Quotes About Visual

One of the interesting things about prosopagnosics is that while they can't recognize a face, they still have an opinion as to whether it's attractive or not. When asked to sort photos of faces in order of attractiveness, prosopagnosics sorted the photos in pretty much the same way as anyone else.

It's like that famous optical illusion, the drawing of either an elegant young woman, face turned away from the viewer, or a wart-nosed crone, chin tucked down on her chest. There's no "correct" interpretation; both are equally valid. But you can't see both at the same time.

Beauty has undergone a similar process, thanks to advertisers. Evolution gave us a circuit that responds to good looks—call it the pleasure receptor for our visual cortex—and in our natural environment, it was useful to have. But take a person with one-in-a-million skin and bone structure, add professional makeup and retouching, and you're no longer looking at beauty in its natural form. You've got pharmaceutical-grade beauty,

I'm a visual thinker, really bad at algebra. There's others that are a pattern thinker. These are the music and math minds. They think in patterns instead of pictures. Then there's another type that's not a visual thinker at all, and they're the ones that memorize all of the sports statistics, all of the weather statistics.

Icons speak icon language.

Regardless of whether you speak the language or are familiar with a culture, the picture should hold up.

Painters must speak through paint, not through words.

I work in colour sometimes, but I guess the images I most connect to, historically speaking, are in black and white. I see more in black and white - I like the abstraction of it.

Visually speaking, nothing calls Shakespeare to mind like Hamlet holding Yorick's skull.

I discovered about 150 dots is the minimum number of dots to make a specific recognizable person. You can make something that looks like a head, with fewer dots, but you won't be able to give much information about who it is.

Making books is a very specific kind of activity. It's not really a collection of your best pictures - although it is - but it's also a way of presenting your work so that it's not repetitive, so that it flows, and so that it makes sense in a book.

I like the idea that cinema is a spectacle.

More and more, we're used to taking things in through the eyes rather than through the ears, and opera is more of a spectacle.

I think words come between the spectator and the picture.

In my earlier paintings, I wanted the space between the picture plane and the spectator to be active.

I've never made a film using dialogue or speech.

My initial attraction was just the beauty. The colors were so beautiful, the spheres were so nearly perfect.

The pictures are created by the listener, with a little help from the broadcaster. The pictures are perfect. If you're showing pictures, different things in that picture can distract from the spoken word.

The day will come when the man at the telephone will be able to see the distant person to whom he is speaking.

The illiterate of the future will not be the man who cannot read the alphabet, but the one who cannot take a photograph.

He woke up his phone. Its home screen was chickenpoxed with little red dots with accusatory numbers in them

Albers celebrated the way that color and line have no truth of their own; what matters is their perception, which depends on what is adjacent to them.

You can convey a lot of emotion with just some eyebrows and mouth movement.

I feel every shot, every camera move, every frame, and the way you frame something and the choice of lens, I see all those things are really important on every shot.