Comments on: Has the era of the “iconic image” passed?

By: The L in KBnL

The L in KBnL — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:04:16 +0000

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.

By: Brandon Tauszik™

Brandon Tauszik™ — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:59:41 +0000

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...

By: artyfuckingsmokes

artyfuckingsmokes — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:37:07 +0000

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.

By: barryfisher

barryfisher — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:04:10 +0000

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.

By: barryfisher

barryfisher — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:04:10 +0000

By: James Davies

James Davies — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:54:04 +0000

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

By: barryfisher

barryfisher — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:35:24 +0000

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.

By: benroberts

benroberts — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:21:15 +0000

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...

By: James Hendrick

James Hendrick — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:31:42 +0000

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?

By: bluelies

bluelies — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:37:59 +0000

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