In 1988 the New York Times used the word iconic 11 times. In 98, it appeared 141 times. And by 08, usage had exploded to 442. That's a 40 fold increase in 20 years (in a publication that probably thinks more carefully than many about the words it uses).
So does this mean we live in the age of icons, where anything and everything has the potential to be iconic?
Or, much as with 'cool' and 'authentic', is it just that lazy, indiscriminate overuse has neutered 'iconic', removing its titular status? Because when everything is 'iconic' can anything be truly iconic? Which is the case put forward by a recent article in More Intelligent Life.
But if you are still hankering after a bit of true iconic status, they also suggest 4 (overlapping) 'rules' you might want to bear in mind...
- The truly iconic affects us whether we like it are not, unlocking instinctive memories, emotions and beliefs
- The image of the truly iconic is more important than, even transcending, the actual reality of its subject
- The truly iconic subject should be understandable via visual shorthand.
- The truly iconic is immediately recognisable,the visual equivalent of an unmistakable catchphrase
A bit of an iconic progression by way of example, from Che to Wayne, via Jesus, with a little help from Warhol (referentially) and Dali along the way...
