What makes someplace an Icon

What is that makes someplace an Icon? For instance, the Maroon Bells are considered an Icon. I would bet that few places in Colorado have been photographed as many times as they have. I've lived in Colorado my entire life and have never been there and, it's not on my to do list. I wonder, are there any undiscovered places that will be come icons? I would like to think so. What are some other views on this subject?

I think you nailed the definition with the fact that the Bells are one of, if not the most, photographed scenes in Colorado, and because of this they have a widespread recognition and allure. Same goes for other popular photo locales (Delicate Arch, Yosemite Valley, etc). For me, and probably several others, this popularity tends to make me want to avoid these areas, as I generally enjoy not competing for tripod space with 100 other people, and I'm doubtful I'd come up with a "new" take on the classic scene. That being said, I did make it to the Maroon Bells last fall for the first time (and I'm a native), and I'm glad I did (they're so much better in person), but at the same time I doubt I'll go again. As for any as yet "undiscovered" places becoming icons, I'm sure it will happen, but I have mixed feelings about it. Anytime one of these places is "discovered," it's hard to avoid having a negative impact on the surrounding land and ecosystem, with so many people flocking to the area. Anyway, that's enough rambling from me. I'm curious also to hear others thoughts on this. Good topic!

Michael, this is an interesting subject and one I have given quite a bit of thought. I think one of the main factors that makes a place a photographic icon is how frequently it is photographed. For the most part I would say places that are instantly beautiful and very easy to get to will fall into this category. Take for instance the Maroon Bells or the bridge shot from Zion. You simply get out of your car and shoot, so it is an instant icon. That is not to say that some harder to get to places cannot be an icon, for example amongst photographers we know of places like The Subway in Zion, which is a bit harder to get to, but still frequently visited. However, for the mass public that is not into photography, most of them will not recognize that shot as much as the easy to get to places.

All that said, I read an itneresting article on Guy Tal's blog recently about he subject of taking new and never before seen shots. I am certainly guilty like most of wanting a handful of those iconic shots, perhaps just to say that I have been there or to compare my results with other photographers, but there is is a large part of me that always wants to get something new. Even when visiting a place that many photographers to go, I try to find a way to make it my own if I can. To me this is what makes the difference between a good photographer and a great one, when I go to their site and see that a large majority of their work is not only great, but unique. Guess that is something for me personally to strive towards one day.

A place where every living human being has a shot of it.
Seriously, I agree with what Chris and Koveh said in that I like to have those shots as much as anyone I suppose, but I sure like to shoot different things to try to be unique as well. Aren't our voices heard more clearly when separated from the din?

I like what Koveh said about even going to an iconic pace and shooting something a little different. Last year when we went to shoot Mesa Arch, while all of us were huddled in the middle shooting the arch, one of my friends went to the right and shot this:

http://www.pauljamesphotography.com/gallery/My%20Favorites# click on "The tree of light" image.

a perfect example of finding something a little different in an iconic spot if you look for it.

That's my goal for this year,,,find something different and make it special.

Another vote for Koveh's post. I've often said to people that I would prefer to shoot something that hasn't already been shot a million times before. That's why I really don't have any desire to go to the Maroon Bells and deal with the crowds.

Great point, Jack.

There is certainly agreement on the factors that combine to make an image iconic, but keep in mind, we photographers have a far greater list of what is iconic as compared to the general public.

After the Maroon Bells, what do you guys consider the #2 iconic image associated with Colorado? The Crystal Mill? That certainly breaks the rule of easy access, but it is used so widely in tourism advertisements.

I certainly prefer to spend my time in remote, seldom visited areas, but I don't reject the opportunity to photograph an icon in great light/weather conditions. Having ALL of the elements come together at any location just doesn't happen that frequently - at least not when I am there.

I often think about the icons of any given place as methods of association. If I say 'Colorado nature scene', what is the first, second, and third name that comes to mind? This idea of free association is happening, where the uncensored primary names/thoughts are produced.

This is a good topic for many reasons. Right off the bat, I would like to consider the idea of not shooting iconic locations, and how this could be beneficial to our portfolios. As a former gallery owner, I made numerous sales of photography of iconic subject matter. In fact, roughly 75% of sales of fine art were of iconic locations. Why is that?

In hindsight, this pattern didn't make me go out and shoot iconic locations, because I had already done it. It was my 'rite of passage', if you will, to enter into my campaign back in early 2002, to involve myself in nature photography. After awhile, I thought about the implications of shooting locations 'off the grid', and really began to think hard about the revenue purposes of said images, only to realize that I was doing myself a disservice. One day out in the middle of nowhere I said out loud 'I'm a hobbyist, not a professional' - and that epiphany made me stop thinking in terms of revenue and more for personal experience and simply becoming a more challenged photographer.

Of course there must be a connection made between your buyer and your image. If we are shooting iconic locations, chances are, the 'general public' is seeing these icons at our National Parks and wilderness areas. So, if your primary focus is to sell your art for revenue purposes, then it would be safe to say, go and shoot those icons, because you may sell quite a few more of them versus an image of some remote location. You may even find some free entertainment in the form of verbal disagreements, fist fights, and arrogant discourse among photographers at said locations at peak time. Awesome.

Michael, my position is similar to Bill’s and Chris’ responses. We as photographers look at a LOT of images and seem to form some sort of innate sense of what an icon is (perhaps, simply, icons are places of unusual natural beauty and appear most frequently when looking at fellow photographers’ work). Keep in mind the definition, attitude and taste for images we as photographers label as icons is probably very different for other segments of “the public.”

Yes, I’d define the aforementioned Maroon Bells and Crystal Mill in the “icon” category as well as perhaps Bear & Dream Lakes in RMNP, some Garden of the Gods compositions, the Dallas Divide or Mesa Verde’s Cliff Palace in Colorado alone. My current book is filled with photos from these places but other photographers weren't exactly the core target market for that product. I’ve found that my customers have personal memories, strong feelings and connections to photos of popular places because they themselves were able to visit them. This will be less and less common with images that were taken after venturing miles and miles into wilderness areas.

I've read Guy Tal's blog post concerning how finding completely unique locations and compositions will make you a better artist. It’s a good piece and I mostly agree with what he said. However, personally, I think we need to be careful not to interpret this idea to say we should completely turn our noses at photographing places that someone somewhere has labeled an "icon." I have respect for those who through perseverance (or even just good luck) have managed to present an image of a place that has been photographed time and time again and capture it from a new angle, unusual light or spectacular weather conditions. Is the possibility of capturing such an image worth braving the throngs of fellow photographers at the popular overlooks? You have to decide that for yourself.

To answer your other question I do think other places which have yet to be labeled as “icons” can later become them. Before the 1990s few people had heard of “The Wave” on the Arizona/Utah border before it was covered by a few notable photographers and published in some prominent magazines and guides. Now you need a ticket to get there because the location is so popular. Additionally, several years ago a famous photographer made images of a unique rock formation, which has since collapsed, at a location in northeastern Utah. To my knowledge, it’s still not known if it toppled because of natural causes or as a result of human action caused by the area’s increased publicity and visitation. The transition of an obscure location to “icon” status can, and likely will, happen again IMHO.

I have always preferred to avoid icon spots (although you can surely find some in my collection of course). I see them as places where photographers are perfectly happy to line up their tripods side by side and snap the same photos that they've already seen many times before, perhaps with slightly different light or weather if they're lucky. To me that has always seemed incredibly uninspiring.

But, I've noticed a funny thing in the last few months, while I've been photographing in the Alps - all of the sudden I'm not so repulsed by the icons here! Because, for me, it's all fresh and new. For example, the Matterhorn. Seeing that mountain for my first time was thrilling. How could I NOT want to take a photo of it??? So, in that moment, I could care less how much it's been photographed; all I know is that I want to take a photo. And I still want to go back there and capture another photo later this winter.

Which is all a bit baffling to me, since it's an attitude that is at sharp contrast to my attitude when I'm home in Colorado.

I photograph things I find beautiful or intriguing. Icons fill that description as well as many other places that are off the radar. If icons sell better, that's great for the pocketbook, but that doesn't stop me from shooting whatever I find to be beautiful or intriguing. I photograph things because I enjoy the process and the result. When I shoot an icon, I feel like I'm in the presence of greatness, and to not shoot it because of its status could be interpreted by some as disrespect...hmmm...I'm sure some would interpret that as an elitist attitude, as well. I'll just keep shooting icons until someone pries my camera out of my cold, lifeless, hands. Bottom line: Shoot what you enjoy and don't worry about what others are doing or not doing. Life's too short to penalize yourself because of the opinions of others.

I think we've pinned down and determined what makes a "shot" an icon. However I would differentiate "shot" from "location." Usually an iconic shot, such as the Maroon Bells offers little variety comp-wise to differentiate the shots other than season and weather/lighting conditions, but the "shot" and subject matter are 90% the same. A place such as Antelope Canyon or The Wave are iconic "locations," but I feel photographers are still able to visit these locations and come away with something unique and different if your aim is to create and not to copy or imitate.

As Guy mentions in his blog, when you are first learning the piano or first learning to cook, you play others work or follow a recipe to the T trying to make your results as close to the original work you're studying. This learning method of mimicking is how humans do much of their learning (think children mimicking their parents), and it is no different in photography. For some reason there are many photographers who never stop mimicking others, and who never leave the nest to create, and express themselves and their visions freely. This isn't specific to photography, think about how many musicians make a living playing cover songs or how many diners serve the same old slop around the country. Not saying this is a bad thing, there are plenty of people who pay or love to listen to these cover bands and there are some diners that are loved by their clientele, but there is nothing unique about these products or results.

Let's also face it that part of being a photographer is viewing, critiquing, and admiring (or not admiring) other photographers work. This is a valuable exercise that helps develop and fine tune your own individual eye for technical aspects of a photo, comp, vision etc. In practicing this, we are also viewing locations where these photographs were taken. Maybe there are people out there who keep a list of every photo they look at and check these places off as "Do Not Go" sites simply b/c someone else has taken a photo there, but by and large, I feel most photographers are doing the exact opposite, and taking keen notes on desired areas to explore and shoot, inspired and motivated by someone else's work done at that same location. This is what creates "hot spots" and as much as photographers like to tell themselves they are blazing their own path, you can actually trace photographers like migrating birds shooting their way through each popular spot during the seasons. This is not to say that every photographer is going to come back with the same photo, and I think that's the important part here.

-On Soapbox-
I feel too many people are caught up with watching what other photographers are doing and not just simply being and allowing themselves to express themselves. I would urge people to simply explore the land, icons and everywhere else. If you arrive at an icon and the land is speaking to you, and you feel inspired to try and convey that moment, sight, or feeling to others, then by all means take the photo. If you arrive at an icon and there are 30 other people jockeying for the same shot, maybe there is a shot elsewhere to be had (like Jack's example above). Maybe arriving at an icon takes every ounce of inspiration out of your soul and you feel absolutely no creative energy, at this point maybe you leave and go elsewhere, or maybe you put your camera away and just allow yourself to experience the moment at this icon in person with your mental camera. My point is I think it is just as silly to NOT shoot a location just b/c it is an icon as it is to ONLY shoot icons. All of us know what inspires us, what motivates us, and what types of shots speak to us, and photography should be fun, so stop worrying if someone else has shot that same location or same subject. On the other hand, don't be afraid to express your vision, to explore new areas, and to make unique art even if it isn't recognized, popular, or received with praise.
-Off Soapbox-

This topic has unleashed some outstanding thoughts and meditations that have been a sheer pleasure to read (e.g. Jared's 'soapbox')! I sure can't add to any of these posts, but I sure do appreciate each and every one of 'em.

Ditto what John said

I'm glad we had this discussion, everyone made some great points. For me nature photography is alot like going on an expedition, the adventure of not really knowing what I'm going to see. Will I see something that only a few other people have? I always hope so. I think it's mans nature to want to see what's over the next hill or around the next bend in the river. After all these comments I have a new "view" about iconic locations. Maybe I'll make a trip to see the Maroon Bells sometime this year.

Icons are that which represents a whole, and stand at greater height (figuratively) above other other representational elements. Maroon Bells represents the entire Rocky Mts. Delicate Arch, the southwest, etc..

One problem for me is when people flock to these places, they become stuck in one mental spot, failing to perceive other opportunities because they are so focused on getting that One Shot.

While on assignment for a magazine, I had gone Mesa Arch specifically to photograph the line of photographers in front of the arch. When I arrived there, just as the sun was starting to rise behind storm clouds to the east, all the cameras and tripods were lined up leg to leg, but all the photographers were standing about 10 yards away drinking their morning coffee and chitchatting like packs of photographers are known to do. None of them were paying attention to what was going on around them photographically, because they were all "waiting for the (good) light" to appear on the bottom of the arch. I walked past the entire group up to the left of the arch and wound up getting one of my favorite shots of the trip.

After witnessing this beautiful scene, I walked back down toward the arch, only to find the pack of photographers chit-chatting away like nothing was happening. I remember bemusedly thinking to myself, "Hello? Are any of you photographers?" That morning, the light never got any better and the arch never lit up. Most photographers shrugged their shoulders, took a couple snapshots, and left. I actually had to convince the last two photographers to pose for me so that I could get the shot I needed for the magazine.

Icons are like magnetic lures. There is no problem shooting them. The problem lies when a photographer chooses to make the icon their end-all be-all of photography. I find it a little sad to see photographers that are unable to pull themselves away from that huge gravimetric attraction to the point where they are unable to find or express their own personal vision.

I love shooting icons. I equally love finding things that nobody else has. The icon may be the destination, but it is that personal vision that no one else has that is the true reward.

All I can say is whether it's an icon or not, if it appeals to me, I'm going to shoot it. I shoot for myself first and others second, so I don't care if I'm recreating an image.