G. Willow Wilson Quotes

The cooperation of the two retina in one field of vision, whatever is its cause, must rather be the source of all the ideas to which single or double vision may give rise.

One of the things I really love about 3D is that because as we grow older on eye weakens more than the other, 3D becomes more difficult for adults to watch than it is for children who have very balanced eyes often.

Because I'm a synesthete I see characters in colors and I perceive a W as green.

Art works because it appeals to certain faculties of the mind. Music depends on details of the auditory system, painting and sculpture on the visual system. Poetry and literature depend on language.

The eyes get lost in 3-D. With 3-D, your eyes are looking for the plane of focus, right? And the problem is, when you do quick cuts, your eyes can't find it.

To so enter into it in nature and art that the enjoyed meanings of life may become a part of living is the attitude of aesthetic appreciation.

99 percent of what you see is not what comes in through the eyes. It is what you infer about that room.

A writer should write with his eyes and a painter paint with his ears.

Most people have stereo vision, so why belittle that very, very important element of our existence?

I'm a visual thinker, not a language-based thinker. My brain is like Google Images.

Men are visual creatures.

I wouldn't call myself a synaesthete in the sense that Nabokov was. But I'll talk about a sound as being cold blue or dark brown. For descriptive purposes, yes, I often see colors when I'm listening to music and think, 'Oh, there's not enough sort of yellowy stuff in here, or not enough white.'

I'm constantly being visually stimulated.

Just as there is no substitute for original works of art, there is no substitute for the world of direct sensual experience.

I think that cognitive scientists would support the view that our visual system does not directly represent what is out there in the world and that our brain constructs a lot of the imagery that we believe we are seeing.

What difference does it make whether you're looking at a photograph or looking at a still life in front of you? You still have to look.

I'm very interested in how we read things, especially the link between seeing two-dimensional and three-dimensional images, because of how I read.

To me, a staircase looks like a series of dark and light horizontal stripes, which is exactly how you'd draw a staircase. So I know how the image is going to look on the page.

Animal vision - including human vision - is so biased toward movement that we don't technically see stationary objects at all.

At a shoot, I'm really aware of everything. When they do makeup, sometimes I can't see what they're doing, but I can feel it. I know what I look like, even when I can't see what they've done. I know how to compose myself.

I have always had a predominantly visual approach to my environment.

The reasons why images are so primal and people immediately relate to it is that we are exquisitely engineered to interpret information that is arrayed in two dimensions. That's our eyesight. That's how our eye-brain system works. So it immediately feels to us when we look at an image like we have extended our senses.

Art is really more musical than it is visual.

Don't worry, it's very clear that the painting was done by a human, most likely a human with one eye removed and a feverent if incorrect understanding of design and anatomy.

Although the poet has as wide a choice of subjects as the painter, his creations fail to afford as much satisfaction to mankind as do paintings... if the poet serves the understanding by way of the ear, the painter does so by the eye, which is the nobler sense.