the language of the artist is one that exchanges the "verbal" sign for a "visual" sign. I do not want to imply that the visual sign is not linguistic, because it is--indeed, the linguistic sign and the visual sign exist simultaneously, just as "thought" and "language" exist. Here, linguistic implies language--of all types. "Verbal" implies language of the word-type, while "visual" implies the language of sight, where "word" is replaced with "image."

Imagination, then, is like the re-thinking of previously understood signs--linguistic and visual alike. The one imagining is creating a reality that only they can fully understand. We call this "imaginary" because it [may or may not] [does not necessarily need to] resemble recognizable, previous signs in the form of symbols, metaphors, reconstructions...but is not entirely palpable to those "outside" the imagination.

If shared, the imaginer must acknowledge outright that he or she is aware of the non-consensual nature of their construction. We must make it clear, somehow, that we are aware of the imagine d's non-"realness." Otherwise, we are "crazy," since the imagined does not match up with the language of our community. {similarly, the crazy person may, in some cases, claim "imagination" to resolve their linguistic conflict}

If the imaginer were to say that their reality was real, we would, perhaps, call her crazy--but we might also say that she was trying to impose her idea of reality upon us (to some degree) and we would cite "consensual reality" as the reason for her supposed, inherent craziness, since we often consider "reality" [the product of thought/language] to be consented upon by the community. However, our "consensual reality" is actually not consensual, but imposed.