Are practice and theory mutually exclusive?

I have never really defined myself as either a theoretician or as a practitioner. To me they go hand in hand. We can't make without a concept of why, and we can't determine why without an understanding of how. But recently I've discovered that not everyone feels the same way.

When talking with some colleagues about a potential new hire in their department, there was some division between those who wanted a "practitioner" while others vied for a "theoretician." I was confused by this debate, as someone capable of both abilities would seem to be the best choice and not that rare of a find. Needless to say, I was a bit concerned when asking a candidate for a new media-related position to name some applications they consider "new media," but they were unable to name even one application. Not one. In defense of this stance was the claim, "well they are a theoretician." But I ask, how informed can one's theory be if they are unfamiliar with the elements of which they are making assertions? No one seemed to think it was unusual that someone who was writing theory couldn't actually utilize the field in which they were in which they were decreeing. How informed could this position ever really be?

Another example happened recently. I was speaking with one of the department's art history adjuncts about him making the decision to go back to school for his Ph.D. I told him that I had played around with the idea occasionally of possibility getting a doctorate myself. He got a kind of quizzical expression on his face and then he said "But you're an MFA. You're studio. Why would you ever do that?" Clearly to him, art studio and art theory were two separate fields. Even within my own field there is this concept of theory and practice as separate entities. Theory and practice are treated as mutually exclusive fields.

But is this a successful model? How can either be successful without some involvement of the other? On the one hand I am a studio artist. And yet I am also immersed in theory. I study theories of imagery, symbolism and signs. But I am also specifically interested in a sort of visual sociology. I use my art to explore these very real, social concepts. In this way I am both practitioner and theoretician simultaneously. This balance I try to impart to my students as well. A purely art theory curriculum would leave the gap of skill, while a purely technical curriculum would have students who can make, but have very little to say or think about in their work.

I feel that theory and practice can never successfully be mutually exclusive. Heck even Arthur Danto, the most important living aesthetic theorist in the world, makes woodcuts. There's something about Arthur Danto making his own artwork that validates him even more for me. He not only "talks the talk," he "walks the walk."