From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Dietrich, Madonna, etc.
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:32:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Oct10.023214.29773
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Oct10.004120.12791@adobe.com> asente@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal) writes:
>I agree.  I find quite amusing the claim that cultural icons must be
>timeless.

I don't recall that such a bald and leaden assertion was ever
made in this discussion.  I certainly would have misunderstood
Arne if I thought he ever said that.  Cultural icons capture
or embody something timeless.  They are _obviously_, like all
of us, embedded in time.  (So obvious that it needn't have been
said until now--except by Matthew, for whom repetition is both
a virtue and a necessity.)

>If this is true, who are the cultural icons from the 1800's?

Oh, perhaps Sarah Bernhardt still.  Later, at the turn of the century,
Nijinsky or Isadora Duncan.  Sure, the phenomenon gets weaker as they
recede from us.  Is that the point?

>Cultural icons are part of the current culture,

Yes, and...?

>and it's just that the invention of movies has enabled some of the
>cultural icons of 60 years ago to remain recognized today.

Hmmm, I'd have said it was the invention of language.

>Yesterday's cultural icons are part of today's history.

I'm surprised you didn't say "the dustbin of history".  No, I think
you're missing the mark a bit.  Someone who might be called a "cultural
icon" makes history and leaves their mark on the culture.  It is not
simply a metric of popularity (though popularity and influence are both
ultimately necessary to their success as such.)  It is not a measure of
their instantaneous power or earning potential.  I'd also claim that
this category is somehow different than simple literary or artistic
fame--it's not artistic genius alone--there's a diva/adoration factor
involved as well.  I'm willing to quibble on this last nibble, however.

>Some people I consider to be cultural icons:
>[yes and no, some definitely I disagree with]
>The thing I think these all have in common is that they are either living or
>died recently enough that many people can still remember them.

Yes, quite a mark of distinction.  This is not what I think Arne has
in mind.  It was not what I had in mind.  It was undoubtedly close to
what Melmon had in mind.

>They all have
>something, well, unique, about them, something that you could point to and
>say, "Yes, THAT is so and so," even if you couldn't describe what it is.

Fame and notoriety.  Which is not quite the same.

>I think it's much easier for dead people to be cultural icons than live
>people.  While you're alive you're too complex to be easily distilled into an
>icon.

Actually, I'd argue that those who are most successful at this elusive
category are those who are so distilled while retaining their complexity--
this is the essence of their apotheosis.  To return to the Ciccone-woman,
I find it difficult to use the phrase "too complex" and her name in the
same sentence.  (This seems like endless Madonna-bashing, but it's not.
I'm just giving her the respect she's due and no more.)


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer