icons of our ages
so I finally got round to reading Jonathan Meades' article in Intelligent Life in which he discusses the pervasiveness of the word 'iconic' from Jesus to Obama (via Marmite and Beckham). great piece (if a little cynical for mediation's tastes) which goes on to outline the four conditions necessary for something to be (or be perceived as) iconic.
condition one: it affects us whether we like it or not. Meades suggests we - delightfully - apply the Victor Hugo test... when Andrea Gide was asked who was the greatest French writer, he replied: "Victor Hugo. Alas." Meades adds Oprah Winfrey and Paul Daniels (amongst others) to this list.
condition two: the imagery transcends its subject. Meades uses the example of the paintings of the Princes in the Tower. were they as pretty as the paintings suggest? probably not. but it's through the paintings that we know them.
condition three: the subject should be legible in a sort of visual shorthand. Jesus' crown of thorns, Napoleon's hand tucked into the greatcoat, Churchill's V-sign - he observes that it helps to own cartoonist-friendly features.
condition four: immediacy of recognition. common in objects - the Coca-Cola bottle, the Eiffel tower, Big Ben - but because of the demand of immutability less so in humans, unless they're dead of course. Meades asks for "the visual equivalent of an unmistakable catchphrase, such as ... David Owen's "When I was Foreign Secretary" or Andie McDowell's "Because I'm worth it" ... if a catchphrase is a repetitive soundbite, then an icon is a strenuously rehearsed sightbite". lovely.
the lessons for brands and for communications are clear. what's especially interesting however are the observations that Meades makes at the end of the article.
"in an age of ever-multiplying media outlets, with images disseminated ever more easily, there are ever more potential low-key idols ... virtual villages will increasingly make icons of figures that are peculiar to them, just as real villages did in the distant past when the people in the next valley paid obeisance to an alien gamut of gods and totems. the more the media grow, the less appropriate the prefix "mass". the globalisation of localism and, beyond that, of atomisation will very likely mean that such niche characterisations as "a living legend among the vertical matrixing community" [or] "an iconic figure in Gremlin Pastures" can be made without leaden irony."
its a fascinating observation: a long tail of idolism. the fewer, globally recognised icons sitting alongside the famous-to-a-few icons of our immediate communities and social groups. could it be that the always-on proximity and ubiquity of the stuff we connect ourselves to is making icons of the people and places around us? does the immediacy of a host of personal icons devalue the idea of an icon, or add meaning and value to it?
Comments