Quillion
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
- Messages
- 5,696
For our convenience, I will post the Merriam-Webster definition of "iconic" (I would also include Oxford for British users, but that's subscription-only):
But my question is, which is more important in establishing an icon between recurrence and making an impression? Yes, I know that iconicity is subjective, but I'm just wondering which is more important in establishing an icon. Measuring iconicity by recurrence is certainly more quantifiable, but measuring iconicity by their making of an impression is more in line with its subjectivity.
Honestly, there are arguments that go against either of the two sides. Beedle has made a lot of appearances in various Zelda games, but is barely discussed among the fandom, likely as he's little more than a standard shopkeeper. Geno has made a big impression as the best thing to come out of Super Mario RPG, but we don't hear the end of people continuing to bring up that he has never escaped said game and likely never will (light cameos aside).
I guess it all boils down to whether the creators or the audience determine iconicity. If you measure iconicity by recurrence, that means establishing iconicity is in the hands of the creators. If you measure iconicity by how something makes a big impression, that means establishing iconicity is in the hands of the audience.
Now that we know what "iconic" means, I posit that there are two main things that play a role in making something iconic:Definition of iconic
1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an icon
2a: widely recognized and well-established
// an iconic brand name
b: widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence
// an iconic writer
// a region's iconic wines
- Recurring appearances. Something can become iconic by making repeated appearances across a franchise.
- Making an impression. Something can become iconic by making a big impressive appearance.
But my question is, which is more important in establishing an icon between recurrence and making an impression? Yes, I know that iconicity is subjective, but I'm just wondering which is more important in establishing an icon. Measuring iconicity by recurrence is certainly more quantifiable, but measuring iconicity by their making of an impression is more in line with its subjectivity.
Honestly, there are arguments that go against either of the two sides. Beedle has made a lot of appearances in various Zelda games, but is barely discussed among the fandom, likely as he's little more than a standard shopkeeper. Geno has made a big impression as the best thing to come out of Super Mario RPG, but we don't hear the end of people continuing to bring up that he has never escaped said game and likely never will (light cameos aside).
I guess it all boils down to whether the creators or the audience determine iconicity. If you measure iconicity by recurrence, that means establishing iconicity is in the hands of the creators. If you measure iconicity by how something makes a big impression, that means establishing iconicity is in the hands of the audience.