Hey everyone,
Welcome to another installment of Harry Potter Theory.
Today, we’re going to be discussing a topic that was heavily requested by you guys: How
do the headmasters portraits at Hogwarts work?
Specifically, we’ll be taking a look at how exactly these paintings are able to give
advice since the people portrayed in them are dead, and whether or not a subject’s
abilities while alive impacts how intelligent their portrait is in death.
First off, it’s important to note before we get going on the actual portraits, that
these paintings are entirely different from the magical photographs that appear throughout
the Harry Potter series.
As you’ve likely noticed in the novels and films, unlike the Hogwarts portraits, photographs
in the wizarding world can be of witches and wizards who are either dead or alive – it
does not matter.
They are also unable to speak to the living.
They simply move in a sort of loop, waving or smiling at the person who took the picture,
as we see Harry’s parents do in the few pictures of them that he finds.
So, while, yes, Wizarding World photographs are technically enchanted, they’re not nearly
as interactive as the painted portraits you’ll find at Hogwarts and other important establishments.
Here’s why…
The portraits at Hogwarts are painted by witch or wizard artists who have used enchantments
in their paint to enable their subjects to be able to move and interact with the living.
Photographs, on the other hand, capture a moment in time and are then typically developed
with magic in order to give them their moving quality.
What’s more, the outcome of magical pictures seems to depend entirely on who develops it
and what the photograph will be used for.
For example, in The Chamber of Secrets, Colin Creevey’s pictures, which he magically enhances
by developing them in a potion, greatly differs from the images on the Chocolate Frog cards,
which, by the way, seem to be the least sentient of all the magical images that we’re introduced
to in the Wizarding World – at least in my opinion.
In fact, if I’m being completely honest, all magical pictures in Harry Potter kind
of remind me of the “live” photos that us Muggles can take on any iPhone…but I
digress.
Back to the Hogwarts portraits.
These are paintings that hang throughout Hogwarts’ castle, all enchanted by the artists who painted
them.
It’s important to note, though, that most of the portraits hanging around the school
are what J.K.
Rowling has referred to as “two-dimensional” – yes, they can interact with the living,
but only in a very limited way.
Here’s what they can do.
They can move from frame to frame, even frames that belong to another subject – although,
they seem to be constrained to the frames that are hung within the school, meaning I
do not believe that these figures can leave Hogwarts.
They can also grant access to secret passage ways and have extremely surface-level conversations.
These interactions provide them with the opportunity to make use of the phrases and mannerisms
that they were known for while alive.
However, they cannot offer quality advice or contribute to in-depth conversations.
For example, you may recall the portrait of the Fat Lady.
She is, of course, the memorable figure who guards the entrance to the Gryffindor Common
Room.
Now, she has the ability to remember secret passcodes and admit students to the room based
on a correct response – or deny them access based on an incorrect one.
She can even engage in light conversation, offering the odd remark to students, whether
they ask for it or not.
But she absolutely cannot provide highly intelligent discourse or advice.
If Harry or another student had asked for her opinion on, say, where Voldemort had hidden
his horcruxes, I’d wager that she would’ve looked at them blankly and regurgitated one
of her standard phrases.
This, of course, is substantially different from the portraits of the Hogwarts’ headmasters,
which by all accounts, are quite a bit more intelligible than all that.
While I’ve heard the theory that the sentience of a portrait’s subject may have depended
on the skill of the witch or wizard who painted the headteacher, according to J.K.
Rowling, that is simply not true.
What it DOES depend on, though, is the power and abilities of the witch or wizard who is
featured in the painting.
Yes, that’s right.
It is indeed true that the more powerful a wizard was in life, the more life-like their
portrait stands to be.
This does a great deal to explain why Dumbledore’s headmaster portrait is so capable of in-depth
conversation, advising Severus from his frame well after his death.
After all, he was one of the most powerful wizards to have ever lived.
But how exactly does this work?
Well, as it turns out, it also takes a bit of effort from the subject prior to their
demise.
As it is tradition for important witches and wizards to sit for portraits while still alive,
so that they may continue to pass down their knowledge after death, paintings were completed
well before most headteachers passed on.
Their portraits were privately kept, hidden away, so that they would only interact with
their living counterparts.
Subjects would then visit their paintings as often as possible, imparting memories and
wisdom onto them – basically, teaching the paintings how to be them.
For this reason, you can see how a portrait would be able to gain so much insight into
how to represent a subject but be limited in a way that, say, a ghost would not be.
That is, a portrait is only able to grow and learn from their subject through their visits
while they are still alive.
They can become very good representations of a witch or wizard – however, they cannot
grow or learn from future interactions or events in the same way a ghost could.
Rather, the headteacher portraits are more like a sentient memoir of each professor,
able to respond and provide advice to people based on the memories and wisdom told to them
before the real witch or wizard died.
In any case, this all explains how Albus was able to assist Snape so well.
Since Dumbledore knew that he was dying, and that their plan was to have Severus succeed
him as headmaster, he likely would’ve taken much care to share with his portrait all the
details and theories he had about Voldemort, the horcruxes, and Harry’s part in it all,
so that the painted version of himself could support Snape after he was gone.
Another thing to note is that each witch or wizard is only painted once.
From there, they may have various frames hung in different establishments that wanted to
honour them, and the subjects are able to travel from frame to frame at will.
We see this take place at different times in the series.
For example, Dumbledore sends the Professor Everard from his frame at Hogwarts to his
frame at the British Ministry of Magic Headquarters at one point, and we know that Phineas Nigellus
Black can go back and forth between his Hogwarts portrait and his frame at the ancestral home
of the Black family at 12 Grimmauld Place.
Which actually brings up another point.
Despite differing views and opinions, each headteacher portrait is bound to serve the
current headmaster or headmistress.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure how this works if the subject has multiple frames
hung in different places.
From what I know, the subjects seem to only be bound to Hogwarts in this way.
What I mean is that I don’t believe that a portrait in the Ministry of Magic is obligated
to serve the current Minister for Magic or anything.
An interesting anomaly for the school if you ask me.
The final comment I’ll make on this topic is regarding the Dark Lord.
If someone who has a portrait magically painted of themselves can spread their views and “advice”
for all eternity, why wouldn’t a wizard like Voldemort – or even Gellert Grindelwald,
for that matter – have their likeness made into one of these magical portraits?
Of course, for the regular witch or wizard, I imagine it’d be difficult to find an artist
willing to do their portrait – I’d also wager it’d be quite expensive!
However, for Voldemort and Grindelwald, surely it wouldn’t have been too hard to find an
artist willing to paint them – I mean, there had to be some artists among the Death Eaters
and Acolytes, right?
Well, for one, I think both of these dark wizards were entirely too busy pursuing other
forms of – what they would’ve considered – more potent, powerful, and potentially
everlasting forms of magic, such as horcruxes.
The second reason is that I think these wizards were too vain to plan for after their deaths,
so consumed were they by subjugating those who opposed them during their lifetime that
they weren’t even willing to consider what would come after they died.
And with that, we have come to the end of another video!
What did you think?
Do you agree with my theories?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
And, as always, if you enjoyed this video, don’t forget to like it and subscribe to
the channel!
Until next time…
Remember
It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live