Has the era of the “iconic image” passed?
I followed a tweet yesterday from the Magnum feed to a photo of the week by Paul Fusco.
USA. California. 1968. California Grape Strike. Cesar Chavez. © Paul Fusco/Magnum Photos
It is a protest photo from a workers strike in California from the late 60′s. In itself it isn’t a particularly remarkable photograph; however what gave it resonance for me was a sense of time and place; I can feel the photographers presence – the fact that Fusco was there at all lends weight to the purpose of this demonstration.
It made me think – in 40 years time, will similar images from this generation come to hold the same weight and gravitas as Fusco’s? My gut instinct is “no”. When I think back over protest photography from the last 20 years, the only picture that instantly springs to mind is that of “Tank Man” from the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989.
Beijing, June 5, 1989, by Jeff Widener (The Associated Press).
After a couple more minutes of thinking, this 9/11 image by Thomas Hoepker drifted in from my memory banks as well:
Young people on the Brooklyn waterfront on Sept. 11 2001, ©Thomas Hoepker/Magnum Photos
That’s two photographs from the last twenty years. I wasn’t alive in the 60′s, but I have this romantic idea in my head of photojournalists of that era being brave men and women who were driven by a passion for truth and a desire to show the world the political issues of the time. While these ideals may not have changed, perhaps it is the sheer number of practising photographers and the rapidity with which images get distributed and shared that has served to dilute the waters; While there are plenty of fantastic working photojournalists out there, it seems to me like the time when one photographer could make an era defining photograph of a single event are gone. When I look back to the biggest event so far in London this year, the May Day Protests, there isn’t one particular image that stands out. All I can remember is a deluge of photographs, several of which seemed to include more photographers than protestors….
May Day Demonstration, 1st May 2009, London. (Photographer unknown)
I’d be interested to see some conversation about this. Maybe I just have a brain like a sieve, and there are others out there who can think of dozens of iconic images from the last twenty years of photojournalism. I’d like to think this is quite specific aswell – I can think about many iconic photographs from a “non-news” context – I just feel that news photography and the coverage of big events are so swamped by the sheer volume of imagery, that the chances of one particular photograph becoming iconic have diminished.
What stands out as your iconic news photograph of the last twenty years?
Are you a photojournalist? How do you feel about the current state of news photography?
You raise a lot of different questions in this post. Regarding 'iconic' images, was Paul Fusco's image of the 1968 protests an instant icon (I have to admit that I did not know that image)? Or do you find it iconic because of the distance that we have from those events? It is difficult to identify icons when there is little distance from an event. History is a process of digestion that eventually condenses events: that digestion is often the process through which photographs come to be iconic.
I think that iconic images still do—and will continue to—exist. In your post I wasn't sure if you were talking about any news photographs or only about photographs of protest specifically, but 2 images jump to mind from international news stories The image of the falling man from 9/11 and the image of the hooded prisoner in Abu Ghraib. From those 2 examples I think what is interesting is that these arguably iconic images are not taken by a professional photojournalist but by people who happen to witness an event or by a participant in the event itself. This says a lot about the changes in the way that we use photography. I would argue that the proliferation of images changes the process through which an image becomes an icon rather than eliminating it.
On the topic of the state of photojournalism, I recently wrote a post on the subject over at eyecurious.
Just an aside: this image by Shomei Tomatsu is probably one of the greatest images of protest that I can think of.
Richard Drew, who took “Falling Man” is a professional photojournalist.
Part of me thinks the “will there be iconic images?” question is a variant of the “with such a surplus of digital images, are images less valuable” debate.
You'd think there'd be a singular image from Iran this summer – and there is, but it's a video. Iran might be teaching us that the “iconic image” has shifted away from photojournalists, and is now in the hands of everyone, in the form of the cell-phone video.
hi marc and thanks for visiting insig.ht.
I definitely don't see Paul Fusco's image as an “instant icon” – It was more of a trigger that led me down a path of thought. However – I do feel that his photograph (and many others from that era) hold a certain weight and resonance that exists simply because they are singular records – I doubt there were many other photographers covering the california grape strike in the same way as Fusco.
- its funny that you brought up the image of the hooded prisoner from Abu Ghraib – you beat me to the draw, as I was going to post an addendum in the comments about that image. There's no doubt in my mind that it is THE iconic image of the Iraq war – for me it eclipses almost every other image of the war in it's brutal finality. My reservation was that it was taken by a participant in the atrocity. The main exhibit of the Brighton Photo Bienniale last year (curated by Julian Stallabrass) was a retrospective of war imagery from the Iraq War compared to similar documents from the Vietnam War – “Iraq Through the Lens of Vietnam”. When I sat on the train back to London having visited the show, the images that were stuck in my mind were not by Philip Jones Griffiths, Benjamin Lowy or Larry Burrows; they were by an unidentified participant in the Abu Ghraib atrocities.
“I would argue that the proliferation of images changes the process through which an image becomes an icon rather than eliminating it.”
I think you are onto something here, especially with Michael's suggestion that the “iconic image” is now more often created using a cell-phone's video function. While I cannot think of single photographic image that stands out from London's May Day demonstrations, the video image of a Metropolitan Police Officer assaulting Ian Tomlinson (an innocent passer by who later died) has made a lasting impression.
marc – one more thing – believe it or not, that's the first time I have seen that “falling man” image from 9/11. It's definitely a really compelling image.
I think the reason why I haven't seen that photograph is that 9/11 happened when I was on my second day of a months trip around China. for that period, apart from the odd glimpse at a television screen, I was largely away from western media – and in particular print journalism.
Tangentially related, perhaps it's also because the avenues for an image to become iconic have been reduced, or at least changed. I can't recall seeing an even semi-memorable image in a newspaper in the last four years because I've only purchased half a dozen newspapers in that time.
Even with the decline of print, how many newspaper web sites make use of images in any decent way? Even on the New York Times site, the best you can hope for is a slideshow of perhaps half a dozen low resolution JPGs. Remember the days when half or even more of a newspaper's front page was taken up by a single image? Are there news web sites that would do the same on their home pages?
Looking through the World Press Photo award winning photographs for the last few years, I actually can't remember seeing any of them, in print or online. In fact, the only place I saw almost all of them was at the actual exhibition for the World Press Photo awards.
hi bluelies.
you're right in some ways. however, i wonder if you are being a bit idealistic in your 40 yr prediction.
i'm thinking that for an image to truly become iconic, it has to be “there” from almost the very moment that the story breaks.. if a photograph doesn't resonate 12 months after an event, i don't see why it should suddenly become “iconic” several years later…
BUT!!
as i was writing the above, i suddenly remembered that the Thomas Hoepke image was in fact only released 4 years after 9/11!
a quote from the photographer from an article on Slate.com – http://www.slate.com/id/2149675/
“Four and a half years later, when I was going through my archive to assemble a retrospective exhibition of my work from more than 50 years, the color slide from Brooklyn suddenly seemed to jump at me. Now, distanced from the actual event, the picture seemed strange and surreal”……”The image has been published in 15 newspapers in Germany but only once in the United States, as a half-page in David Friend's book on the images of 9/11. But it has now come to the surface through three paragraphs in the New York Times, written by Frank Rich last Sunday. These thoughtful words—without the picture—were enough to incite a debate, which has swept over to Slate, that has just started and seems to grow by the hour on the Internet in many blogs.”
hmmm… maybe you're onto something!
http://bombayfc.blogspot.com/2009/08/photo-elio...
The May Day protest seemed more like an event people were keen to photograph rather than an event to actively participate in. The photograph above demonstrates this for 2 reasons 1) it looks more like a commissioned “riot” shot or a Levi's ad, and 2) the photographer is unknown. And not only is it anonymous, but for me it feels disingenuous. That said, in a few years, I don't see any reason why it couldn't become iconic.
On the contrary, something emotionally engaging and absolutely genuine like 'falling man', is instantly iconic. As is Thomas Hoepker's, albeit being locked away for some time after the event it depicts (I hadn't seen that Hoepker photo before now…).
Perhaps the reason some professional photojournalism has only been seen in exhibitions is because its being eschewed for the 'real' and visceral quality of joe public's cameraphone. It is this that makes the Abu Ghraib shot what it is: taken through the eyes of the perpetrator.
Incidentally, the falling man photograph, despite being partially censored closer to 9/11, prompted its own story in Esquire and then a documentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man).
Slightly off topic: after having a search on this topic, I found this and I'm trying to find out who took it and why. http://www.designer-daily.com/wp-content/upload...
The photograph of the plane that had crash landed into the Hudson river qualifies for me. I still remember it somehow! On what makes it differ from the previous, that it's the obvious mobile phone snap taken by a “passer by”. It's fairly well composed, though.
http://twitpic.com/135xa
Yes, maybe I am a bit too optimistic. But then again, what I wanted to show is that there are indeed some photos with a lot of potential being produced these days, although the given examples may have different resonance with different people. Be it as it may, thinking of the fall of Baghdad in 40 years, the Hussein statue would probably make it. We will see. If the internet still exists in 2049, please re-open this thread!
)
Thanks for the info on the Hoepke image. I think it´s really a very, VERY strong shot and I didn´t know it´s story.
Fabian
If Sturgeon's Law holds for photography, then I think the number of outstanding images remains pretty small no matter how many shutters are clicking. The absence of an iconic image from the May Day demonstrations may serve to illustrate how rare such images still are–and hence that there is still room for them–even with nearly everyone out there functionally equipped with a camera.
In his introduction to Eggleston's Guide, Szarkowski wrote that one photographer could stand in place and whirl his camera around, clicking haphazardly, and every photograph would be significantly different. The quartet of Tiananmen tank pictures (courtesty of bluelies, above) illustrates a soft of inversion of this scenario: four separate photographers in nearly the same place, pointing their lenses in nearly the same direction–and still the results are remarkably different. It seems impossible to overwhelm the uniqueness of the photographic image.
Regarding the importance of historical perspective, shouldn't it count as much for our understanding (and recognition) of iconic images as it does for our understanding of the events they depict? Any picture of a resolute-looking Neville Chamberlain is now unavoidably ironic, however heroic it may have been found before the effects of his appeasement policy were retrospectively understood.
If, however, iconic images really are decreasing in frequency, does it perhaps track a general perceived quality decline in PJ and news photography?
MDM – here's an interesting stat from flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/
the apple Iphone is now just about the most popular “camera” for flickr uploads…
Thing about iconic images, such as they have been, is that you don't know them til they happen. It's sort of mere speculation as to if they are still possible or not. It's true that the way images are produced and used these days, the proliferation of images etc. and perhaps the move away from “image as truth” a modernist concept to more of an image as commodity works against it. But you never know. Look at the Clinton “scandel”. A photog happened to have a photo of him hugging M. Lewinsky in a crowd, that image got picked up and spewed nightly for months. It really doesn't have a whole lot to do as to whether the image is outstanding, good, or unique or visionary, it has a whole lot more to do if it fits the right person's sense an image fits a story, and what kind of legs a particular story has. Usually, it will be a great image, depending on how you define “great”.
Sorry, just spewing thoughts. First time here. Nice discussion though.
An interesting article. I think it can be argued that the higher number of people with the ability to take photos at any time may dilute the power of one image over others of the same event. Yet I also think that some images will also rise to the top and still come to symbolise certain events.
Ben, I'm surprised that you didn't add this image taken on the day of the 7th July bombings in London, it was the first thing that came to my mind when I started reading your article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5105750.stm
I think that's a really good point. I just saw a similar show in L.A. at the Annenberg Space for Photography. “Pictures of the Year” Photo Journalism award winning photos and photo projects. I thought there was some amazing photos there, no problem on quality to my mind, and yet, I don't think I saw a one of them during the year. And yet the photographers were often working for NY Times and other publications that are commonly sourced news outlets. I realize, I read the times haphazardly on-line, and all the papers. I think another issue is, that photojournalism today is very often “concerned” photography, and I do believe that though the papers and magazines are sending people out, I don't think the editors are showing a lot of the work because they think it's too hard for people to see, or even because it would go against the political grain in Western Europe and America. There's just too many good images showing the hard things in the world by photographers that are being paid to get the pictures, that I'm not sure are seeing the light of day.
I think that's a really good point. I just saw a similar show in L.A. at the Annenberg Space for Photography. “Pictures of the Year” Photo Journalism award winning photos and photo projects. I thought there was some amazing photos there, no problem on quality to my mind, and yet, I don't think I saw a one of them during the year. And yet the photographers were often working for NY Times and other publications that are commonly sourced news outlets. I realize, I read the times haphazardly on-line, and all the papers. I think another issue is, that photojournalism today is very often “concerned” photography, and I do believe that though the papers and magazines are sending people out, I don't think the editors are showing a lot of the work because they think it's too hard for people to see, or even because it would go against the political grain in Western Europe and America. There's just too many good images showing the hard things in the world by photographers that are being paid to get the pictures, that I'm not sure are seeing the light of day.
I think the age of the iconic photo is indeed over, at least for reportage. Most people get their news via television or the internet and often in video form rather than in print. There's a reason why modern SLRs have HD video built-in, you know. Photo-journalists (or rather their paymasters) demanded it.
Iconic photos of the 21st(ish) century. Just a few . . .
http://www.stcharleslibrary.org/blog/good2know/...
http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/bush_told.jpg
http://photoframe.sourceforge.net/demo/wallpape...
http://www.armytimes.com/xml/news/2008/12/ap_dw...
http://fmulls.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/artwo...
http://chicagoist.com/attachments/Marcus%20Gilm...
Hi Ben,
I do think that the digital and information age has resulted in an over-saturation of images. However, I do not think that it has affected my perception of what makes an 'iconic' image. After all, what makes an image 'iconic' in the first place? Is it a subjective definition? Or does it have to be an internationally acclaimed, award-winning image like Steve McCurry's blue-eyed Afghan girl? For me the iconic 9/11 image that stands out from all the rest is the one where the first tower is already smoking and the second plane in the background just about to crash, unfortunately I don't know who took it.
I think Raghu Rai's black and white photograph of a dead child victim of the Bhopal/Union Carbide gas disaster is iconic. Also the one that I remember from the 7 July London bombings is the one of the double-decker bus being blown open. So I guess my point is that each and every one of us remembers things slightly differently, needless to say, including how we remember certain events. Talk about Princess Diana, and the image that comes to my mind is the portrait by Patrick Demarchelier; talk about Madonna, and the one that comes to mind is Herb Ritts' monochrome image from the True Blue era. Without a standard definition of what makes an image “iconic”, I'd say that its ultimately down to how the individual remembers a particular event.