Comments on: Iconic images?

By: Amoxicillin drug interactions.

Amoxicillin drug interactions. — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:49:35 +0000

Amoxicillin acne….

Amoxicillin. Amoxicillin for acne. Amoxicillin dosage instructions….

By: Tim K

Tim K — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:44:01 +0000

The link to the contest can be found here:
http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/MediaMatters/photography.aspx

Wish they would have included a bit about what selection criteria they used. The blurb they have is “photography has the power to move us and motivate us into action”, but I don’t see how the Harold Edgerton, Ansel Adams, Ray Billingham, Martin Parr, Fay Godwin moves or motivates us, and I’m a pretty easily moved and motivated guy. (They are undoubtedly great pictures—although it’s a crime that they are displayed so small on the web site, especially the Ansel Adams.)

I agree with Ross that it’s a poorly-conceptualized contest. They seemed to be combining “National” iconic images of the UK (the Ray Billingham and Martin Parr are the typical examples, I’d love to consider others) with “Media” iconic images (the beautiful Dorothea Lange Migrant Mother indeed moved and motivated us, there are more examples of documentary and war photography, even the Abu Ghraib photos could be considered in this context).

They should have given their definition of “iconic”, then chosen either “National” iconic or “Media” iconic… or else just leave the top 10 lists to the E! Channel’s top 10 celebrity breakups, catfights, Oscar dresses, etc…

By: Ross M

Ross M — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:52:39 +0000

Interesting point you bring up about a higher profile of an image adding to its ‘iconicity’. I personally think the contest blatantly conflates fame and iconicity with some regularity, which, although they obviously effect each other as you point out (the relationship certainly isn’t inversely proportional), buries what to me would be a much more interesting and fruitful exploration of the nature of iconicity (vs. fame) – the very difference between the two, and if and how a picture can be iconic *without* also being famous.

Not to mention that the whole thing reeks of cultural imperialism. Hate to name names, but the inclusion of the current darling of the British art photo world particularly speaks to this, especially considering some of the more obvious exclusions.

As an adjective, “iconic” is so fuzzy and mutable that it renders any attempt at objective ranking thereby fairly useless. Although I appreciate any attempt to spark discussion about art, this “top-10″ format promotes the unfortunate idea that art can somehow be objectively measured and hierarchically ranked, as if it’s merely a frail and nerdy little sibling of competitive sports, but maybe that sort of conflation is required to attract the attention of the public-at-large. Nevertheless, it seems like a clumsily-conceived contest, but perhaps nothing more could be expected from an institution that has both ‘national’ and ‘media’ in their name.