Talk:Cultural icon/Archive 1

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Says who? And does it even make sense?

We read:

A cultural icon is an object or person. . . .

and then

Hollywood, McDonald's, Las Vegas, Barbie, Mickey Mouse, Disney, New York, Coca Cola, Levi's, etc. are cultural icons of the United States that have a major influence on the American culture and the world.

I hadn't realized that Mickey Mouse was either an object or a person. It's more like a conventionalized graphical image, sometimes rendered in three dimensions. I don't know what "McDonald's" means here -- the places or the burgers? (Surely not the company, which wouldn't be an object or person.) Is "Disney" the company? Can Disney and Mickey Mouse both be cultural icons? (Isn't there at least one category mistake here?)

And what "major influence" has Barbie had on the world?

Or again:

A cultural icon is also irreplaceable, incomparable and timeless. In many aspects, they [sic] represent a nation or a certain culture.

Isn't representation of a certain culture somewhat difficult to square with timeless? I associate McDonald's, Vegas, and Barbie with postwar US: far from timeless. And as for "incomparable", I easily compare McDonald's with KFC, Burger King, and the junk food outlets indigenous to the nation where I live, Vegas with Reno and Macau, Mickey Mouse with Donald Duck and Mickey Rat, New York with Chicago, Coke with Pepsi, Barbie with GI Joe, Levi with Lee, Hollywood with Bollywood, etc etc.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy has a political iconic status.

Is this a political cultural iconic status or a political non-cultural iconic status?

Etc etc. To me this looks like the first draft of an essay, no more. -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your criticisms are apt. One of the pitfalls of cultural studies is that nearly every enthusiast of the field thinks they understand the subject without reading any of its key texts. This article was written by author(s) who don't know the subject they're writing about. However, the article could be improved greatly by drawing from Roland Barthes's Mythologies and subsequent work on the subject... Pinkville (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mythologies is a most entertaining work (which makes it most unlike any other work by Barthes that I've looked at). But I don't remember it as much more than a collection of well-written little essays. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mythologies concludes with the long essay Myth Today, which provides the theoretical grounding for the short essays/reflections on various phenomena (plastic, Marilyn Monroe, etc.) earlier in the book. The book is virtually an introduction to semiotics through an analysis of an assortment of cultural icons or myths. Pinkville (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

An anonymous editor added the following comment: "(Obviously the original author of this article sees the term 'Cultural Icon' as exclusively a product of the USA. The rest of us have neither culture or icons?)". I moved it out of the article, since it belongs on the talk page (if anywhere). Anturiaethwr 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To think that all those people voted "Keep" in the second AfD

Its title: "cultural icon". We read: Marilyn Monroe - one of the cult icons, who is one of the most recognizable icons of all times. So she's a cultural icon, a cult icon and one of the most recognizable icons of all times, plural.

Strange, I thought that the image of her would or wouldn't be an icon. But let's suppose for now that she, and not her image, is a cult(ural) icon. One of the five, fifty, five hundred most recognizable icons? Among whom? According to what research?

(And that's just one caption. The rest is just as dodgy.)

The first AfD got it right, I think. If I'm wrong, care to prove it? -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, you think this is bad, look at Pop icon! Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh urgh. That article links to Cult icon and I was expecting unintended laughs there, but disappointingly it instead points to this very article. If humans can be icons, then I imagine that John Waters would be a cult icon, or anyway the gross woman gobbling eggs in Pink Flamingoes would be, and thanks to the redirect WP's innocent young readers would be led to believe that they're cultural icons. ¶ Meanwhile, how about the earnestness of "Gay icon"? Lotsa links, but most are discrete: it appears that if somebody verifiably states in a newspaper column that a given person is a gay icon, then that person thereby verifiably becomes a gay icon. This is all jolly good fun in the knockabout world of selling newspapers, but if this encyclopedic methodology is sociological (as Pinkville didn't quite claim) then I'm Napoleon. -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

and again

Can somebody who, unlike me, is capable of taking "cultural studies" seriously please look at this article and attempt to get it to make sense?

I'd thought that an icon was a visual representation of something. See Betty Grable: after markup-stripping but with my emphasis: Her iconic bathing suit photo became the number-one pin-up girl of the World War II era. It was later included in Life 100 Photos that Changed the World.

However, this article starts: A cultural icon is an object or person that....

Is it that Grable's photo was iconic but, thanks to its being a mere photo and not her, disqualified from being culturally iconic; while Grable herself remains in the running for being culturally iconic?

But for now, this article claims that a cultural icon is an object or person. It immediately proceeds to give seven examples: three are (dead) people, one is a fictional person, one a game, one a place, one a liquid. Whatever "cultural icon" may mean, the article gives not an iota of evidence for its assertion that these are cultural icons. Their selection, and the removal by User:Icarus of old of James Dean, look pretty arbitrary.

I quote a comment by Pinkville (after some markup-fiddling, and with my emphases): "cultural icons" are not the things/people themselves, but rather the images of them in popular culture. That is, in scholarly terms it isn't Marilyn Monroe herself that is the cultural icon, but the collection of ideas about her: beautiful, sexy, tragic, dumbish but inspired blonde, etc. that together form a persona called "Marilyn Monroe".

So it's not the objects or persons (or fictional persons or games or places or liquids); it's the images or ideas thereof. Well, which -- images or ideas? Or (in set-theoretic terms) the union of the two? I'd hazily thought that images included, or perhaps were even prototypically exemplified by, visual images (in our times, primarily photographs). Perhaps Johnbod thought so too; anyway, he added a see-also for Replicas of Michelangelo's David, whereupon I tentatively added two more, for Guerrillero Heroico and Chandos portrait. But they too have been summarily swept away by Icarus of old, in his single, summaryless edit.

So are these associations or cognitions or what? Do paintings or photographs qualify? Or the magazine (etc) reproductions of paintings or photos? Or people's memories of (reproductions of) paintings or photos? If any paintings (or photographs) (or their reproductions, or their memories, or the memories of their reproductions) qualify, which would they be? Why Crocker and not Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben, why Presley and not Dean or Bela Lugosi or Pam Grier?

Come on, cultstuds: Come up with just two little coherent, credible, persuasive paragraphs about "cultural icon". -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten fairish words on that topic might be my limit; however, I think the reasoning is probably sound that cultural icon at least initially is an image, perhaps those "ideas" associated with the image, often but by no means always, a person. That person, or that object could in extreme cases come to be seen as an object of veneration. c.f. Religious icon --

An icon (from Greek εἰκών, eikōn, "image") is an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy, as in semiotics; by extension, icon is also used, particularly in modern culture, in the general sense of symbol — i.e. a name, face, picture, edifice or even a person readily recognized as having some well-known significance or embodying certain qualities one thing, and image or depiction, that represents something else of greater significance through literal or figurative meaning, usually associated with religious, cultural, political, and economic standing.

(bolding itals added). The addition of images to the article seems entirely reasonable for instance the Sydney Harbour Bridge would be a cultural icon, a well-recognised image, cheers, --NewbyG (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I'm reaching the conclusion that while it's wrong to say that "cultural icon" means nothing, it's true to say that it doesn't have any one dominant meaning (let alone a single meaning). As such, a good entry for it is going to have to distinguish among usages that can be, and probably should be, separable (while conceding that in the hands of sloppy, lazy, obscure or obscurantist writers it may have amorphous swarms of meaning, or may merely be bullshit).

The result is unfortunate for what purports to be an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Compare heat, an article that very properly explains the term as it's used in physics and gives short shrift to the term as it's used elsewhere. Well, the physicists have got their act together; the cultstuds haven't. (True, the physicists have had more time to do this, but I also strongly suspect that they are also very much more intent on clarity and very much less tolerant of sloppiness.)

There are terms that people are going to want to look up in an encyclopedia and that should be clearly disambiguated before exposition. Two that come to mind are Ebonics and expletive. Perhaps they'd be models for this article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All fair comments. One difficulty with cultural studies is that its subject matter is phenomena we're all familiar with, have opinions on, and feel expert in, while physics is considered esoteric/arcane. Consequently, terms like "cultural icon" (even more problematically, "culture" itself), though they have specialised usages in cultural studies, are used with abandon by nearly everybody. "Cultural icon" is often used in colloquial discourse as a mere honorific, interchangeable with "idol", "star", etc. In a more technical context, one description might be that a cultural icon is a thing (person, object, phenomenon...) stripped of its contents, leaving a shell into which other contents are poured in; so, we're not talking about baseball per se (with such complicating details as the antitrust exemption, publically-subsidised corporate assets, individual players' records and off-field behaviour, etc.), but the ostensibly mutually shared idea of baseball: a wholesome, unifying symbol of particularly American positive competitive spirit having internally overcome its historical demons (segregation, game fixing)... the sort of mythology that Ken Burns pandered to so successfully. I can add something to the article itself... as soon as I've laid my hands on the necessary books to support my 20-year old memories of the theory... Pinkville (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mandela-Authorised.jpg

The image Image:Mandela-Authorised.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Nike(c).svg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

...it is now acknowledged that the word is overused

This appears in the second paragraph, accompanied by a single citation referring to a single newspaper opinion piece.

Now, I personally agree with the statement that 'cultural icon' is often misused and overused.

However, such a sweeping statement of opinion, especially one which spuriously implies universal consensus (in the same way that the journalist, one Guy Keleny, blithely employs the cliche of the royal 'we', although no other source for the opinion is referenced in his article) looks extremely unbalanced.

I think that phrase needs to be deleted, or at least modified significantly. (I am not sure how, perhaps "...it is now acknowledged by journalist Guy Keleny that..."?) (ha ha)

the chunk of text in question:

and it is now acknowledged that the word is overused. Heard about the famous icon? We have - far too often. The Independent, London 27 Jan 2007

--Tyranny Sue (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've again removed the claim, "In the media, there is an increasing trend for any well-known manifestation of popular culture to be described as "iconic", and it is now acknowledged that the word is overused." Such a statement is entirely Original Research -- and the supposed citation is non-existent. Even if there is such an editorial in The Independent, a single opinion from 2007 doesn't qualify the assertion of "increasing trend... now acknowledged." It's fuzzy thinking to make such a statement. --HidariMigi (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's some truth in what you say. However, there was indeed such an article in the Independent, as Google makes clear. Here's one of many occurrences.

I've come to accept that these days everybody and his dog is an "icon". Or indeed "legendary". (HidariMigi, you are iconically ambidextrous, no doubt.) So from now I'm only going to pay attention to legendary icons. Courtesy of something appropriately calling itself BullShit Weekly, here is one. (Check the title -- in the technical sense -- of the web page.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, and I give you [examiner.com/x-12788-Frank-Sinatra-Examiner~y2009m6d28-Michael-Jackson-will-be-an-iconic-legend iconic legends]. First Extremely Old Blue Eyes, and then Michael the one-man circus. Aaah. But back to cultural icons. Did you know that Studio 54 was a "legendary cultural icon"'? (Me, I'd always thought it was a place and a commercial enterprise, but what would I know.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

More on iconic

The Original Research statement was reinserted, albeit in an edited form. To be clear that while as individuals, we may believe that "iconic" is overused, that is not the subject of the article-- nor is possible to conclude that there is an "increasing trend" in usage of "iconic." In fact, Ben Schott in a September 2006 piece for The New York Times produced a chart which included usage of "iconic" and "ironic" in the Times showing a marked downward trend from 2000 to 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/20060907schott02.pdf

Further, the assertion that "it is now acknowledged" is weasel wording which is a way of covering up for original research by making a generalized claim.

There *are* some more reliable sources to support the opinion (not fact) that "certain members of the media see the term "iconic" as overused":

• Michael Musto in the Village Voice: "Iconic" is the new "legendary", Oct. 2008.
• "An iconic example of the dangers of word abuse" (The Guardian UK, Aug. 13, 2007)

Broadcaster Tavis Smiley gave his definition of "iconic" in an interview with Phylicia Rashad, as

[T]he word iconic is overused in our society, but in its truest sense, Phylicia, I think part of what makes one iconic is that very point - that the stuff you do today is relevant decades, sometimes centuries, later.[1]

Some writers now hedge the usage by admitting "iconic is overused, but..."

• The word "iconic" is much over-used, but there really isn't any other word that does when sitting underneath Mount Rushmore and considering the worldwide reach of this extraordinary place.(The Scotsman, 13 July 2009)
• '"Iconic" is overused these days, and, obviously, TV can stamp out icons almost as rapidly as the mint stamps out quarters, but Tony Soprano is among the largest-looming fabricated characters ever.' (Tom Shales, Washington Post, March 12, 2006)

Finally, sources (appearing chiefly in the UK) which cite the 2009 "Lake Superior State University banished words list" [2] should likely not be used; contrary to the claims made in the UK articles, the list is not compiled from academics but made up of contributions from anyone online: [3] --HidariMigi (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Followup: I'd recommend replacing the "Liverpool Daily Post" and "Christian Examiner" references with some of the ones cited above. --HidariMigi (talk)

[To the editor, The Scotsman:]

Sir

Please remind Mike Russell ("Anniversaries are a time to celebrate Scots links with US", 13 July) of the existence of those convenient terms "well-known", "recognizable", and "famous". Mount Rushmore thus might be "recognizable from Team America".

Yours etc

Herbert Gussett, Lymeswold, 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Global icon

I suggest a merge and redirect of Global icon over here, there seems to be a great deal of overlap. Any thoughts? --CliffC (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869 - cropped and tidied.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869 - cropped and tidied.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Icons by Country

There are significant problems with this section in the article.

• It's entirely uncited and unverifiable.
• It's an image gallery.
• The criteria for inclusion is undefined. Currently it appears that if any editor believes something to be famous from a particular country, in their opinion, then it goes in.
• If we were to work to this criteria we would have an ever expanding list.

I propose the following;

• Attempt to cite a few from each country. That means a reliable source stating the person/object/whatever is a cultural icon of the country. No more, no less.
• Remove all the rest.
• Remove the images.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who are you Escape Orbit?, God or who?, why remopved the images?, you know that wikipedia (wiki-edit) is from all users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.138.103.179 (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I explained why I removed them above, according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you think I'm mistaken then please explain why. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • WHAT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.138.103.179 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Images?

Why removed the images?, the people need to know who is an cultural icon per country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.138.103.179 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I explain the reasons in the section above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He's asking specifically about the images though. You didn't explain why you did away with the images, you only listed the fact that it's an image gallery as a "significant problem" and proposed to delete them. I think as long as they're free images they can add a lot to the article. Maybe not so many examples though? Pigby (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I removed the images were not just because they are a gallery, as I explained above. They created an entirely uncited and unverifiable, ever expanding list from a undefined criteria. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Question validity of whole swathes of this article

The whole paragraph called “Icons and Brands" needs to be deleted. It has just one source which supports the claim that "many people have become weary of brands" but the article then makes no logical connection between this claim and the subject of the article, Cultural Icon. Why is it relevant to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon that people have become brand weary? The article does not say. Therefore, that people have become "brand weary" is irrelevant to this article, unless it is going to explain the difference between an icon and a brand. The obvious place to make that distinction would be in a paragraph called, "Icons and Brands", but that particular paragraph doesn't do that. Instead, it gives us an incoherent account of the supposed genesis of cultural icons by making the unsourced claim that they "may" go through, "rumblings, undercurrents", "catharsis, explosion", "mass acceptance, ripple effect" and "glorification, representative value" without bothering to explain what any of those unsourced terms mean or how we would identify that a cultural icon has indeed gone through any of those stages. Next, we get the nonsensical and unsourced claims that "brands are rational" and that they are apparently "driven by features", without, again, bothering to explain either the meaning of or relevance to this article of those claims. Even if true, what is the relevance to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon that brands are driven by features? The article doesn’t say. Next we get the wholly wrong claim that a "fashion look" might be an example of a brand, without, again, explaining why "branding" might be relevant to an article on Cultural Icon. Finally, we get the unsourced claim that royal or church garb might be understood as a form of emotional iconography, without, again, any attempt to explain the relevance of this to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon.
The paragraph titled "Definition" needs to be completely re-written. It currently makes no attempt to define Cultural Icon or explain what a Cultural Icon actually is, but instead gives some inappropriate (and unsourced) examples; only in the mind of a prepubescent American boy could Bruce Lee possibly be considered a symbol of "philosophical culture and insight of knowledge worldwide" whatever that means. The "definition" then ends with the ridiculous (and need I repeat, unsourced) claim that Salvador Dali himself is a "worldwide icon for the bizarre and eccentric."
I would also like to point out to any author considering working on this article that a Cultural Icon may be viewed differently by other cultures than his own and I provide two examples of this. The photograph accompanying this article has the caption, "A cuckoo clock, symbol of the Black Forest and Germany" and whoever wrote that obviously thinks that is true, but in my country the cuckoo clock is a symbol of Switzerland, and we even refer to them as Swiss Cuckoo Clocks, even though they are not actually made there, but in Austria. The symbol we associate with the Black Forest is a ridiculously over decorated gateau with black cherries, chocolate and fresh cream on it that we call Black Forest Gateau. My other example is the Statue of Liberty. I dare say many Americans think of that as a symbol of their national freedom, or American justice or something, whereas I think of it as a symbol of the friendship between France and the United States. These two examples show that whoever intends to convert the current gibberish into a meaningful encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon should consider icons (not brands) as viewed from more than one perspective and should at least mention that they may be understood in different ways by other cultures. Context is also relevant to understanding icons. For example, in one context a quill pen might be a symbol for literature, whilst in another context it might represent a supplanted technology, so exactly what an icon represents may not be uniform across even one culture, never mind the wholly erroneous claim repeatedly made in this article that they might represent one thing worldwide. Both of these points taken together would seem to indicate that the cultural aspect that an icon symbolises is a purely subjective matter and giving examples of them in Wikipedia becomes a POV issue, unless you have sources, a feature noticeably absent from the current iteration of this article. Cottonshirtτ 05:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many problems with this article as it stands, particularly when it strays into giving examples. I'd fully support any changes you might want to try to fix it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have started a sandbox page here where you can view my first attempt at the article (lead only so far). My current thinking is that we should try to be less prescriptive and more inclusive. This means we can include (I think three would be enough) examples of cultural icons from different cultures without trying to explain what they symbolise or the values they convey. The cuckoo clock picture, for example, could have the caption, "an example of a cultural icon common to several north European countries" and leave it at that. We could include the photo from this page showing a collection of cultural icons commonly associated with the United States and if we could find a similar picture showing some cultural icons from say China, Japan, or Russia that would be enough images and yet still have a wide enough geographic spread, I think.

We could then expand the article with sections on how cultural icons are used: 1) In pop culture such as films, music and so no; 2) travel advertising (Japan and her Cherry Trees, etc) and; 3) politics (demonstrators burn national flags to make points about other cultures etc.). These sections should avoid being lists of examples but concentrate on text to convey how the cultural icons are used and identifying that perceptions are managed by choosing the appropriate icon, for example, the images that countries choose to put on their bank notes or stamps.

Any thoughts you have on any of this are welcome and please feel free to get stuck in; this is not "MY" article. Cottonshirtτ 05:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track with the lead, however I have edited it to demonstrate exactly the sort of problem you mention at the start of this section. Your example of a cultural icon, and its description, demonstrated your subjective take on what it symbolised. Which was not only POV, but to a great deal factually inaccurate. I don't know if you meant it to be such a perfect example, but well done! :)

The issue with being "inclusive" is that a very clear scope for example is needed, with a clear rational and a requirement for good cites. Otherwise people just come along and declare their own POV examples on who/what is a cultural icon, when what they really mean is "I think this is important", which is not the same thing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have edited the lead to remove any reference to a specific example.

When I said that we should be less prescriptive and more inclusive I meant that it would be okay for us to say that food items can be cultural icons but it might not be a good idea to say that Gouda Cheese is a cultural icon of the Dutch. So, we give examples of what a cultural icon can be, without giving specific examples of actual cultural icons. Something like this: Cultural icons can be buildings, animals, flowers, items of local or national cuisine or features of the geography such as rivers, waterfalls or mountains...

I think this approach removes the tendency to have anyones opinion in the article whilst still conveying to the reader what the hell we are talking about.

I am struggling to make my thoughts on people as cultural icon into a coherent narrative, so any thoughts you have on that are very welcome. For example, I read yesterday that Princess Diana is a cultural icon but I struggle to understand the value or ideal she represents unless people want to cheat on their spouse, look pretty and die young. The current article says that Clint Eastwood is a cultural icon, but I question that. I can imagine one or more of the characters he has portrayed, such as Dirty Harry or The Man with No Name being a cultural icon but I struggle with the actor himself. But, I can't tell if those thoughts are coming from a rational encyclopedia editor or a consumer with a POV, or what those thoughts tell us about an over arching narrative about people as cultural icon. Maybe they are not a special case and we just include them in our list of objects that can be cultural icons. Thoughts appreciated. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 03:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)