Why does tapestry differ from painting?

What quality can I create by making tapestry and not leaving my paintings as paintings?
Paint occupies an important part of my process of creating. It is important as a tapestry artist to be able to make a lot of pictures and to be able to work through a lot of ideas (or one), and make good use of time not at the loom. I enjoy working on paper; the immediacy of mark making, and the seductive quality of watercolour doing things on the paper is great. Some of the painterly effects that are only possible on paper can often suggest compositional blobs and marks that I would never have used had there not been a painting process before weaving. This does not mean that I attempt to recreate a water- mark with weaving. On the contrary, I actually cannot abide the slavish way that some tapestry weavers aim for this type of affect. Tapestry offers its own set of intrinsic and dynamic marks that are visually interesting on there own terms. By using a combination of marks (passes, half-passes, mixed and unmixed bobbins), colours and materials it is possible to create a lively surface that can offer more than a painting. The amount of time that is used contemplating while working on a tapestry also allows for small and consistent decisions to be made, I think there is something in this that painting does not have. Once an area is woven, it is not so common that the area will be worked on again, that area will be left and woven over the top of. If something has gone wrong or looks funny in one part of the tapestry it can be fixed by weaving something a little differently further along. This way of working I think is peculiar to weavers, so far I have not come across this with any other art form. These processes lead to intensity within the image that I believe are not possible with paint alone.