WJT Mitchell's "Word and Image" - Response

In Mitchell's "Word and Image" article, it states, at the beginning, that "words" are important by their meaning, not just by their "construct" of wording or how it sounds when pronounced; words can be considered as "objects of visual or aural attention". The same would go for images, but by what the images could represent; and we gain that knowledge through eyesight (or what philosopher George Berkeley of 1709 would state as the "visual language"). According to modern neuropsychologists like Oliver Sacks, they did confirm that the gaining of knowledge through eyesight is true when they found out that those who were temporary blind for a certain amount of time had to relearn the techniques of "seeing", even if the eyes fully recovered.

Based on what Mitchell described, many of literature scholars like Norman Bryson and Woody Steiner decided to enter the studies of art so they can provide their own ideology towards/on/in art, but art scholars like Thomas Crow didn't want the literature scholars to (I would per say) "change" art since the art scholars think that art is (and this is in context, just to say) in a different "league" than words. However, images can benefit from words to present meaning or what it represents (though it may vary). For example, Mitchell states (in context) that a word can alter even a simple image, like an image of what looks like an arrow to be presented (from a word) as a tree. Although, one would question on the specifics, like what kind of tree is the image. There are other cases that the image could represent something else.