A blind argument.

Leonardo da Vinci is a pretty cool guy. No questions asked.
But he makes an interesting argument in one of his writings. He says that if poets can call painting mute poetry, he can call poetry blind painting. He then claims that the eye is the king of the senses, and thus would prefer being 'mute' over 'blind'.

Firstly, I've argued previously for my order of the senses (though speech isn't a sense, but more a faculty; but it would come in third).
Secondly, however, words can incite the imagination in greater ways than pictures can. Pictures may captivate an audience more immediately and fully - such is the nature of vision - but words may suggest a million different things, while the painting can only ever be what it is. A person, in reading a story or poetry, will inevitably let his imagination picture it in a way that will be unique to him; while the viewer of a painting, if he imagines what the painting is to mean (which some do not) - then these word imaginings inspired by the painting will not compare to the visual imaginings inspired by the words.
Though, painting and pictures certainly have their place. They can convey in a moment what it can take a writer many pages to depict sufficiently. They can also, however, leave much unsaid that words will not; or have excessive information that is not seen in the text either.

However, if one may be called 'mute', and the other 'blind' - perhaps both are also 'deaf', and it is only music that can hear. And, while it may be blind and mute - these I would prefer over something that is deaf. For, while something that is not blind can see people's faces always; and something that is not mute talk to them always; something that is not deaf can hear them always, hear their stories, their sorrows, their joys and triumphs. And that is one blessing that I would not sacrifice.