So then, having established, in effect, that there is a crucial difference between fantasizing and imaginating, the issue becomes one of utilizing that imaginating..... consider, for instance, "First the Sand...", a pen/ink rendering of 30 x 40 ... it may be seen on the sister blogsite of 'visioneerwindows'...... in it, there is, in the foreground, a sandy shore, with a mound with seagrasses (on the left), behind which is a bent over figure of a female in the process of making sandcastles, behind which is the foaming waters of a surf crashing, and the surf waves behind that... the sea itelf, of course is behind that, with an offshore high-rise on the horizon, and a jutting piece of forested land on the left side..... now, the original had postulated two figures, one being a mother and the other a toddles playing in the sand..... why the change? to begin with, the use of a toddler playing in the sand is such an old cliche that to bother with it entales a conformity as it were - even as with the original idea of having the mother with the toddler, as in a family affair - tho that would be better, even as it would not, however, adhere to the theme/title (why wouldn't it have adhered - because it would not have given the clarity of the implication of the toddler, or either of them, as engaging in something which would lead to the future of a building as architect - a single figure is thus needed)...... to have, however, a more mature female, a woman (as noted by the bushiness of her pubes) doing the sand building WOULD make for a difference and an advancing of imaginating because it would be more the unexpected than any of the others - and far less expected than a male figure of any age.... now, why this presentation instead of, say, one in which the sandcastle building is being done in a sandbox of some kind, in the backyard, with the tall skyscraper seen behind a series of houses surrounding the backyard? for one, in doing the seascape viewing of the event, there is a starkness, a cleanness of the event, without any of the conventionality as seen in the surrounding houses - here, in other words, is a view which could be on any world, especially one in which the notion of furtherance with a female engaging in the future of what conventionality poses as a 'male' dominating position of endeavoring..... further, by having the building off on the horizon, in the clarity of the edge of everything, there is also the implication of a furtherance beyond merely another building - a furtherance of 'reaching out' as it were to much more, perhaps yet another world, as evidenced by the circle in the sky which could be anything from the sun to a moon to another world off in the distance.... now, why the more or less horizontalness of the waves crashing onto the shore? why not an angularity instead? - because it implies that there is a barrier of sorts over which one crosses to reach to the distant futurehaving an angularity implies a sort of road or pathway leading to that distance.... why is the distand building so less than strongly shown - because it is the future, with an objectified view yet one in which the details remain open to whatever changes is found later to be needed, from whatever set of circumstances might become involved.... as the theme/title says - "First the Sand..." - this is a beginning, with much in the way of implication as to the conclusion possibilities....