Is it the obligation of great art to be continually interesting? I think not.

A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing.

The capacity to be overwhelmed by the beautiful is astonishingly sturdy and survives amidst the harshest distractions.

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

As photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal, they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure.

It is not altogether wrong to say that there is no such thing as a bad photograph - only less interesting, less relevant, less mysterious ones.

Again: there is nothing inherently superior about resistance. All our claims for the righteousness of resistance rest on the rightness of the claim that the resisters are acting in the name of justice. And the justice of the cause does not depend on, and is not enhanced by, the virtue of those who make the assertion. It depends first and last on the truth of a description of a state of affairs that is, truly, unjust and unnecessary.