Skip to main content

harry potter - Are Hogwarts portraits able to learn/respond to novel stimuli?



Much in the way that Dumbledore told Harry that it was unhealthy to stare at the reflection of his parents in "The Socerer's/Philosopher's Stone," I get the feeling that it would be easy to want to form a relationship with a portrait of a dead loved one.


For example, were I Harry, I might want to go back and speak with the Dumbledore portrait on a regular basis, to tell him about my kids and my career, and hear what "he would have said" on subjects he otherwise will never have the opportunity to comment on.


But are Hogwarts portraits - which have been described in other answers here to mainly repeat "catchphrases" and mimic general behavior - able to respond to novel stimuli and learn new information? The case of Phineas Nigellus seems to indicate that they can, to some degree.


My impression (based upon previous answers to questions relating to the portraits) is that it would be like talking to an advanced A.I. bot, in that it might respond in appropriate, if occasionally bland or repetitive ways. Although the examples we have in the actual books make their responses seem reasonably sophisticated and sentient.



So what kind of response would Harry would get if he returned to Dumbldore's portrait to tell him, "I married Ginny Weasely!" or "I named one of my sons after you!" or "Do you think I should be an Auror?"



Answer




Hogwarts portraits are able to talk and move around from picture to picture. They behave like their subjects. However, the degree to which they can interact with the people looking at them depends not on the skill of the painter, but on the power of the witch or wizard painted.


When a magical portrait is taken, the witch or wizard artist will naturally use enchantments to ensure that the painting will be able to move in the usual way. The portrait will be able to use some of the subject’s favourite phrases and imitate their general demeanour. Thus, Sir Cadogan’s portrait is forever challenging people to a fight, falling off its horse and behaving in a fairly unbalanced way, which is how the subject appeared to the poor wizard who had to paint him, while the portrait of the Fat Lady continues to indulge her love of good food, drink and tip-top security long after her living model passed away.


However, neither of these portraits would be capable of having a particularly in-depth discussion about more complex aspects of their lives: they are literally and metaphorically two-dimensional. They are only representations of the living subjects as seen by the artist.


Some magical portraits are capable of considerably more interaction with the living world. Traditionally, a headmaster or headmistress is painted before their death. Once the portrait is completed, the headmaster or headmistress in question keeps it under lock and key, regularly visiting it in its cupboard (if so desired) to teach it to act and behave exactly like themselves, and imparting all kinds of useful memories and pieces of knowledge that may then be shared through the centuries with their successors in office.


Pottermore, Hogwarts Portraits



The main point we can conclude from this is that a painting can indeed learn after it is painted. Headmasters or Headmistresses teach their portrait valuable knowledge before their death. I think it is safe to presume that this type of learning is only present in Portraits of real subjects that are created whilst they are alive.



Though it is possible that Phineas Nigellus is actually only repeating information, much like in real life we can repeat information without actually learning it or learning how to use it. For instance the things he has 'learned'/observed over centuries past hasn't changed the way he thinks of muggle borns or any of his core values.


I believe that they can indeed respond to any question or stimuli and respond with any knowledge they have had imparted on them, whether or not this knowledge changes is subject to opinion.


Also key to note is that the capability of the painting is based on the power of the subject not the skill of the painter. So the Dumbledore portrait is likely the most sophisticated painting in the Heads office.


On Knowledge


We get this quote from Pottermore in the Ghosts section:



Having chosen a feeble simulacrum of mortal life, ghosts are limited in what they can experience. No physical pleasure remains to them, and their knowledge and outlook remains at the level it had attained during life, so that old resentments (for instance, at having an incompletely severed neck) continue to rankle after several centuries.



Notice the part about their knowledge and outlook remaining at the same level. No let's look at a quote from Edinburgh Book Festival, Sunday, August 15, 2004 by JKR




Q: 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: ... 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. ...



So we know that portraits are not as full realised as ghosts, and we also know that ghosts cannot increase the level of knowledge attained during life. Which leads me to believe that portraits are also unable to increase their knowledge. However the term 'knowledge' is subjective they could indeed learn new information but it may not form part of their knowledge. It's confusing, but it also makes sense, think of it like having two lists, a knowledge list and an information list. You can act on your Knowledge and it makes up the basis of how you respond and your general demeanor, you can however repeat information as well just once gathered it will not affect the how you act or behave.


For instance we know the ghosts learn the names of the students, which could be seen as increasing their knowledge but really this is just increasing their information. Their knowledge at least i think from JKs point of view is what makes them respond the way they do and how they do and forms their fundamental character basis.


Let's say the information is associated with Harry and it's that Harry is married, Dumbledore's portrait will know(knowledge) about marriage, kids and all that stuff. He's just got new information though that Harry is now married, so he can impart wisdom and advice and personal experience(from his knowledge) and the next time Harry visits he can ask about the marriage (from his information) and store information like it's 'it's going well, we have a child named Albus now'.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir

the lord of the rings - Why is Gimli allowed to travel to Valinor?

Gimli was allowed to go to Valinor despite not being a ring bearer. Is this explained in detail or just with the one line "for his love for Galadriel"? Answer There's not much detail about this aside from what's said in Appendix A to Return of the King: We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Glóin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter. And Appendix B: Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf . And when that sh

Did the gatekeeper and the keymaster get intimate in Ghostbusters?

According to TVTropes ( usual warning, don't follow the link or you'll waste half your life in a twisty maze of content ): In Ghostbusters, it's strongly implied that Dana Barret, while possessed by Zuul the Gatekeeper, had sex with Louis Tully, who was possessed by Vinz Clortho the Keymaster (key, gate, get it?), in order to free Big Bad Gozer. In fact, a deleted scene from the movie has Venkman explicitly asking Dana if she and Louis "did it". I turned the quote into a spoiler since it contains really poor-taste joke, but the gist of it is that it's implied that as part of freeing Gozer , the two characters possessed by the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper had sex. Is there any canon confirmation or denial of this theory (canon meaning something from creators' interviews, DVD commentary, script, delete scenes etc...)? Answer The Richard Mueller novelisation and both versions of the script strongly suggest that they didn't have sex (or at the very l

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed.