Is the existence of future iconic imagery in danger?

The nature of iconic images will necessarily change because the way photography is used is changing wildly due, in part, by the advent of the camera phones and then the smartphone. James Bareham says in his article, "Post-process: why the smartphone camera changed photography forever," "The iPhone's crappy 2-megapixel camera removed all of the normal concerns over image quality. Resolution, exposure, and color saturation were all uniformly terrible, but what did it matter because I was shooting on a phone... a phone! It was fun" (James Bareham). Next came the app store along with many photography apps such as Instagram. Bareham goes on to say, "Instagram has fundamentally changed a great many perceptions of photography, not just my own. This is because Instagram lives on the devices that the vast majority of us are using to take the photos we share. It has fused the act of taking pictures with the act of viewing and sharing pictures. As a result, Instagram created one seamless user experience: Shoot, process, share, view, like, comment, shoot, process, share. Repeat. This process is now both ubiquitous, and a badge of honor" (James Bareham). Another vehicle that aids the ease of sharing images is Facebook.

The concept of the "selfie" has run rampant in this day and age. Some people regard seflies with respect. James Bareham says, "It's the honesty with which people take pictures of each other using a phone that makes it so compelling; the way people photograph themselves ("selfies"), their work, their food, their pets, their holidays, their lives. It is this authentic reality that we can all relate to - and this is what the advertisers are only now beginning to understand. A great image is a great image despite being shot on an iPhone, not because of it" (James Bareham). Others believe that selfies are culturally damaging. John Dvorak says, "...befuddlement exists with the selfie snapshot. The [people] who do these are often in various dimensions of undress. ...these pictures are freely traded and posted mostly on Facebook as a tribute to stupidity along with pics of hammered college kids. None of this is a good idea" (John Dvorak). Dvorak seems to believe that the advent of the "selfie" indicates that "we are dealing with a generation of self-absorbed narcissists" (John Dvorak). Regardless of one's position on the concept of "selfie," it is undeniable that they indicate an example of the way photography is used is fundamentally changing.

In her article "Personal Photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual," Nancy Van House defines "personal photography" as "that which is done by non-professionals for themselves and their friends and intimates" (Van House 125). She goes on to denote amateur photography as "personal expression and interpersonal communication, 'the home mode of pictorial communication' (Chalfen 2)" (Van House 125-126). She goes on to say, "As tactile objects, [photographs] have an emotional and sensory impact beyond that of their content. They carry physical traces of their social lives" (Van House 126). These quotations serve to help us understand why personal photography is so important. It's importance is at stake in the existence of iconic images because how will iconic images continue to rise up out of millions of more photos and many more ways those photos can be mediated. I argue that iconic images are not in danger because people need icons to represent important historical events. To support this hypothesis, I will use the image of Dzhokar Tsarneav on the August 2013 cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

The August 2013 cover of the Rolling Stone magazine has become historically controversial. People have taken issue with the fact that the Rolling Stone cover, which has been reserved for musicians or popular actors in the past, has now housed an image of a terrorist not looking particularly terrifying. Because of this usual cover reservation some critics believe that Rolling Stone "glamorized terrorism" (David Carr). This image, I believe will become an iconic image representing the Boston Bombings.

Because the image of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that adornes the cover of Rolling Stone is, indeed, a "selfie," a marriage of the the world of personal photography and professional uses of photography has resulted (David Carr).

Selfies will impact the future of iconic images. They have become a global phenomenon. There is a song entitled "#Selfie" that lays out the importance of selfies within the demographic. The video currently has 98,676,218 views on YouTube and it continues to gain more views hourly. The ease of having a camera built into a cellphone has changed the way photography works, however one thing will not change: there must be an emotional connection between the viewer and the subject(s) in the photograph. The boy on the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine is considered a monster, however this photo is consistent with the idea that a (sometimes unwanted) emotional connection must be present. Even still the definition of an iconic image will have to evolve. The photo of this boy is intimately relatable in his youth and beauty, which signify innocence. He could be the boy down the street or down the dormitory hallway, he could be your brother or your classmate.

Works Cited

Bareham, James. "Post-process: why the smartphone camera changed photography forever." The Verge. Ed. Joshua Topolsky. Vox Media, 20 June 2013. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

Carr, David. "Behind Rolling Stone's Cover, A Story Worth Reading." The New York Times 19 July 2013: n. pag.

Dvorak, John C. "Age of the Selfie." PC Magazine (2013): 153-54. Print.

Van House, Nancy A. "Personal Photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual." Visual Studies 26.2 (2011): 125-34. Print.

Analysis by Maryhelen Murray.