Iconic Photos

[baseball tourist]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I agree that those were unforgettable moments, but not necessarily iconic photographs.

I see the point that you are making, and would argue that the images of the Babe seated, Ryan wailing on Ventura and a young Splinter don't qualify either. The first is a boring image dwarfed by countless other Ruth images, the Ryan is akin to the Jordan image I posted and the Ted W. shot while excellent doesn't tell the viewer anything about Ted's greatness as a hitter.

[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.

[Ladder7]

Regionally iconic-to be.

[cubsguy1969]

Don't know if it would be considered iconic, but I always thought this was an amazing image. Bednarik just about killed Gifford. He was out of football for a long while.

bednarik.jpg

[packs]

Sad note on that Olympic podium photo many people don't know about. The second place runner is Australian Peter Norman, who was wearing a civil rights badge and encouraged Smith and Carlos to make the symbolic gesture they did.

Australia effectively banned Norman from competition as a result of his support of Smith and Carlos, leaving him off the 1972 team. At the 2000 Sydney Olympics Australia celebrated every one of its living Olympians in a stadium ceremony with the exception of Peter Norman, who was not invited or honored at the ceremony.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by baseball tourist

I see the point that you are making, and would argue that the images of the Babe seated, Ryan wailing on Ventura and a young Splinter don't qualify either. The first is a boring image dwarfed by countless other Ruth images, the Ryan is akin to the Jordan image I posted and the Ted W. shot while excellent doesn't tell the viewer anything about Ted's greatness as a hitter.

"Ryan vs Ventura" was meant as a joke. Contrasted to all the others I posted along with it, I didn't think I would have to telegraph that dry little joke. There was also the 'color vs black and white' angle that I thought would help. Plus, many remember similar images from other angles, or the actual event. I chose that one because it is the photo he signs most often. From now on, I'll post an asterisk next to dry jokes so that I don't have to make everyone cringe with future long explanations. (By the way - I love explaining dry jokes, as I think it adds to the absurdity of the original joke).

Babe seated is boring and dwarfed by others?

Also, I think the Olympics photo you posted is probably actually iconic, even outside of our hobby.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

"Ryan vs Ventura" was meant as a joke. Contrasted to all the others I posted along with it, I didn't think I would have to telegraph that dry little joke. There was also the 'color vs black and white' angle that I thought would help. Plus, many remember similar images from other angles, or the actual event. I chose that one because it is the photo he signs most often. From now on, I'll post an asterisk next to dry jokes so that I don't have to make everyone cringe with future long explanations. (By the way - I love explaining dry jokes, as I think it adds to the absurdity of the original joke).

Babe seated is boring and dwarfed by others?

Also, I think the Olympics photo you posted is probably actually iconic, even outside of our hobby.

FWIW, I did laugh when I saw the Ryan/Ventura photo alongside the rest and finishing up your post.

[Runscott]

I think being able to picture the photo in you head without looking at it, is also part of 'iconic'. For instance, when I think back about the 'Ali vs Liston' photos, the one that comes to mind at the moment, is the one with his arm across his chest, so obviously, that's the 'iconic' one.

With that quality of 'iconic' in mind, I can also think of Bob Beamon's long-jump and that image of Brandy Chastain on her knees with that little black bra. But I digress.

How about this one?

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think being able to picture the photo in you head without looking at it, is also part of 'iconic'. For instance, when I think back about the 'Ali vs Liston' photos, the one that comes to mind at the moment, is the one with his arm across his chest, so obviously, that's the 'iconic' one.

With that quality of 'iconic' in mind, I can also think of Bob Beamon's long-jump and that image of Brandy Chastain on her knees with that little black bra. But I digress.

How about this one?

Well, of course, I'm gonna say yes. An award-winning 1965 photo of Mickey by Life Photographer John Dominis. How about this 1954 photo which appeared on the cover of Jane Leavy's brilliant book - an image of Mickey that shows him as we would all like to remember him - young, happy and full of the promise of greatness.

Craig

[71buc]

How about these three?

[jbhofmann]

[MooseDog]

A lot of "iconic" photos are going to have been ones that appeared in Sports Illustrated and Life. While I agree that the Brandi Chastain shot qualifies in my book, would it be so if it were not on the cover of SI?

To me, the term "iconic photo" can mean both capturing a defining or great moment in sports or one that Runscott said, can picture in your head. It doesn't have to be a once in a lifetime action shot either…that shot of YA Tittle on his knees captures football (and losing) in one simple shot. The shot of Ali over Liston is simply one of the greatest photographs ever, let alone sports. My favorite photo of Babe Ruth is the Nickolas Muray portrait that just shows him in pinstripes with a bat over his shoulder.

With the advent of video and the ability to grab frames, I fear that in time people will not appreciate the skill and mastery of those great sports photographers who captured these images, nor the sometimes blind luck to be in the right place, at the right time.

For us collectors, I believe this photo qualifies as "iconic" maybe for all the wrong reasons

[sayheykid54]

IMO this is a "Iconic" baseball photo. A classic shot.