The above statement, from Roy J-Iarris's brief conference synopsis 'The Language Myth in Western Culture', usefully introduces some of the central notions of Integrationism and gives a good idea of the ambitiousness of its scope. It makes clear, as do many other similar claims, that for Harris, visual art is just one facet of a communicational megastructure badly in need of redescription by the Integrationist. In his paper in this collection, he notes his sense of the seriousness of the situation; while our 'language myth' assumptions 'promote certain values and practices that Western culture would be the poorer without', they also 'victimise' us, I-larris believes, 'inasmuch as the myth inculcates certain attitudes and prejudices that prevent Western culture from realizing its full human and humane potential' (this volume: 1-2). Harris does not elaborate on exactly how our human potential might be being cramped by the language myth, but he does make clear, here and elsewhere, hc,w a more modest enemy, the traditional acadelnic linguist, is stifling creative debate about language acquisition and linguistic communication. Any attempt to trace instances of 'language myth' thinking in the visual arts should perhaps, then, proceed from a careful if brief study of what exactly are Harris's objections to traditional linguistics.