[thecatspajamas]

Because I'm being lazy tonight, some thoughts I once took the time to type in another thread. It's okay to plagiarize yourself, right? (insert lowbrow humor here)

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

...another factor to consider is the notoriety of the image itself. One of the reasons that everyone, even those who are not sports enthusiasts, will recognize Conlon's photo of Cobb sliding, or Fein's photo of Babe Ruth bowing out, is that they were recognized as being top-tier images from the start and have been used and reused and reprinted and seen over and over and over, so that the original works that those countless iterations were derived from have been elevated to iconic status. They are not just images OF icons, but rather the images themselves are iconic. That kind of notoriety takes time and exposure to imprint on the general consciousness. So while I think it would certainly be possible to find a new photo that SHOULD rival the old icons in terms of the "four C's" and notoriety of the photographer, I think any newcomer would have difficulty in challenging an original iconic photo in terms of price realized at auction.

That doesn't mean that they would be "judged harshly" or go unappreciated. I just don't think it would be possible for a new image to supplant one of the "old guard" in the public consciousness so quickly, if at all. As Mike's top pick illustrates though, you don't have to have the "best"/most-well-known photo to have a darn nice one that will turn the head of anyone who encounters it and/or bring a handsome sum on the auction block.

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I guess one's perception of an image as "iconic" could be subjective depending on one's level of exposure to the image, which could vary geographically, culturally, or even within certain circles of interest, depending on the individual. To me, "iconic" is equivalent to "most recognized." Based on that, a photograph would become "more iconic" the farther its general recognition reaches. (I'm thinking along the lines of baseball card collectors vs. sports enthusiasts vs. general population of the U.S. vs. worldwide recognition). I don't think that "most iconic" necessarily equates to "best" though, and I'm not sure the two should really be compared.

Another way of looking at it would be that while a photograph's visual quality (the "4 C's") is fixed from the moment the print is produced, its "iconic" status is not. Where one image went from the obscurity (literally) of a darkroom to achieve worldwide recognition over the years, an equivalent or better photograph may have been used once (or not at all), and languished unviewed in some archive without gaining comparable status. A lack of notoriety shouldn't lessen a photo's "worth" either in terms of appreciation or monetary value, but we often can't help but heap greater praise on the "iconic" photo simply because it is easily-recognized.

And I would strongly agree though that the descriptor of "iconic" is overused in auctions, along with all the other flattering terms and puffery that is all designed to get the reader to loosen their grip on their wallet and bid with fervor. It's all part of the auction (and advertising) game, and I'm sure there are examples of images that have become "iconic" simply because they were described that way over and over.