Some rhetorical questions about iconic images

Sparrow said:
That one is Christine Keeler the other one was Mandy Rice-Davies
Click to expand...

That makes it iconic for sure. You didn't have to recognize or name the right person for the photo to have impact. It's a good thing I didn't think it was Mother Theresa or my subsequent life would have been a real mess! :D:D

/T
 
sitemistic said:
"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."

Then your argument is that an ethical, unbiased press is impossible?
Click to expand...


OK you got me there! Now could the rest of us go back to the issue at hand please?
 
For a photo to be iconic it has to be iconic in its own right, as a standalone photo, without external reference to the contex or identity of the people. So, the photo of Pricess Di in front of the Taj Mahal, for example, does not qualify as iconic. It's just a photo of an attractive woman in front of the Taj Mahal. Without knowing who it is and what was happening at the time, it has no special impact.

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
That makes it iconic for sure. You didn't have to recognize or name the right person for the photo to have impact. It's a good thing I didn't think it was Mother Theresa or my subsequent life would have been a real mess! :D:D

/T
Click to expand...

This is Mandy Rice-Davies, enjoy

:D
 

Attachments

  • mandy_r1_c1[1].gif
    mandy_r1_c1[1].gif
    39.9 KB · Views: 0
sitemistic said:
"Who shall guard the guards?"

How about an educated, thinking public, who doesn't take things at face value?
Click to expand...

I need your protection? I think not!
 
Last edited:
Tuolumne said:
For a photo to be iconic it has to be iconic in its own right, as a standalone photo, without external reference to the contex or identity of the people. So, the photo of Pricess Di in front of the Taj Mahal, for example, does not qualify as iconic. It's just a photo of an attractive woman in front of the Taj Mahal. Without knowing who it is and what was happening at the time, it has no special impact.

/T
Click to expand...

Yes that’s how I understand an icon; in the modern secular sense, that is
 
Here in the old world we've heard that the average american would rather go to the mall than read a newspaper.
Click to expand...

Most newspapers here are just fluff designed to appeal to whatever demographic the advertisers who own the paper target their goods to, so you're not entirely wrong. The "special supplements" are where the real effort goes.
 
Tuolumne said:
For a photo to be iconic it has to be iconic in its own right, as a standalone photo, without external reference to the contex or identity of the people. So, the photo of Pricess Di in front of the Taj Mahal, for example, does not qualify as iconic. It's just a photo of an attractive woman in front of the Taj Mahal. Without knowing who it is and what was happening at the time, it has no special impact.

/T
Click to expand...


Or you could argue that reference to the content is essential in making an image iconic. You might say that in order for a photograph to become iconic it must move beyond its role as a simple image, no matter how graphically complelling, and enter the public imaginary, taking on a life of its own. For intstance, (the obvious example) , Korda's Che, or Susan Meiselas' soldier throwing a molotov (seem my link in previous post) Meiselas' image was published worldwide, then appropriated by BOTH sides in the war in Nicaragua, used in murals, postage stamps, propaganda, etc.

Or you could argue that an image like Weston's green pepper is iconic for what it represented in the history of photography. A lot has to do with how you think of "iconic". As for me, I prefer to believe that iconic pictures are few and far between and that they don't necessairily have to be strong graphic statements if the content is unique or compelling enough.
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
Not an insult at all. The sad truth is that once they finish any kind of formal education, researchers have found that most Americans never read a book or magazine again that they don't have to read for their work. That's a real danger to democracy.
Click to expand...
Its not just America: when I was in our (Australian) Air Force studying engineering, more than half of those in my unit hadn't read a single book that wasn't a set text during their entire run through high school. This in a group where your marks had to be at the 99th percentile just to have your application considered.

I don't understand it, but a lot of people just won't read if they can possibly avoid it.

...Mike (who never has enough bookshelves)
 
sitemistic said:
They are not mine to post.
Click to expand...


Thank you. I wish everyone would understand this when they post images that do not belong to them. See RFF rule number 6.

If I say "I sound like a broken record" that will give away my age. But I sure am tired of asking folks to "obey rule number 6" . I don't want to get into a "fair use" argument either and I know it's convenient when discussing photos to post them. But (here goes the broken record) ..this rule is mostly to protect photographers, and, I imagine, RFF. I have had my work posted without authorisation many times (not here) and have had to fight hard to get it removed (conext was not appropriate, for one thing).

Even the mods seem to ignore this rule (unless one specifically complains). Maybe this is not fair to them as the rule is violated so often it's hard to pick up on every violation.

What's so hard about posting a link? it's EASIER actually
 
OK, Pitxu, that's some photo you posted there. Looks fairly technical to me. I think it belongs in one of the "gear" threads, but I don't know which one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom