The juxtaposition of image and text as binaries is a curious one that I’m not sure is collapsed entirely by the comic form. Can’t a painting exist in the mind as a poem exists in the air? Doesn’t a poem create an image in the mind? Cannot we “see” the characters when we read a novel? Do we need comics to visually represent text as image in order to undo this distinction of word/image? And if a distinction was formerly made between the consumability of text versus imagery, isn’t an image on my phone as portable as a text on my phone? And haven’t text and image have always been consumable anywhere?
The concept of an image is just as much a human construct as language and text are. Just as the visible and auditory worlds exist outside of image and text, the body is the vehicle for producing and processing their content. That the image is somehow easier than the word to perceive may be true, but only depending on the particular physicalities,, historically raced, classed, and gendered positions of the viewer. But is an image really easier to produce than a piece of text for the composer? Why must easier be of less value?
