From: asente@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal)
Subject: Re: Dietrich, Madonna, etc.
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:09:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.023214.29773@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>>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.  

I think this is a good description of a cultural figure, but not of a
cultural icon.  To me the essence of being a cultural icon is capturing
the public's collective consciousness.  An icon has to be something of
an archetype, a distillation, a focal point.  In fact I would say that
"archetype" is the single word that has most in common with "cultural
icon."  Icons are so good at portraying themselves that they turn themselves
into parodies of real people, at least so far as their public personae go.

There are many important and memorable cultural figures from history, but
few of them have what it takes for me to consider him or her an icon.  I agree
with Nelson's point that of the various proposed historical icons, only
Mozart really qualifies, and, yes, only because "Amadeus" returned him to
iconhood.  Well, I'll agree with Oscar Wilde, too.  Beethoven may typify
classical music to most people, but Beethoven the man is too distant, too
shrouded in history to capture the imagination and be an icon.  Nobody
has a good idea of what Beethoven's personality was; everyone knows what
Oscar Wilde's or Mozart's personality was.  (It doesn't matter that what
everyone knows as Mozart's personality bears precious little resemblance
to what he really was like.  I'm sure the same thing could be said for
Madonna.)

>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.

So?  "Cultural icon" is not like "banana" where you can look it up in the
dictionary and come up with a definitive meaning.  It's really quite a
vague term.  I happen to agree with the way Melmon (and Nelson) use the
term.

>>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.

Fame and notoriety do not an icon make.  Bill Clinton is not an icon.  George
Bush is not an icon.  Harrison Ford is not an icon.  Janice Jackson is not an
icon.  None have that requisite focus, that single distinguishing quality,
that necessary spark.

>>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.)

I didn't say it was impossible for the living to be distilled into icons,
I said it was difficult.  Madonna has been quite successful at distilling
out her personal complexity.

      -paul asente
	   asente@adobe.com   ...decwrl!adobe!asente   moo-bear@cs.stanford.edu

Colonel Gilbert and his wife, Louise, came in after dinner; both of them had
wooden legs, with which they could do all sorts of entertaining tricks.
Newsgroups: soc.motss