I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when I generalize, I don't care.
I do not see any essential difference between abstract and primitive art. Both are simple and sincere. Naturally, we should not generalize in these matters: It is the individual artist that counts.
To generalize is to be an idiot.
. . . yet there is a difference between scientific and artistic observation. The scientist observes to turn away and generalize; the artist observes to seize and use reality in all its individuality and peculiarity.
I don't like to generalize, but if you see a guy with his shirt tucked into his shorts, he's probably killed three or four children.
That tendency of social thought to generalize, to describe a leading tendency in a society in such a way that it seems that everything falls within its iron laws, is very common. Of course our own experience tells us that life is not as monochrome as these thinkers depict it. On the other hand they are very valuable because they alert us to transformations we are likely to take for granted.
Life is too short so we must generalize.
If all issues are personalized, we lose our capacity to entertain ideas, to generalize from our own or someone else's experiences, to think abstractly. We substitute sentimentality for thought.
If you don't generalize you don't philosophize.
To generalize is to be an idiot. To particularize is the alone distinction of merit. General knowledge are those knowledge that idiots possess.
I hate to generalize because there are always so many exceptions to any rule.
My art tends toward the literary. My pictures tend toward the outskirts of painting: But why generalize? It is possible to realize one thing or another, according to the impressions gained from one point of view or another. But it is too difficult to make a general rule.
Another characteristic of mathematical thought is that it can have no success where it cannot generalize.
So far as one can generalize, the most graciouis, cultivated, and innovative people in this country are French Canadians. Certainly they have given us the most exciting politicians of our time: Trudeau, Lévesque. Without them, Canada would be an exceedingly boring and greatly diminished place.
I wouldn't want to generalize, but we still do live in a society that's sexist and racist and addicted to class and has the ridiculous idea that if you have money you're smarter, which Donald Trump by himself should be able to disprove.
You perceive I generalize with intrepidity from single instances. It is the tourist's custom.
If you're going to generalize about women, you'll find yourself up to here in exceptions.
As a poet and as an actress, we're taught to be far more elaborate with our words and - I wouldn't say generalize, but definitely stronger with our choices.
I know it's bad to generalize, but when you think about billionaires, you just think this guy is going to walk into a room and just demand things to be a certain way.
To generalize on women is dangerous. To specialize in them is infinitely worse.
