Some rhetorical questions about iconic images

ClaremontPhoto said:
Wasn't this what IZr was saying a few hours back?

Those two political photos would be iconic to many British people with an interest in British Labour party politics, but not outside that group and not internationally.
Click to expand...

Probably, I got sidetracked, but if your applying the title “ikon” you lose credibility if you have to add “British” or “labour party” to gain recognition wouldn’t you say

PS do you remember dear old Neil falling in the sea Bournemouth in the late 80s?
 
sitemistic said:
"For someone working in the press you seem unduly keen on censorship, at least where domestic sensibilities are involved, do you not think the press has a role of presenting reality and letting the public make its own mind up."

There were 100,000's, perhaps millions of imaged shot by the press and others in the first year after 9/11. Are you advocating that no choices be made and all images be dumped into newspapers? That's the only way to avoid what appears to be your definition of censorship.
Click to expand...

I’m sure you’re correct; it is a weak image probably best left out, I hardly remember it now anyway; I don’t know what made me call it an icon in the first place
 
Two of the most iconic images of the later part of the 20th century. Not just for who they are, but what those images have become.
 
PS do you remember dear old Neil falling in the sea Bournemouth in the late 80s?
Click to expand...

How can that be "iconic" when it's so topical and localized? It's like Jimmy Carter with the attack rabbit; funny, but hardly "iconic."
 

Attachments

  • rabbit_original_750x564b.jpg
    rabbit_original_750x564b.jpg
    86.9 KB · Views: 0
kbg32 said:
Two of the most iconic images of the later part of the 20th century. Not just for who they are, but what those images have become.
Click to expand...

This is more iconic in respect of China for me
 

Attachments

  • Tianasquare[1].jpg
    Tianasquare[1].jpg
    87 KB · Views: 0
sitemistic said:
Sparrow, the world is a more complicated place and the decisions we make within the news media far more complex.

... Great art, terrible news photo.
Click to expand...

With respect, I totally disagree with this comment. It is not art -- it is a news photo -- and it is in my judgment a great news photo. It is beautiful and terrible.

You said that you chose not to run it, or were advised not to run it. Because, I presume, it would be upsetting to readers. I saw a documentary about that, in which newspapers that did run the photo prominently were pilloried by their readers. Well, so what? If newspapers are afraid to show the truth, then we might as well not have newspapers. I say this as a former newspaper reporter and editor. The same readers also were upset about the Abu Ghraib photos and, by the way, by the Vietnam War photos. And by the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, and on and on.

You also claim this photo is sensationalist. But then talk about having to shoot car accidents and the like for your local paper. Well, perhaps the falling man photo, like the photo of the dying priest being carried by the firefighters, is not sensationalist because the personal tragedy it depicts encapsulates and is part of a greater and vastly significant tragedy. We humans relate better to the plight of the individual than to dry statistics of thousands dead or injured or napalmed. That's why we remember striking photos of individual victims. Whereas the local news in a lot of places focuses on fire, weather, car accidents, murders, and celebrity and sports news. I submit that some consider that sensationalist.

I'm not questioning how you do your job -- believe me I understand the pressures of working for a newspaper, and I understand why you are satisfied with your paper's judgment not to run the falling man photo. But I think the issue of whether a photo is important or iconic is larger than that. Whether it "will play in Peoria" has never been the standard for greatness, just for commercial success.
 
Pitxu said:
I think too many of you are getting way off track here. An iconic image must stand up by itself, without having to know where and who and why!
A balding welshman slipping on the pebbles means absolutely nothing!
Click to expand...

Agree entirely, the only two pictures I see so far are Marilyn Munroe and Che Guevara.
 
Interesting that with the exception of the "attacking rabbit" all of the images mentioned are of man or manmade items...
How about the Earth Rising shot taken on the Moon...???
 
TEZillman said:
If we were to retire all of the iconic images and replace them with photos made in the past 25 years, what photos would you nominate in whatever catagory you choose to take their place?
Click to expand...

The picture of the man in front of the tanks in Tiananmen, Paul Watson's shot in Somalia of the dead American soldier being dragged around. Just two of the shots that come first to mind.
 
Thats more like it! Even if you knew nothing about Tiannenmen, you can see that it's a lone guy standing up against an army! That speaks to everybody.
Click to expand...

Yep!

And a free press without ethics is useful for what exactly?
Click to expand...

Selling candy to diabetic children...? :D
 
nikon_sam said:
Interesting that with the exception of the "attacking rabbit" all of the images mentioned are of man or manmade items...
How about the Earth Rising shot taken on the Moon...???
Click to expand...


The one with the Earth’s reflection in the helmet’s visor did it for me
 
What do you deem unethical?
Click to expand...

Internalizing the values of our system so thoroughly that you stop noticing that you're censoring your own work before you even press the shutter button...?
 
Sparrow said:
Anybody in the US recognise this image as an icon?
Click to expand...


Yep. I was a teenager and after seeing that photo I always had a special place in my heart for British women, anyone named Mandy, and all women with hyphenated last names. How many photos have you ever seen that could change your life so profoundly? ;)

/T
 
sitemistic said:
"And a free press without ethics is useful for what exactly?"

O.K. You lost me here. What do you deem unethical?
Click to expand...

Others seem to understand; it’s difficult to be plainer. A press that puts profit before all other considerations is a bad thing: is that any better?
 
Sophistry. Every photo we take is filtered through internalized presuppositions. We can't escape that as adults. Nobody is without bias.
Click to expand...

It's not sophistry just because you don't like it or agree with it. It affects anyone who's an employee, actually, you either internalize the values of whoever signs your paycheck or you're unemployed.

I don't mean to be personal by using the pronoun "you," BTW...
 
Last edited:
Tuolumne said:
Yep. I was a teenager and after seeing that photo I always had a special place in my heart for British women, anyone named Mandy, and all women with hyphenated last names. How many photos have you ever seen that could change your life so profoundly? ;)

/T
Click to expand...



That one is Christine Keeler the other one was Mandy Rice-Davies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom