Quotes About Interpretation

It is the consistency of the information that matters for a good story, not its completeness. Indeed, you will often find that knowing little makes it easier to fit everything you know into a coherent pattern.

declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.

his pupils widening as he watched beautiful nature pictures, and it ends with two striking pictures of the same good-looking woman, who somehow appears much more attractive in one than in the other. There is only one difference: the pupils of the eyes appear dilated in the attractive picture and constricted in the other.

And I've never viewed comics as assignments for the client.

There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.

The work itself has a complete circle of meaning and counterpoint. And without your involvement as a viewer, there is no story.

If you give an answer to your viewer, your film will simply finish in the movie theatre. But when you pose questions, your film actually begins after people watch it. In fact, your film will continue inside the viewer.

The viewer must bring their own view to a photograph.

The 'indistinguishable from magic' thing is highly dependent on where a viewer is looking from and not something intrinsic to any particular sort of tech.

Every viewer is going to get a different thing. That's the thing about painting, photography, cinema.

The power and appeal of Documentary is the way it alters and plays with the way the viewer relates to and understands the subject.

When we make the show, we are always talking about how the show is really in between what we make and what the viewer thinks of it.

As a writer, I've tried to avoid strong opinions about morality. You just want to present things as they are and let the viewer come to their own conclusion.

Amplify, clarify, and punctuate, and let the viewer draw his or her own conclusion.

It's really easy to make a movie that five people understand. It's really hard to make something that a lot of people understand and yet is not obvious, still has subtlety and ambiguity, and leaves you with something to do as a viewer.

I feel my work is made for one being, one individual. You could say that's me, but that's not really true. It's for an idealized viewer.

My work has threads of ideas from all over the place. I try to crystallise them in something simple and direct that the viewer can then take where they want.

All movies assault the viewer in one way or another.

I often concentrate on the eyes and lips, they are great indicators of mood and feeling, and I find that I can project character into my portraits by bringing the viewer's attention to these areas.

I think it's a little simplistic to explain a work through the psychology of its author. In other words, that Haneke has emotional problems, so I don't have to take his films seriously. By using this argument, the viewer retreats from the challenges of the film.

The real change that paintings undergo is in the perceptions of the viewer.

I am very conscious of the viewer because that's where the art takes place. My work really strives to put the viewer in a certain kind of emotional state.

I don't want the viewer to be able to peel away the layers of my painting like the layers of an onion and find that all the blues are on the same level.

You can't create a movie as you think about it. And what's in the scene is not what's being seen. A shot always means something other than what it is. All are vehicles. A landscape is just a vehicle. The viewer might think different things, and I'm not going to intervene.