Iconic: compare and contrast
And then we have two or more observers of the juxtaposition, who may bring their own parallax to the situation, and have their own differences.
8.
Tahrir is to Tienanmen as Qutb is to Mao?
Or is pepper spray just a food additive?
And how do icons become iconic anyway? Are they always juxtapositions, cops against college kids, girl vs napalm, man against line of tanks? Even in the iconic photo of Kennedy from the Zapruder film, the sudden eruption of violence into the stateliness of a presidential parade is there — a morality play in miniature.
Any thoughts?
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
Terry Barnhart:
December 24th, 2011 at 2:24 am
Nice post, but interestingly, the opposite view of the Taoists, who would suggest that duality (the artificial separation of things) is the source of contrast, not similarity. They might suggest that the police and demonstrators (protest implies action against, which constitute facts not uniformly in evidence) are opposed because they have created in their minds a separation between their joint being, their joint future, their connection in this space and time. This suggests that the things that create animus within the incredibly similar Oxbridge rivalry is their denial of the obvious that surrounds them. I am willing to bet that if you walked into a bar in, say, Portugal, and started denigrating the other school, you’d get quite a welcome from the opposing alumni, at which point, they would probably note their similarity in a most Taoist manner.
On a side note, the Moore quote is hysterical. I often find him to be one of the best ironic comics of his age, but this one beats the underlying premise of Roger and Me. Bravo!