Response to Walker:

If we must define a "Big Idea" as something new (I will explain below why I
dislike doing so), I applaud the effort to differentiate it from closely
defined terminology.  This serves a double duty of avoiding confusion with
these other terms as well as gives something similar enough to serve as a
reference point.

I admit my knowledge of specific terminology in the field of art may be
limited, which could throw off my opinion here.  I know the term "space" has a
very specific definition in film theory, for example.  However, I don't see why
we have to define "Big Idea" as something new.  As I understand the article, it
is simply a theme that "persists throughout an artists body of work".  That's
it.  This does not need a new term; one could easily suffice with "over-arching
theme".  While it is an interesting topic which may be worthy of discussion,
there is no need to define a new term for this as I understand it.

Response to Barret:

I usually find it amusing when subconscious things which I do are brought to my
attention.  I type all of my notes, and I often study by/with my computer; as a
result, I apparently move my fingers as though I am typing when I am attempting
to recall information I learned in this fashion.  I find this interesting.  The
main point in the article - that we subconsciously interpret connotation and
denotation in visual imagery - fits this perfectly.  As the article points out,
I've likely been doing this since at least preschool - and rarely have I given
it conscious thought.

If I had to find a complaint with this article, I would say that more examples
are used than truly necessary.  I got the point well before the final page.
While the preschool children item is one of the more important ones, as it
helps frame the entire work, other examples could easily have been dropped
without a serious negative effect on the article.