Treason of Images

Magritte's Treason of Images illustrates well the way words and images must work together. Without one of them, the entire meanings shifts. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" translate into "This is not a pipe." If those words were to be take out, this image would be the same as any other image of the briar pipe. What makes this image distinctive and unique are those words.  Not only does it differentiate this image from other image, those words are provocative. It stumps the audience, since it contradicts what is seen.  If the drawing there is not of a pipe, then what is it?
In this situation, the words and image are in juxtaposition. What the audience see is a pipe, but the words immediately contradicts what the eyes see. As a result, the audience would start to question themselves.  This really forces the audience to think outside of the box, in terms of art and design.  Of course that is not a pipe, but rather a drawing of a pipe. Magritte was getting technical.  In other situation, such as the panels of Brian Fies, the words and images, don't juxtapose, but rather compliment one another.
To decided whether the words and image should compliment or juxtapose relates back to the intention of the piece itself. For Fies, it makes sense if his words and images related to one another, since he had a story he wanted to tell. For Magritte, he didn't have a story, but rather was playing with the possible responses of the audience.  Intention is different, and when intention differs, the way words and images relate to one another is different.