll winners is theotherhermit, she's 50 and lives in a small town in the eastern US. I think this was addressed in the sixth book, but, “Do the memories stored in a Pensieve reflect reality or the views of the person they belong to?”

JKR: It’s reality. It’s important that I have got that across, because Slughorn gave Dumbledore this pathetic cut-and-paste memory. He didn't want to give the real thing, and he very obviously patched it up and cobbled it together. So, what you remember is accurate in the Pensieve.

ES: I was dead wrong about that.

JKR: Really?

ES: I thought for sure that it was your interpretation of it. It didn’t make sense to me to be able to examine your own thoughts from a third-person perspective. It almost feels like you'd be cheating because you'd always be able to look at things from someone else's point of view.

MA: So there are things in there that you haven't noticed personally, but you can go and see yourself?

JKR: Yes, and that's the magic of the Pensieve, that's what brings it alive.

ES: I want one of those!

JKR: Yeah. Otherwise it really would just be like a diary, wouldn’t it? Confined to what you remember. But the Pensieve recreates a moment for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that you didn't notice the time. It’s somewhere in your head, which I'm sure it is, in all of our brains. I'm sure if you could access it, things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere.

Hope this helps!

Edit: I just realized the first quote was already given earlier in the thread. I was about to delete to remove redundancy, but thought it might be kind of useful to have both in the same place, since we are trying to use the Pensieve memory to decipher portraits.

Portraits are an imprint of that person (like a ghost) wereas a photo is just a capture of that moment of time.

I think that as portraits are done with the sitters consent (I assume :) ) then they put a little bit of themselves into the painting, maybe through magical paint or through strong enchantments? It difficult to think about because the portraits have memories and can think for themselves!

I think it's because the artist takes time in painting the photo, so it's allowed to absorb some of the personality from the artist him/herself, and there's time for the personality of the person who is being painted to sink into the portrait, and as with photo's, the moment is captured instantly, and the scene is automatically set.

I think i've repeated alot of what other people have said, but it's just my perspective.

i was really dissapointed with dumbledores portrait
he was as good as alive
therfore i think it really cheapened his deaths
thats one of the two things that annoyed me about deathly hallows
it souldve just been an imprint

I dont think JK messed up on only DDs painting, Phineas Black could also talk and had a memory, but he has done since first seeing him in the books from what I remember...

Well, I don't know about an artist actually painting the portraits, I think that there is a lot of magic involved. When Dumbledore died, it said that a new portrait joined the others of Hogwarts headmasters, and how could an artist have done it so quickly and without the person in front of them to paint. I think there is just some strong magic involved.

I dont think JK messed up on only DDs painting, Phineas Black could also talk and had a memory, but he has done since first seeing him in the books from what I remember...

its not talking thats the problem
nor having a memory as that makes sense under the original theory of " a faint imprint"
but dumbledore was commnicating with snape as if he was right there...therefore i think it cheapens his death....

I think there are many interesting and excellent points made here, whether or not one is comfortable with the traits and abilities of DD's portrait, or all headmaster portraits, or portraits in general. I was surprised at how active and pivotal portraits turn out to be. I did find DD's portrait to be particularly robust, perhaps a bit more than I would have liked, once we finally saw it in action in The Prince's Tale, but at least it is used sparingly in DH. Phineas Nigellus' portrait's role is nothing to sneeze at, either.

I do think Ms. Rowling expanded the role of portraits over the course of the series, beyond the traits and role she described in the Q&A others have quoted. That is certainly her right. Is DD's portrait more powerful than PN's and the others', or was DD (the living one and/or the portrait one) just so much more invested in Harry and the crisis in the Wizarding world?

At the risk of straying from the specific topic at hand, are the headmasters' portraits particularly powerful relative to other portraits in Hogwarts, or were the headmasters simply more active and influential wizards in life? Are Hogwarts portraits in general more powerful than those elsewhere? I am not sure if Ms. Rowling is simply focusing more on certain portraits as they relate to the story or giving them special characteristics even for portraits.

I somehow got the impression that the Headmaster/Headmistress portraits were different from other portraits. That they had more awareness then others. It would appear that Hogwarts itself automatically creates them at their death.

but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.


Dumbledore explained that Voldemort was afraid of death, does that mean he would come back as a ghost?

Dumbledore explained that Voldemort was afraid of death, does that mean he would come back as a ghost?

Perhaps, if he had enough soul left to tie him to earth. Instead, he gets to become the flayed baby thing at King's Cross.

I don't see Dumbledore's portrait only speaking catchphrases. It's almost as if he actually was in the portrait. It's not that he only speaked "Nitwit" "Oddment", etc. And if it's an imprint of Dumbledore, then, he isn't really there so he isn't tided up for ever in a rectangle.

Maybe the Headmaster's portraits are different than others like those of Sirius' mum's. Throughout the books they seemed like they were there to advise the current headmaster...I almost think that it said that in one of the books.... The headmaster's portraits are always aware of their surroundsing and can answer questions. They almost seem like they're connected to them.

its not talking thats the problem
nor having a memory as that makes sense under the original theory of " a faint imprint"
but dumbledore was commnicating with snape as if he was right there...therefore i think it cheapens his death....

CHEAPENS his death? So Phineas Black, Armando Dippett and Dilys Derwent's deaths are also cheapened, not to mention Severus Snape, who turned out to be, as Harry noted, probably the bravest man he ever met? I somehow always knew that Severus would turn out to be one of the good guys, but in a classic Slytherin fashion... I really don't understand why communication 'as if he were right there' (which he WAS!) 'cheapens' Albus' death in any way whatsoever. His death was planned between the two of them in any case, though the intention of making Snape the rightful master of the Elder Wand went wrong, thanks to Draco's 'Expelliarmus' at the top of the tower. The statement simply doesn't make any sense. Sorry. :no:
Gaucho

Maybe by "cheapens" it is meant that somehow Dumbledore did not go all the way bravely into the afterworld, but remained more of a portrait ghost. But I don't think that was what happened. It was my impression that Dumbledore was one of the greatest wizards to ever live and thus his portrait has more ability than the other headmasters, just because his imprint is that much greater. I am sure he went bravely onward to the "next great adventure" he was telling Harry about. It sounds too great to miss out on!

Maybe by "cheapens" it is meant that somehow Dumbledore did not go all the way bravely into the afterworld, but remained more of a portrait ghost. But I don't think that was what happened. It was my impression that Dumbledore was one of the greatest wizards to ever live and thus his portrait has more ability than the other headmasters, just because his imprint is that much greater. I am sure he went bravely onward to the "next great adventure" he was telling Harry about. It sounds too great to miss out on!

Wow, i couldn't agree more! It makes all the sense, to me, that Dumbledore being that powerful makes his imprint much more "speakable" than other portraits

Maybe the Headmaster's portraits are different than others like those of Sirius' mum's. Throughout the books they seemed like they were there to advise the current headmaster...I almost think that it said that in one of the books.... The headmaster's portraits are always aware of their surroundsing and can answer questions. They almost seem like they're connected to them.

I haven't the book in front of me, but I am CERTAIN that at one point Fortescue chides Black by telling him that thir 'job' is to assist the current headmaster in as good a way as is in their power (which after three pages we still haven't been able to properly define!).

And as for the portraits of Headmasters/mistresses being somehow 'more' than the other portraits hanging at Hogwarts, obviously they were the best wizards of their time to be in the position of Head in the first place, so they WOULD have more useful and intelligent contributions to make. Especially hanging in the Head's Study.

While we're at it, does anyone else think that Horace Slughorn would have (but for the intervention of LV and his DEs) made quite the best Slytherin Headmaster in Centuries? Yes, he was Slytherin, but that does not necessarily make a person bad at all. After all, the Hat thought that Harry himself would have made a great Slytherin before taking his flat refusal to be sorted into that house into account... makes you wonder also how Sirius became a Gryffindor rather than a Slytherin, against the usual family follow-ons (like the Patil sisters).

But on the whole, the portraits of former Heads can contribute a hell of a lot to the current incumbent in many ways, through their own experiences. I feel sure that Albus Dumbledore's portrait will make such a contribution in the future. After all, he was regarded as possibly the greatest wizard alive during his lifetime. His death won't change that, even though the portraits aren't necessarily the exact same as the living person, although they are to all intents and purposes the same people they were in life, just as 'imprints', but imprints who are able through some magic that hasn't been properly explained, to impart their wisdom to those who communicate with them, especially the current Head. I have theories about the differences between the 'imprints' of ghosts and portraits, but would probably require a full editorial to flesh them out properly.
Interesting topic with interesting contributions though. Keep it up, folks!
Gaucho

After all, the Hat thought that Harry himself would have made a great Slytherin before taking his flat refusal to be sorted into that house into account... makes you wonder also how Sirius became a Gryffindor rather than a Slytherin, against the usual family follow-ons (like the Patil sisters).

The hat only considered Harry for Slytherin because it was sensing the piece of Voldemort's soul in him.
I think Sirius was put into Gryffindor because he was a Gryffindor at heart. He was obviously brave...It takes a certain kind of bravery to defy your family like that. You have to be brave to sacrafice for your friends, to break the law for them, to do what you think is right even when it puts you in danger.

I think a magic portrait of a dead person is kinda a soul, isn't it? When wizards die, they go on; but they could also visit their portrait, I think.

As someone said much earlier, when JKR needed something, whatever was there was suddenly able to do what was needed. Author's privilege, I guess.

I agree that Hogwarts itself created the portraits, and I think she cheated a bit in the scene where the portraits give Harry a standing ovation. By rights Snape should have been there, but that would have distracted the reader from Dumbledore leading the cheers.

And, since Dumbledore's portrait is so vital, etc., I think it could have made Snape's tenure as headmaster easier, and possibly helped the Order, if it had told McGonagall, at minimum, "I still trust Severus Snape."

This is from the live chat Bloomsbury held shortly after the release of book 7:

Laura Trego: Was the absence of snapes portrait in the headmasters office in the last scene innocent or deliberate
J.K. Rowling: It was deliberate. Snape had effectively abandoned his post before dying, so he had not merited inclusion in these august circles.
J.K. Rowling: However, I like to think that Harry would be instrumental in ensuring that Snape's portrait would appear there in due course.

I remember reading that transcript, and I still think JKR left Snape's portrait off the wall because it was convenient to the narrative. We don't know while Snape and McGonagall are fighting that Snape will never return. Also, in OotP, Dumbledore flees to avoid arrest--abandoning his post. Last but not least, in HBP Dumbledore's portrait appears over the headmaster's chair without human intervention (that's how I knew DD was really dead). Maybe JKR decided that Snape wouldn't get a portrait because he'd left, but that's inconsistent with what she showed earlier.

I remember reading that transcript, and I still think JKR left Snape's portrait off the wall because it was convenient to the narrative. We don't know while Snape and McGonagall are fighting that Snape will never return. Also, in OotP, Dumbledore flees to avoid arrest--abandoning his post. Last but not least, in HBP Dumbledore's portrait appears over the headmaster's chair without human intervention (that's how I knew DD was really dead). Maybe JKR decided that Snape wouldn't get a portrait because he'd left, but that's inconsistent with what she showed earlier.

It could have to do with intentions too. Dumbledore left because he was forced to by people outside of the school and its loyalties. Snape left after he turned on those of Hogwarts (meaning hexing people).

While Dumbledore flees his office we have no way of knowing if he actually left the school. He could have gone to an abandoned classroom only to return once his office sealed itself. And he did return. Snape ran like a chicken and never returned. No portrait and none deserved.

While Dumbledore flees his office we have no way of knowing if he actually left the school. He could have gone to an abandoned classroom only to return once his office sealed itself. And he did return. Snape ran like a chicken and never returned. No portrait and none deserved.

Right. :rolleyes: It would have served the school, the Order, and dear departed Dumbledore's wishes much better if Snape had A) stood his ground and offed as many of the teachers as he possibly could or B) let them kill him before he got the crucial information to Harry Potter that he was instructed to.

You obviously don't like Snape, and you're entitled to your own opinion, but no one's entitled to their own facts. It is now canon that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore and acting on his orders and his plan - it's not debatable - and did not "desert" his post out of cowardice, but necessity.

maybe the headmasters portraits are different and they are like bound to the magic of the school.... dumbledores portrait is automatically created when he died so maybe the head's portraits are created by the ancient magic that is within the school

Has anybody every read the The Picture of Dorian Grey? Well his soul was caught in a portrait. The portrait displayed the consequences of his actions. Maybe a portrait captures part of their sould in a more positive way compared to a horcrux.

exactly what I was going to say. Dorian, and the painter poured their souls into that painting.

However, do the painting only talk after their subject is dead? Do we ever see a painting of a person that was alive and talked? Maybe it has to do with whether or not the subject was actaully alive.

We never know of a portriat of Dumbledore until his death and it appears in the headmasters office. Are the portraits another way in which people live on instead of choosing to become a ghost?

Can't Harry have simply commissioned a portrait to be created of Sirius/his parents/Dumbledore (for himself) in order to speak to them instead of having to resort to a Hallow?

I think that as portraits are done with the sitters consent (I assume :) ) then they put a little bit of themselves into the painting, maybe through magical paint or through strong enchantments? It difficult to think about because the portraits have memories and can think for themselves!

I lean towards the thought that portraits - at least, those with the strongest imprint of the knowledge and personality of the subject - must be at least partially prepared before the death of the subject. At least the knowledge and personality - perhaps a spell or potion is used to generate the image from that information.

One might want to update one's own profile periodically. Think of it as creating a backup disk! I believe Dumbledore's portrait retained Dumbledore's knowledge of events until some point in time before he and Harry left for the cave.

However, do the painting only talk after their subject is dead? Do we ever see a painting of a person that was alive and talked? Maybe it has to do with whether or not the subject was actaully alive.

We never know of a portriat of Dumbledore until his death and it appears in the headmasters office.

I can't recall. Did we ever see a painting of a subject we knew to be alive? The Chocolate Frog Card images were small photographs, right?

How much kinship is there between photographs and their subjects?

We saw that Percy's image had walked out of a family portrait while he was estranged from them.
Peter's image didn't absent itself from the photo of the old Order - had he not yet turned spy, and so was a different person?
Dumbledore walked out of the card on the train in the first book - was he going to report to the real Dumbledore that Harry was safely on the train and it looked like he was making friends?

Well, I don't know about an artist actually painting the portraits, I think that there is a lot of magic involved. When Dumbledore died, it said that a new portrait joined the others of Hogwarts headmasters, and how could an artist have done it so quickly and without the person in front of them to paint. I think there is just some strong magic involved.

Exactly, maybe there is some kind of spell you cast on a canvas that you wish to be in when you die.

The issue of the the portraits talking, advising and being involved in current affairs has really interested me. Has JKR ever been asked how they are made, when they are made, how part of the person is imbibed into the paint/canvas?

The fact the Snape had a portrait added later makes me question whether the person being painted had to even be present, although presumably Snape could have commissioned such a portrait as some point in time before his death. I agree with the last few posts suggesting that some sort of magic is involved and one can simply "magic" a portrait into existence but getting a piece of the actual person into the canvas must require some artifact of the person or some spell performed by the person in the picture.

Is it like the diary, where the portrait only knows as much as the person knew up to the point of being painted unless some other source keeps them updated about events and happenings?

As far as the paintings go, there are two elements involved:

The artist - what kind of impact or power did the artist have that would cause and animated image of the person to become a part of the canvas?

The subject - Is there something in death that aligns the person's soul or image on the canvas? Does the image learn from current events? For example, if Dumbledore's portrait hangs in the Headmaster's office, will he be able to comment on events twenty years from the current time? Does the subject only have his own lifespan's frame of reference?

Lastly...on the photos: It strikes me as interesting that many indigeonous cultures did not like sitting for photographs because the belief was that it would steal their soul, yet the paintings seem to do precisely that. Is there a connection?

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?

That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; 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, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.


I think that if they can give counsel, they are capable of taking in new information, though perhaps they are not capable of retaining long-term memories of anything other than what they knew prior to dying.

What confuses me is that a person can seemingly only be in one portrait at a time, as seen with Phinneas Nigellus (and Dumbledore in the Chocolate Frog card, although I don't remember if that was maybe just in the movie?). Phinneas could move between his portraits in Grimmauld Place and Dumbledore's office, but I don't think he could ever be in both portraits at once. Does that mean that even if there were a large number of portraits of a certain person, he would always only be in one of those paintings at a time? And all the other owners just had to look at a blank image most of the time? That seems very inconvenient. And stressful for the person in the portrait, always having to try to give everybody even viewing pleasure.
And do those portraits have to look identical? Cuz what if one portrait was painted with the person looking all dressed and made up completely different from the other portrait. All so very very confusing...

What confuses me is that a person can seemingly only be in one portrait at a time, as seen with Phinneas Nigellus (and Dumbledore in the Chocolate Frog card, although I don't remember if that was maybe just in the movie?). Phinneas could move between his portraits in Grimmauld Place and Dumbledore's office, but I don't think he could ever be in both portraits at once. Does that mean that even if there were a large number of portraits of a certain person, he would always only be in one of those paintings at a time? And all the other owners just had to look at a blank image most of the time? That seems very inconvenient. And stressful for the person in the portrait, always having to try to give everybody even viewing pleasure.
And do those portraits have to look identical? Cuz what if one portrait was painted with the person looking all dressed and made up completely different from the other portrait. All so very very confusing...

Here's what I think. As to the first question in this topic, why can portraits and paintings talk but not pictures, I think that is because of the way the photos are made. Thinking about it logically, a painting/portrait takes much, much more time and effort than simply snapping a picture. Although Jo never really got into the specific details of magical painting, I'm sure some sort of special process is required in making a painting talk. Perhaps a device similar to a pensieve must be used to insert the life of a portrait.

As to why can one person be in only one portrait at once? I think it's safe to say that a magical painting is not at all like a muggle painting; you can't simply put the painting in a copy machine and give the copies to anyone who wants the painting. Rather, the characters in a portrait of painting can be related to people. They are living entities. And therefore, they cannot be in more than one place at once. And I believe, if a portrait is seen in a frame that is not the original in which the painting was painted, that character will be wearing the same clothes, have the same appearance, etc. A magical painting probably has two parts, the background and the character themselves. Both are separate, and therefore the character can leave the portrait. Case and point: The Fat Lady, who can often be found sitting on a bench, in a different frame, with her friends.

But, there is yet another, more complex aspect to magical paintings. I do believe is possible to link two portraits, and also restrict them. Phineas, for example, has two frames stationed at Grimmauld Place and Dumbledore's office. Both of these places are of utmost secrecy and importance. The headmaster’s office was Dumbledore’s humble abode; all his planning, ideas, strategies, etc, were undoubtedly mapped out and planned there before put into execution. Grimmauld place housed the Order of the Phoenix headquarter. I'm sure Dumbledore wouldn't want Phineas simply waltzing to any frame he wants, chattering about all he has seen. Therefore, I think it is possible to restrict the characters of a portrait to a number of frames; simply because it is implausible to think that Phineas had free reign. Unless, of course, this is another book mistake. As to linking; as I said before, I think that a magical portrait has two entities: a character and a setting. Perhaps it’s also possible to just create a setting in which characters can visit or "live"; a sort of second home. This also pertains to Phineas, because it is fact that he has two portraits. Also, not only can you restrict characters to certain frames, you could also probably restrict who enter any particular frame. Case and point: Phineas's frames. I doubt Dumbledore would allow access to these frames, places in such important places, to simply any character.

Could it be that the soul of the witch/wizard comes with the painting, and a photo is just an image of an event?

But, there is yet another, more complex aspect to magical paintings. I do believe is possible to link two portraits, and also restrict them. Phineas, for example, has two frames stationed at Grimmauld Place and Dumbledore's office. Both of these places are of utmost secrecy and importance. The headmaster’s office was Dumbledore’s humble abode; all his planning, ideas, strategies, etc, were undoubtedly mapped out and planned there before put into execution. Grimmauld place housed the Order of the Phoenix headquarter. I'm sure Dumbledore wouldn't want Phineas simply waltzing to any frame he wants, chattering about all he has seen. Therefore, I think it is possible to restrict the characters of a portrait to a number of frames; simply because it is implausible to think that Phineas had free reign. Unless, of course, this is another book mistake. As to linking; as I said before, I think that a magical portrait has two entities: a character and a setting. Perhaps it’s also possible to just create a setting in which characters can visit or "live"; a sort of second home. This also pertains to Phineas, because it is fact that he has two portraits. Also, not only can you restrict characters to certain frames, you could also probably restrict who enter any particular frame. Case and point: Phineas's frames. I doubt Dumbledore would allow access to these frames, places in such important places, to simply any character.

I don't think this would be a mistake, but I think the headmasters would find it insulting to be restricted. They are duty-bound to serve the current headmaster, which I believe includes not running their mouths about all that they hear. We are told that Phineas could not bring Dumbledore into his Grimmauld Place portrait because Dumbledore cannot travel between Phineas's portraits. But I'm sure Dumbledore could go visit the Fat Lady if he wanted, because his portrait is in the same establishment as hers. In OotP, one of the headmasters runs along other portraits in St. Mungo's, where she also has a portrait, so she could see what was going on with Arthur. Also, in DH, when Harry goes back to Dumbledore's office, he notes that the headmasters are not there, and surmises that they have gone to other portraits within the castle so they could see what was going on.

Like a normal photograph, it basically freezes an image from time and puts it on paper. I'm not sure exactly how a camera works (mirrors etc.) but it's basically taking a chosen memory and imprinting it on something you can hold and look at yet again. So a wizarding photograph is just the same but like a very short home video without sound. It's just a silent memory, giving maybe 10+ seconds of recorded and repeated movements (or so the films make out). I can only imagine how upsetting this might be to look at if you've lost a loved one. Harry, Snape etc. for example.

Paintings are different. A modle may or may not be required. As it's a painting, like any doodle, it can be given some sort of 'life', if not fake. I supose it matters what personality the artist is trying to make his/her character like. Artists like to put in emotions etc. in to their works and in the wizarding world these just jump up and start walking on a setting created on the canvas. I supose if it's of a particular person some of their character and personality will be imprinted on it and the painting shall act as the person has. If the person suddenly had a personality change I doubt the painting would.

Pretty simple.

I think each portrait depends upon the person and his magical ability and power and also the place where such portraits were put up. In a home, there would seem to be less magic than in an institution that would have more wards and more magic protecting it. Hogwarts IMO would have the strongest magic running through her, followed by the MInistry and St. Mungo's.

In Hogwarts we see the portraits are able to talk to each other, move around, talk to the students and understand what they are saying, pass on messages and so on.

Compared to that we see in Grimmauld Place, Mrs. Black and other Black family members not doing anything, except shrieking when ever the cutains open and they are progammed to open when ever there's a noise.

Mrs. Black is the normal kind of portrait IMO. One that carries an imprint of her life, which was miserable because she lost both her sons, went mad and died. Her portrait went mad too.

In Hogwarts, a portrait appears magically for Albus Dumbledore and has great clarity. So IMO there are differences in portraits according to the place, magical ability of the person and his own mental status when he died.

Photos, I believe are simply capturing one moment in time, a particular memory, or event. They aren't there to represent a person or to relive a person, which is what I think the point of a painting is to do. I loved JKR's description of a faint imprint of themselves. You cannot have a relationship with a portrait or a meaningful conversation. You will also get the general jist of their personality and their feelings, before they had previously died, and basically what they would have said when they were alive. It's not the true person, only an imprint. :)

Photos, I believe are simply capturing one moment in time, a particular memory, or event. They aren't there to represent a person or to relive a person, which is what I think the point of a painting is to do. I loved JKR's description of a faint imprint of themselves. You cannot have a relationship with a portrait or a meaningful conversation. You will also get the general jist of their personality and their feelings, before they had previously died, and basically what they would have said when they were alive. It's not the true person, only an imprint. :)

I was going to post my thoughts, but now I don't have to because you have. Well put!:clap:

Colin Creevey was able to create magical photographs using a special method of development and his muggle camera. We never find out anything about how portraits are created. (I find that rather annoying, by the way.)

Photos, I believe are simply capturing one moment in time, a particular memory, or event. They aren't there to represent a person or to relive a person, which is what I think the point of a painting is to do. I loved JKR's description of a faint imprint of themselves. You cannot have a relationship with a portrait or a meaningful conversation. You will also get the general jist of their personality and their feelings, before they had previously died, and basically what they would have said when they were alive. It's not the true person, only an imprint. :)

But there seem to be portraits with different capabilities. Mrs. Black was one who could not do much except order Kreacher about, talking all the time about worthy purebloods and useless and filthy half bloods.

But all the portraits in Hogwarts were those that could move from portrait to portraits (Sir Cadogan, Fat Lady, her friend Vi and others) and Phineas and another Headmistress (I forget her name) who could move to their other portraits and do srious jobs for Dumbledore. Also they seemed to have greater capacity for understanding new things and concepts (horcruxes; not all of them would have known) and also could also argue decently with the current Headmaster.

The portraits in Hogwarts IMO had more *brain* than other portraits.

It should be remembered that Mrs. Black was at least partly insane during her life. "Death to mudbloods and blood traitors!" was her guiding thought in life; she was a limited character then, so perhaps there wasn't very much left that could go into her two-dimensional portrait self. It would have to be "smaller," less fully realized than the original person, and she was a very small person to begin with.

Yes she may have been and it was that thought that was reflected in her portrait, the way she was when she died, even though she may have been different while she was younger. Her magical ability may have been severely impaired by her loss of Regulus and anger at Sirius's desertion as well. But other portraits at Hogwarts seemed capable of so much more.

Photos are simpler and so not as able to mimic the full range of human actions .

I always assumed that the portraits appears automatically for the headmasters and head mistresses when they end their term whether through death or retirement, which is why Dumbledore's appeared but Snape's didn't. There's no need to sit for it because the castle knows you.

What's weird is that I think that portraits, at least those in Hogwarts because of the amount of magic running through the place, can talk even if they're subject is alive. You can't wait for a retired headmaster to die to put up a portrait and you can't bother him/her whenever you need some advice so the portrait is like a kind of ghost, an imprint of the person.

Considering that the portraits act like real people, is it so weird to think that maybe Mrs. Black's portrait went a bit loony? I mean she had her pureblood mania and she was obviously angry with the inhabitants but it seems that being alone all that time caused the portrait more damage than Kreacher.

But there seem to be portraits with different capabilities. Mrs. Black was one who could not do much except order Kreacher about, talking all the time about worthy purebloods and useless and filthy half bloods.

But all the portraits in Hogwarts were those that could move from portrait to portraits (Sir Cadogan, Fat Lady, her friend Vi and others) and Phineas and another Headmistress (I forget her name) who could move to their other portraits and do srious jobs for Dumbledore. Also they seemed to have greater capacity for understanding new things and concepts (horcruxes; not all of them would have known) and also could also argue decently with the current Headmaster.

The portraits in Hogwarts IMO had more *brain* than other portraits.

I think it was basically that this was the kind of thing Mrs Black would have done on an everyday basis when she was alive. She would be ordering Kreacher about, screaming, making rude insults etc. That was her personality. However, the other portraits in Hogwarts were mainly of people, who in their real lives would have helped Dumbledore to do a task.

I don't think that there was much of a difference, I just think that perhaps as there was more of an interaction for the portraits at Hogwarts from students and teachers that perhaps they had more of a chance to recall certain aspects of their personality, if that makes any sense :D

I don't think that there was much of a difference, I just think that perhaps as there was more of an interaction for the portraits at Hogwarts from students and teachers that perhaps they had more of a chance to recall certain aspects of their personality, if that makes any sense :D

I think so. :)

So could we say the portraits that are chosen to be placed or put up in Hogwarts are those of people who were perhaps more aware of themselves and their surroundings than say Mrs. Black.

That would make all the portraits in Hogwarts able to relate to their surroundings better and also comprehend and obey instructions properly as well.

I think so. :)

So could we say the portraits that are chosen to be placed or put up in Hogwarts are those of people who were perhaps more aware of themselves and their surroundings than say Mrs. Black.

That would make all the portraits in Hogwarts able to relate to their surroundings better and also comprehend and obey instructions properly as well.

I think that the portraits would have been of people who had either made a difference at Hogwarts itself and were therefore familiar to its surroundings or did something particularly astonishing or brave or groud breaking in the wizarding world. And also just generally loved and generous people. I don't think we've seen a portrait of a malicious or evil person at Hogwarts. They were probably more aware of others also. I can only really guess from the snippets that we've been shown in the books, but on the whole these portraits seem to know their place and what they should do. :)

I think that the portraits would have been of people who had either made a difference at Hogwarts itself and were therefore familiar to its surroundings or did something particularly astonishing or brave or groud breaking in the wizarding world. And also just generally loved and generous people. I don't think we've seen a portrait of a malicious or evil person at Hogwarts. They were probably more aware of others also. I can only really guess from the snippets that we've been shown in the books, but on the whole these portraits seem to know their place and what they should do. :)

:tu:

Also the magic of Hogwarts herself could increase their awareness. She has had wards and magic running through her for over a thousand years.

Also the magic of Hogwarts herself could increase their awareness. She has had wards and magic running through her for over a thousand years.
I think Jo said something to that effect. In the Bloomsbury webchat, perhaps?

Just as a photo in the muggle world can capture the image of a subject, a wizard photo captures just the image of the person, but not it's soul. It takes an artist to capture the soul of a portrait and make it come to life, so to speak.

I am not 100% sure about this, but I don't know if you can be made into a portraits if you are still alive. I think that's the biggest difference. And perhaps as it has said before, a bit of your soul is put into the paintings? Great idea for a thread. Never really thought about it until now.

I am not 100% sure about this, but I don't know if you can be made into a portraits if you are still alive. I think that's the biggest difference. And perhaps as it has said before, a bit of your soul is put into the paintings? Great idea for a thread. Never really thought about it until now.

Of course, there must be a considerable difference between portraits and those other things that have bits of soul in them: horcruxes. We've seen portraits of people who would never create a horcrux, and portraits don't tie their subjects to life. It seems almost like the "imprint of a departed soul" which makes me wonder about ghosts and whether they are the "real" person or not, or whether a portrait is perhaps on the same footing as a ghost.

I am not 100% sure about this, but I don't know if you can be made into a portraits if you are still alive. I think that's the biggest difference. And perhaps as it has said before, a bit of your soul is put into the paintings? Great idea for a thread. Never really thought about it until now.

I don't think a bit of the soul goes into the making of a portrait. That would be a horcrux. ;)

I think all the memories and the general character traits of a person goes into his portrait that later can understand, assimilate, talk and discuss and even give opinions about anything it would have known while alive. All the concepts it understood while alive it would understand now also. That is how I understood it. :)

But the person would have to be alive to get all of that into the portrait wouldn't they? Otherwise, Harry could have had a portrait of his parents painted and talked to them all through the series.

:hmm: Hmm, I'd never thought about that. Good question.
Maybe it just depends on what kind of spells and enchantment you put on the picture...:shrug:

That's a good theory, Anhelda :tu:. I agree.

But the person would have to be alive to get all of that into the portrait wouldn't they? Otherwise, Harry could have had a portrait of his parents painted and talked to them all through the series.
Maybe, Harry could've been able to but as he was brought up by the dursleys he didn't know he could.

My best guess is that it's a different spell that makes the portraits talk

But the person would have to be alive to get all of that into the portrait wouldn't they? Otherwise, Harry could have had a portrait of his parents painted and talked to them all through the series.

I think the person must create their portrait while alive; that is make provisions to create one when they were alive; that would become the portrait after they are dead.

-----

The only portraits we see are Mrs. Black and the portraits at Hogwarts. Mrs. Black at the time of death was pretty much insane, Regulus had died and Sirius was already lost to her. We see her scream rubbish; I think her mind broke; that was why she was like that.

Contrary to her are the portraits at Hogwarts, who can hold intelligent conversation, move from portrait to portrait, even give advice to the Headmaster.

So I think these portraits are of people who had reasonable magic and were coherent while alive. They retained IMO that when they died and their portraits created.

Dumbledore too, must have retained his knowledge of all that he knew in his life and I think when he died, that knowledge came to the portrait. While it would not have the dynamics of the real Dumbledore, it would be far cleverer and well, brilliant really, compared to Mr. Black.

paintings are more dimensional than photos. maybe making them more advanced and complex than just a simple photo could be. giving paintings more ability.

Here's what JKR says about portraits. It seems, from what she describes, that the portraits in the headmasters office are a bit more interactive than normal portraits. She says the headmasters/mistresses leave behind an imprint of themselves, an aura in the office. In other places (Sirius's mother), they only repeat phrases they commonly used.


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: That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; 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, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.

And about moving photos, which is from her website. It seems that nothing of the person's imprint or aura is captured, and without the magic developing potion, the pictures would not move at all.


I have an old notebook in which it says dev sol (potion) magic [indecipherable word] photos move. Adept as I am at interpreting my old scribbles, I can tell you that the original idea was that wizards would use a magical developing potion to make their photographs move.

Perhaps paintings are more like a pensive, they can hold memories that the portrait uses to become like the person they represent, and maybe not all paintings are as good as the ones in Hogwarts.

If portraits can talk, how come photographs can't? Does it simply have something to do with the potion they are developed in?

I think it has more to do with than that. I thought it was more like what the portrait was taken with. Perhaps its a special camera. Or what if its drawn, and the specific tool is what gives them the power to talk and be life like.

Has anybody every read the The Picture of Dorian Grey? Well his soul was caught in a portrait. The portrait displayed the consequences of his actions. Maybe a portrait captures part of their sould in a more positive way compared to a horcrux.

That's what I was thinking when I first thought about the moving portraits and what made them so different from photographs. Paintings always seemed to be "timeless"

If portraits can talk, how come photographs can't? Does it simply have something to do with the potion they are developed in?

It's just the way JKR set it up. Photos are taken in the normal way, but developed in a special magic potion that allows the pictures to move. If you develop them in the normal muggle way, they wouldn't move.


I have an old notebook in which it says dev sol (potion) magic [indecipherable word] photos move. Adept as I am at interpreting my old scribbles, I can tell you that the original idea was that wizards would use a magical developing potion to make their photographs move.

That's what I was thinking when I first thought about the moving portraits and what made them so different from photographs. Paintings always seemed to be "timeless"

I can see that. Maybe Jo was thinking that photos can easily be put in an album and become forgotten easily but portraits (like the Mona Lisa or something in likeness) can last hundreds of years.
While we're on the subject of portraits, how do you suppose portraits are chosen to guard the secret passages. Bill asks in GoF if the Fat Lady is still around, which makes me think that another portrait must have been there before the Fat Lady (most likely in Riddle's time at Hogwarts).

I can see that. Maybe Jo was thinking that photos can easily be put in an album and become forgotten easily but portraits (like the Mona Lisa or something in likeness) can last hundreds of years.
While we're on the subject of portraits, how do you suppose portraits are chosen to guard the secret passages. Bill asks in GoF if the Fat Lady is still around, which makes me think that another portrait must have been there before the Fat Lady (most likely in Riddle's time at Hogwarts).

I always considered Bill asking him that question due to the attack on her painting the previous year when she wouldn't let in Sirius. But it is an interesting question. Do we know what guards the Hufflepuff door? Because I think only Gryffindor had the portrait. Maybe she was one of the first Gryffindor's or something....but I figured she was somehow tied to the house which is how her portrait was put there.

Wouldn't it be funny (or fun) to have Harry be the new portrait of Gryffindor House.....interesting?!:D

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, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost.
One interesting question that this sparks is how much of an aura would Snape have left in the headmaster's office. We know that his portrait did not arrive immediately after his death (like Dumbledore's did), but that Harry would have guaranteed Snape's portrait be hung in the office. However, since it was not hung automatically, like Dumbledore's, does this mean Snape's portrait will have a fainter imprint of himself than the other headmasters? I would not think so, but I see it as a possibility.
The only portraits we see are Mrs. Black and the portraits at Hogwarts.
We also know that portraits are hung at St. Mungo's, the Ministry, and even in certain households (Phineas's portrait in 12 Grimmauld Place).
Mrs. Black at the time of death was pretty much insane, Regulus had died and Sirius was already lost to her. We see her scream rubbish; I think her mind broke; that was why she was like that.
I would not say that Mrs. Black "screamed rubbish." She screamed insults at the Order members; insults that were perfectly understandable and reflected her feelings about those types of wizards: "Filth! Scum! By-products of dirt and vileness! Half-breeds, mutants, freaks, begone from this place! How dare you befoul the house of my fathers -" To me, that is not pointless rubbish; they are conscious assaults.
It's just the way JKR set it up. Photos are taken in the normal way, but developed in a special magic potion that allows the pictures to move. If you develop them in the normal muggle way, they wouldn't move.
Colin Creevey is the perfect example. He took photographs with his Muggle camera and then developed the film in "the right potion" to make the pictures move.
While we're on the subject of portraits, how do you suppose portraits are chosen to guard the secret passages?
I believe they volunteer and would remain in that position until they decide to quit. After the Fat Lady was attacked, she was replaced by Sir Cadogan because he was "the only one brave enough to volunteer."
Do we know what guards the Hufflepuff door?
Here is what JKR said:
The Hufflepuff common room is accessed through a portrait near the kitchens, as I am sure you have deduced. Sorry - I should say 'painting' rather than portrait, because it is a still-life.
Since the entrance is near the kitchens, I would assume the painting depicts food in some sense (like the entrance to the kitchens: one tickles a pear in a picture of a bowl of fruit).

harry potter rocks!!!

I always considered Bill asking him that question due to the attack on her painting the previous year when she wouldn't let in Sirius. But it is an interesting question. Do we know what guards the Hufflepuff door? Because I think only Gryffindor had the portrait. Maybe she was one of the first Gryffindor's or something....but I figured she was somehow tied to the house which is how her portrait was put there.

Wouldn't it be funny (or fun) to have Harry be the new portrait of Gryffindor House.....interesting?!:D

I never really made the connection with the attack and Bill's question. That's a good thought actually... I'd love to see Dumbledore as a new portrait for Gryffindor. And all his passwords would be things like "Oddment!" or "Acid Pops!" lol

I never really made the connection with the attack and Bill's question. That's a good thought actually... I'd love to see Dumbledore as a new portrait for Gryffindor. And all his passwords would be things like "Oddment!" or "Acid Pops!" lol:lol:

I think it would be fun to see that, but I'm fairly sure that all of the Headmaster's Hogwarts portraits have to stay in the Headmaster's office. Since that's Dumbledore's only portrait I don't think he could leave. Also, it wouldn't be quite fair to make the Fat Lady leave. :lol:

One interesting question that this sparks is how much of an aura would Snape have left in the headmaster's office. We know that his portrait did not arrive immediately after his death (like Dumbledore's did), but that Harry would have guaranteed Snape's portrait be hung in the office. However, since it was not hung automatically, like Dumbledore's, does this mean Snape's portrait will have a fainter imprint of himself than the other headmasters? I would not think so, but I see it as a possibility.

That Snape's portrait did not come at once is itself surprising, since Hogwarts knew Snape's role in the war. Dumbledore's portrait came at once and it was with Dumbledore's blessings that Snape became Headmaster; he had the approval of the last but one Head of Hogwarts, even if he was appointed by Voldemort.

That the portrait never came at once seems so wrong IMO.

We also know that portraits are hung at St. Mungo's, the Ministry, and even in certain households (Phineas's portrait in 12 Grimmauld Place).

Yes.

I would not say that Mrs. Black "screamed rubbish." She screamed insults at the Order members; insults that were perfectly understandable and reflected her feelings about those types of wizards: "Filth! Scum! By-products of dirt and vileness! Half-breeds, mutants, freaks, begone from this place! How dare you befoul the house of my fathers -" To me, that is not pointless rubbish; they are conscious assaults.

She did not seem to have the intelligence of the Hogwarts Head's portraits, though; at least not in canon IMO.

The portraits of the Head's office seemed to have the maximum intelligence, followed by the other portraits in Hogwarts, perhpas because of her magic. While we see other portraits in St. Mungo's, we really don't know much about them to make a comparison. I would guess that they were like the portraits in Hogwarts (Fat Lady and Vi and Sir Cadogan), but not like those in the Headmaster's office.

She did not seem to have the intelligence of the Hogwarts Head's portraits, though; at least not in canon IMO.I think I'd have to agree - Mrs. Black didn't seem to say/know anything else besides those insults. She may have known/figured out who to direct the insults toward (like saying "shame of my flesh" to Sirius), but she had a limited (albeit colorful) vocabulary. Though it's possible that this could have been due to Mrs. Black's personality when she was alive - she may have been (actually I think it's likely) that she could have been a bit unstable, and this fact is reflected in her portrait.

Regarding the Headmasters' portraits, I agree they seem to be more intelligent to Mrs. Black by comparison. This could be due to their personalities when they were alive. Also, I wonder if the quality of the portrait makes a difference. For example, if the artist doing the portrait was better at it than another artist, I wonder if the portraits of the better artist would have a wider vocabulary and be more like the original person.

Though it's possible that this could have been due to Mrs. Black's personality when she was alive - she may have been (actually I think it's likely) that she could have been a bit unstable, and this fact is reflected in her portrait.

LOL yes! :D

We have been talking about Merope and others who led pitiable lives; in some ways (probably of her own making) Mrs. Black too led a life that must have been pretty awful during her last days. Regulus had died, being branded as a traitor and Sirius was lost to her; she must have become demented! And I suppose she died that way and her portrait reflected the hate she had towards muggleborns.

Regarding the Headmasters' portraits, I agree they seem to be more intelligent to Mrs. Black by comparison. This could be due to their personalities when they were alive. Also, I wonder if the quality of the portrait makes a difference. For example, if the artist doing the portrait was better at it than another artist, I wonder if the portraits of the better artist would have a wider vocabulary and be more like the original person.

Yes, the quality of the portrait could make a difference, but more than that I think the character of the person and the magic of the place, which would give the portrait life and intelligence IMO. Hogwarts is pure magic and that I think reflected in the portraits all through Hogwarts to make them as close to as they were when alive IMO.

Could it be possible that the quality of the parchment or paper or whatever they were using would make a difference in whether or not it would talk? Because I did notice that. Obviously, we've made that distinction, but why? Could it be that the personalization of detail and what not would help the painting gain life, because paintings have to be PAINTED(obvv.) and there has to be detail and personality going into that work of art, while taking a picture you just click a button and can basically take a picture of anything.

I agree, paintings are not real people, but a painted image oof a real, or made-up person. spells cast upon the paintings could be cast just after the painting was made, and could only have a voice similar to the original person.

I have just realised, how is a wizarding photograph taken or prosessed? Colin had a camera, but would the picture he took move? Also, how could you edit a picture's movements to fit the way you want it to?

I agree, paintings are not real people, but a painted image oof a real, or made-up person. spells cast upon the paintings could be cast just after the painting was made, and could only have a voice similar to the original person.

I have just realised, how is a wizarding photograph taken or prosessed? Colin had a camera, but would the picture he took move? Also, how could you edit a picture's movements to fit the way you want it to?

I think Colin said that he was told how to develop them so they move, which is a very interesting point. I don't have the book near me to cite it, but he did say that there was a way to do it. For some reason, I think it was either a potion or a spell, but I have no way to be sure without checking!

I like the idea that the portraits talk while the pictures don't, perhaps because a portrait shows a person in their life's essence? A photo shows them only in a moment in time. I don't know if that's been mentioned before on this, I haven't read back, but I like the idea.

Pictures are just capturing a certain moment in time, while a painting is painted, it isn't just taken as a memory to capture time, it had a purpose when it was painted and it may be a potrait of someone or a certain scene but they can interact because of how it was created.

Pictures are just capturing a certain moment in time, while a painting is painted, it isn't just taken as a memory to capture time, it had a purpose when it was painted and it may be a potrait of someone or a certain scene but they can interact because of how it was created.

That pretty much sums up the thought, yep. I guess that the image of a person isn't as sticking as the thought that mannerisms and styles are often built into complex portraits. I love that idea of a distinction between them, most definitely.

The portraits of the Head's office seemed to have the maximum intelligence, followed by the other portraits in Hogwarts, perhpas because of her magic. While we see other portraits in St. Mungo's, we really don't know much about them to make a comparison. I would guess that they were like the portraits in Hogwarts (Fat Lady and Vi and Sir Cadogan), but not like those in the Headmaster's office.
This then brings up another intriguing question. How is the magic transferred from the portraits of old headmasters in the Headmaster's Office to certain professors' other portraits (i.e. Phineas Nigellus's portrait in Grimmauld Place, Dilys Derwent's portrait in St. Mungo's, etc.)? I doubt the intelligence of the subject is altered upon moving from the Headmaster's Office portrait to the other location's. Those portraits are certainly unique, in that they are previous Headmasters/Headmistresses with other portraits, meaning their intelligence is also transferred.
I think I'd have to agree - Mrs. Black didn't seem to say/know anything else besides those insults. She may have known/figured out who to direct the insults toward (like saying "shame of my flesh" to Sirius), but she had a limited (albeit colorful) vocabulary. Though it's possible that this could have been due to Mrs. Black's personality when she was alive - she may have been (actually I think it's likely) that she could have been a bit unstable, and this fact is reflected in her portrait.
I agree that Mrs. Black's portrait did not know nearly as much as the past headmasters/headmistresses, but I think she understood more than "those insults." Kreacher says he was going to have a conversation with Mrs. Black now that Sirius was not preventing him, which implies that she would be able to shriek more than insults to the house-elf (Sirius also said that Kreacher was taking orders from Mrs. Black's portrait while he was alone).

I also agree that Mrs. Black was likely a bit unstable during her lifetime, but I do not believe we saw her in enough varieties of scenarios to conclude this is why she only shrieked insults. The only times we see her portrait is when she is alerted to the Order's presence, thus she was prone to insulting them. However, I believe that if we saw her alone with Kreacher or in Bellatrix's presence, she would have been able to say other things.
I like the idea that the portraits talk while the pictures don't, perhaps because a portrait shows a person in their life's essence? A photo shows them only in a moment in time. I don't know if that's been mentioned before on this, I haven't read back, but I like the idea.
I agree. I also do not believe enough magic is injected into photographs as in portraits, so it is logical that photographs should not have as many powers as portraits.

I have always been interested in the portraits... here's what JKR said in answer to a question about them:
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?

That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; 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, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.

-- Sunday 15 August 2004; J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival

This then brings up another intriguing question. How is the magic transferred from the portraits of old headmasters in the Headmaster's Office to certain professors' other portraits (i.e. Phineas Nigellus's portrait in Grimmauld Place, Dilys Derwent's portrait in St. Mungo's, etc.)? I doubt the intelligence of the subject is altered upon moving from the Headmaster's Office portrait to the other location's. Those portraits are certainly unique, in that they are previous Headmasters/Headmistresses with other portraits, meaning their intelligence is also transferred.

I always thought that was down to replica portraits being placed in other areas, and that thus the occupant could swap between them. Does it every actually say whether they're replicas or different portraits? That would help us quite a lot! :lol:

I agree that Mrs. Black's portrait did not know nearly as much as the past headmasters/headmistresses, but I think she understood more than "those insults." Kreacher says he was going to have a conversation with Mrs. Black now that Sirius was not preventing him, which implies that she would be able to shriek more than insults to the house-elf (Sirius also said that Kreacher was taking orders from Mrs. Black's portrait while he was alone).

Well, if all he was doing was listening to her, it's likely that, as JK Rowling put it (thanks for that one, Kimagine!), she just repeated catch phrases of her life, and Kreacher was a large part of that. There was nothing stopping her, as such, from yelling the same things at him. They likely still would have made sense to the House Elf. It does, however, make one wonder exactly what other catchphrases she was repeating to say he could still supposedly carry out her orders when the house was cleaned and de-darked, if you get me. So I'd agree with you that she must have also maintained her oilier talk and whatnot for the people she honoured, respected, cared for etc.


I also do not believe enough magic is injected into photographs as in portraits, so it is logical that photographs should not have as many powers as portraits.

I'm certainly with you on that. :tu:

I am just wondering... is the portrait of Dumbledore in the Headmaster's Office exactly like the actual Dumbledore? That is to say, is he a real human that can think, learn, and feel emotions and has memories? I know that he has all his original memories from his lifetime, but is he actually a real human or just a copy? Picture-Dumbledore also instructs Snape during the Deathly Hallows.
If he is a real person, why is Harry so sad that Dumbledore is dead? He's not actually dead, just effectively paralyzed because he cannot move about in the real world. The only difference is that Harry cannot touch him, but otherwise he's just the same Dumbledore, right?

Why doesn't Harry ask somebody who knew his parents (like Hagrid) to just paint a magical portrait of them? Then, it's like using the Resurrection Stone, but the difference is that the picture-people can be seen by everyone and are happy to stay in the real world indefinitely.

I am just wondering... is the portrait of Dumbledore in the Headmaster's Office exactly like the actual Dumbledore? That is to say, is he a real human that can think, learn, and feel emotions and has memories? I know that he has all his original memories from his lifetime, but is he actually a real human or just a copy? Picture-Dumbledore also instructs Snape during the Deathly Hallows.
If he is a real person, why is Harry so sad that Dumbledore is dead? He's not actually dead, just effectively paralyzed because he cannot move about in the real world. The only difference is that Harry cannot touch him, but otherwise he's just the same Dumbledore, right?

Why doesn't Harry ask somebody who knew his parents (like Hagrid) to just paint a magical portrait of them? Then, it's like using the Resurrection Stone, but the difference is that the picture-people can be seen by everyone and are happy to stay in the real world indefinitely.

Dumbledore's portrait is in no way human. Portraits are merely imprints of their subject. I don't believe they have all the memories of their former self; we're certainly not shown that in the books. Are we? Granted his portrait did behave in much more intelligent fashion than we'd been led to believe a portrait would. Perhaps it was because the headmaster portraits are charmed to assist the current occupant of the office. Certainly Phineas went out of his way to spy on the trio during their camping trip.

Dumbledore and his fellow former headmasters are all dead, really dead.

I agree, Dumbledore was dead. I still think that since Dumbledore was so very wise, he was just able to sup up his portrait more than the others had. That said, portraits are not fit rulers and he should not have tried to direct Snape from the grave because that didn't work out in many respects, imo. Snape should have just busted out on his own at that point, taking the current circumstances into consideration - and told the portrait what he was going to do so it could give him parting words or information it found necessary. Because all in all, a portrait is still a portrait, no matter how much wisdom is infused and it can only know a narrow amount of information as granted by those speaking to it.

As someone said much earlier, when JKR needed something, whatever was there was suddenly able to do what was needed. Author's privilege, I guess.

No, I don't think so. While they were great inconsistencies sometimes, JK did go out of her way to make a world without mistakes. I think that portraits appear regardless of the headmasters' location, as long as they're still headmaster. Snape left the castle, 'taking' the side of those who were atacking the school, and therefore left his place as headmaster, and died without being headmaster, so, he had no portrait.

I think the portraits in Hogwarts and in all over the world are somthing like the Sorting Hat or the Marauder's map, an object with the personality of the creator/s, but not with his soul. I didn't find that weird at all that DD was giving advice to Snape. If DD did, why shouldn't his portrait?

And I think that the girl that said that it 'cheapens' one's death to leave a portrait meant that, when someone dies, it hurts because you'll never be able to see them and talk to them again, but with a portrait you're able to anyway, so it's, in a way, not as tragic. I don't agree, however.


Dumbledore and his fellow former headmasters are all dead, really dead.

I agree. Though it sound cruel when you say it like that TT.

i thought the same thing when Dumbledore died and they showed his portrait. when Harry was upset why couldn't he just talk to the portrait? i mean, it wouldn't be the same, but it would be nice.

I agree that the portraits are imprints of those in them. I also wondered why Harry didn't try talking to Dumbledore's portrait at the end of HBP. I remember he was sleeping in the portrait at the time but I think he was sleeping for a reason because he couldn't give Harry any answers even if Harry asked. Because, as he says at King's Cross, he didn't want to give Harry all the answers outright. I think he wanted Harry to figure things out for himself, with Hermione's help of course ;)
And I think Dumbledore's portrait was able to give instructions to Snape because the things he wanted done were sort of unfinished business for him. Maybe he couldn't be at peace completely until it was done.

Granted his portrait did behave in much more intelligent fashion than we'd been led to believe a portrait would. Perhaps it was because the headmaster portraits are charmed to assist the current occupant of the office. Certainly Phineas went out of his way to spy on the trio during their camping trip.

This was my conclusion as well, that the Headmaster portraits are unusual, in that they do retain more of their feelings, memories, and plans. Phineas as you say did well as a spy, an activity requiring him toi show some initiative. He also showed some emotion over the death of Sirius (a member of his family).

Likewise Dumbledore's portrait responded to changed circumstances (the 7 Potters, for example, whether we like the plan or not, was a plan we saw him first cook up in response to changed circumstances after the death of ALbus the person). And Albus's portrait seemed as attached to Harry as the man himself.

JK seems to have broken her own rules with Dumbledore's portrait. As you will see from the quote below, she previously said that portraits mostly repeat catchphrases:

J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival,
Sunday, August 15, 2004.

Question from the audience:

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?

JK's reply:

That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; 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, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

I've always wondered why Harry couldn't go to Dumbledore after he died when he was a portrait. Thank you for posting what JKR explained -- now I understand exactly what these portraits could and couldn't do.

No, I don't think so. While they were great inconsistencies sometimes, JK did go out of her way to make a world without mistakes. I think that portraits appear regardless of the headmasters' location, as long as they're still headmaster. Snape left the castle, 'taking' the side of those who were atacking the school, and therefore left his place as headmaster, and died without being headmaster, so, he had no portrait.

I thoroughly disagree with your interpretation, but this isn't the place to discuss Snape. :no:

Dumbledore seemed very realised.

Likewise Dumbledore's portrait responded to changed circumstances (the 7 Potters, for example, whether we like the plan or not, was a plan we saw him first cook up in response to changed circumstances after the death of ALbus the person). And Albus's portrait seemed as attached to Harry as the man himself.

This is the key point for me. This is more than intellect, the painting actually CRIES at the end of DH when Harry enters the room.