Interaction more important than comparison

As a photowriter, I find myself highly intrigued by Mitchell's article--I've been attempting to research the image/text relationship for the past year or so because I myself create works that juxtapose text and image. I dislike the stratification of the two disciplines--the "sense that verbal and visual media are to be seen as distinct, separate, and parallel shperes that converge only at some higher level of abstraction" (Mitchell 85 [coursepack 24]). While the use of text is permissable and even vaguely encouraged in the art world, it is seen as an outsider by most members of the community. They view written word as an add-on; yet once it is involved in a work, it becomes critical in some (usually) abstract fashion. It is a "novel...detail" that gets everyone excited and concerned--artificially so (Mitchell 86). Image/text is a cause for chatter, for discussion that circles only the supporting role of the text.

My work functions as a composite, a team effort in which each player brings something special to the game. When combined, they produce a new effect, different than either could ever communicate alone. Therefore, the interaction of the two elements is a much more important concept than the comparsion of them. Why should we search for the similarities and differences when we can simply USE them to create richer works? Why are all the discourses concerned with this less important topic when they should be concerned with discussing the best combinations of the two artforms?

In my work, I try to bridge the divide and bring the two together into one creative element--I hope that it may one day be part of the '"advancement of learning" from both sides of the divide (Mitchell 86).