What makes something iconic and why do we memorialize places?
“Iconicity in architecture which is defined in terms of fame and special symbolic/aesthetic significance as applied to building, spaces and in some cases architects themselves”
What makes something iconic is essentially its level of fame and significance. (Sklair 2010) This means that the term iconic is relative because the significance of a structure or place is relative to the community within which it exists. There are certain neighborhoods and structures which have cultural significance across the whole world. For example, the world trade center buildings were iconic before they were destroyed in what was a culture changing and catastrophic event. By comparison, the Astor theatre is iconic to Melbourne and perhaps even Australia, however, it certainly does not have the same cultural and iconic significance as the world trade centers, or the memorial which stands in their absence. This does not make it less iconic, necessarily, it simply means the nature of the iconicity is different and the people for whom it is significant are a more specific demographic.
There are a number of reasons a place may become iconic. This can be the result of it being a ground-breaking accomplishment in some way. Perhaps it is the first of its kind or represents some kind of new and innovative cultural trend. Steiner’s Goetheanum is iconic because it is one of only seventeen buildings designed by Rudolf Steiner and was intended as a synthesis of sensory impact and a multitude of artistic media including sacred geometry and has been imbued with spiritual significance. This makes it iconic. More often though, buildings and places become iconic because of events that have taken place there. Iconic places often become so because of human’s tendency to romanticize and memorialize significant events in history. Perhaps this is because of the impermanence of the human condition and the unreliable nature of memory. Places which have been cultural hubs or have seen significant cultural events often become iconic to the surrounding community. The Astor is a good example of this. It is iconic in Melbourne for a number of reasons, not only is it an example of unique and beautiful architecture, it is the last cinema of its kind in Melbourne. The reason we iconize and memorialize places speaks to this human need to remember and immortalize significant events as a historical reference point that perhaps we fear will be lost to time, maybe it is a reflection of humans` fear of our own mortality.
Sklair, Leslie. 2010. Theory, Culture & Society, Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism, Volume 27, Issue 5.[ONLINE] Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0263276410374634
Last week in class we looked at the first five minutes of a series of documentaries that showed people that have led incredibly interesting and obscure lives that could be considered as vastly unique in comparison to the majority of the population.
The group I was a part of was allocated a film called Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr.directed by Errol Morris, who is best known for The Thin Blue Line (1988) and The Fog of War (2003) for which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary.
The story is that of a man who identified systemic flaws in the methods used to carry out executions to incarcerated inmates on death row, and created a series of devices to replace the ones that were currently in place that performed the executions in a far more humane and efficient manner. Furthermore, the devices utilized technology and components that were manufactured at a minimal cost which additionally made the system financially beneficial to put into effect. Due to this Leuchter was approached by correctional facilities all over the United States to implement the new systems.
Looking at the production from the creative perspective, the first element that really captured my attention was the title sequence, which isn’t often the case for me, however the choices made within this section were quite deliberate and engaging. The font flashes in a way that resembles some sort of electrical current, and the choice to use a monochrome colour scheme compliments this by creating subtlety to its presence allowing a space for individual interpretation. This theme is further emphasised by cutaway shots to a faraday cage firing jolts of electricity around an individual, in keeping with the context of the film and foreshadowing the narrative.
The score is interesting in that it is quite upbeat and almost seems somewhat inspirational or motivational which is rather incongruent with the macabre themes surrounding the text.
The manner in which the film introduces the interviewee is quite Avant Garde with its shot construction, maintaining the use of monochrome and framing the shots as extreme close ups, first of a cars rear view mirror showing only the reflection of a man wearing glasses, followed by the back of the man’s hand gripping the top of a steering wheel. This aesthetic continues throughout the next few shots then transitions to a more conventional format in colour, using a static mid shot on Leuchter who is speaking directly to camera, followed by a number of hand-held shots using a very unique method of zooming in on a subject, swaying the camera side to side while moving forward and twisting the image creating a sense of disorientation.
That pretty much describes the section of the film that was shown and my thoughts on the piece are somewhat mixed, there are quite vivid artistic devises employed that do a great job in creating the mood and tone, however I feel that the movement in some of the hand-held camera shots came across as forced creativity and made the presence of the camera very evident which disconnected me from the narrative. Furthermore, the score used in the opening credits does not align with the themes and topics explored within the documentary, and sets a false initial tone to the film that consequently results in a jarring change of pace when the filmed footage begins.