Emily Maitlis Quotes

A photograph is always invisible, it is not it that we see.

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

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.

Color is just in a small area of our vision, and the rest we add with the mind.

Images are more real than anyone could have supposed.

Photography deals exquisitely with appearances, but nothing is what it appears to be.

The only reality of the theater exists in the mind of the audience.

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.

My work isn't about form. It's about seeing.

We think that the world is a solid, vivid place, full of shape and colour and solid objects like this table and this microphone and so on, but we actually create that in our heads out of the bits of information that hit the back of our eyeballs or hit our eardrums or hit our tongues or whatever.

We think we receive all that we perceive, but in fact, we actually give the sky its colour.

I'm a visual learner, so film is a huge inspiration to me.

What the human eye sees is an illusion of what is real. The black and white image transforms illusions into another reality.

The world consists of images on a screen, and consciousness is the steady light that emanates from the projector.

The camera does not know what it takes; it captures materials with which you reconstruct, not so much what you saw as what you thought you saw. Hence the best photography is aware, mindful, of illusion and uses illusion, permitting and encouraging it - especially unconscious and powerful illusions that are not usually admitted on the scene.

I begin to see an object when I cease to understand it.

I discover vision, not as a 'thinking about seeing,' to use Descartes expression, but as a gaze at grips with a visible world, and that is why for me there can be another's gaze.

We never see a tree except through the image that we have of it, the concept of that tree; but the concept, the knowledge, the experience, is entirely different from the actual tree. Look at a tree and you will find how extraordinarily difficult it is to see it completely, so that no image, no screen, comes between the seeing and the actual fact. By completely I mean with the totality of your mind and heart, not a fragment of it.

In a way, it's like the photographer always has his vision of me. The pictures that I'm known for are not really my image, they're always the photographer's vision of me. I can look a hundred different ways, but what people see of me in pictures is not really my image.

Reality has come to seem more and more like what we are shown by cameras.

The photographer in Blow-Up, who is not a philosopher, wants to see things closer up. But it so happens that, by enlarging too far, the object itself decomposes and disappears. Hence there's a moment in which we grasp reality, but then the moment passes. This was in part the meaning of Blow-Up.

When we're awake, we see what we need to see. When we're asleep, we see what is really there.

I never said the camera was truth. It is, however, a more accurate and more objective way of seeing.

As for all I can tell, the only difference is that what many see we call a real thing, and what only one sees we call a dream.