i talk about music a lot, & have a tendency to post songs that are stuck in my head in the hope that they will get stuck in your head instead. you're welcome.
why are paintings sentient but not photographs
are drawings sentient? sketches? sculptures???
Maybe photographs just don’t want to talk to us?
does that mean throwing away a wizarding newspaper is an act of multiple homocide
okay so as someone who was really into analog photography I spent a lot of time thinking about this and here’s what I came up with:
photographs have to be developed in a specific potion to do the moving thing (Colin Creevy mentions this in Chamber of Secrets) and they mostly seem concerned with internal stimuli (ie, photo!Harry refusing to be seen with photo!Lockhart). even their reactions to external stuff is limited by the context of the photo (like when Percy’s photo of Penelope Clearwater is stained with tea and she retreats — she can’t wash her face or hide in another photograph). they’re limited by their frame and their contents, not sentient so much as…like a candid .gif?
but since wizards/witches are just using regular film and cameras, it’s the potion that changes the photograph. I would assume that it’s a similar case to paintings — there is some spell or something that either creates a portrait, capturing an echo of someone who has died (ie, the portraits of the Headmasters) or maybe one that captures the artist’s impression of the subject(s) within the painting. like photographs, there are rules about what the paintings can do and where they can go — portraits can only visit other paintings of their subject, and then sometimes move through a network of strange paintings in the same vicinity (ie, Sir Cadogen chasing his pony through several paintings, or the Healer following Ron through St Mungo’s).
also it’s shown that statues can come to life if spelled (McGonagall’s chess set; the empty suits of armor defending Hogwarts when spelled by McGonagall; the statues in the Ministry springing to life to defend Harry and Dumbledore against Voldemort when spelled by Dumbledore) but again I think it’s a matter of choice of the wizard.
tl;dr: it’s a difference in the type of spellcasting on each work of art. a wizard or witch’s art is not automatically sentient/reactive; it is spelled to be so
although I’m sure some magical babychild has accidentally spelled their drawings to life at some point or another
i always thought that it depends on the time/effort put into the spell. developing a photo is relatively quick, but since painting a portrait takes so much longer it becomes imbued with more of the magic and is therefore more sentient.