Famous photographs you have grown really tired of seeing.

[Chairman Bill]

The odd thing with the eyes is that her pupils are constricted, suggesting a lot of light falling on her, yet her eyes are wide open - I'd say that we don't often see the two together. Those constricted pupils also suggest that she's not afraid; fear stimulates a fight/flight/freeze response, and floods the body with adrenaline, which causes pupils to dilate. She's also looking directly at the viewer. This suggests interest, but an accompaniment to interest is dilated pupils (again), and of course her's are constricted. I'd say there is enough confusion in the non-verbal communication here to cause the viewer a certain amount of unease.

That's this psychologist's tuppence worth. YMMV

[Jim Pascoe]

I know what you mean, Dave. It's a great picture, but it's been pushed a bit too often and too hard. I sometimes give a lecture on photographers in which I use this picture to illustrate a point. I'll ask my audience: "What is it that makes this picture so striking?" Almost always the answer comes back: "The girl's green eyes." So then I pop up a version of the picture with brown eyes. It's equally effective. Finally, I pop up a B&W version, which, it turns out, is most effective of all. Eventually we get into a discussion about why the picture's so effective with or without green eyes. It's an interesting question.

I agree both that the picture is excellent and that it is seen too often.  Why is it so striking?  That's easy in my opinion - the girl is incredibly beautiful and that combined with being dressed in ragged clothing and living a life that makes her very existence seem in jeopardy is enough to strike home to any viewer.  The eyes and expression - slightly fearful and yet fiercely determined add to the image.  Great picture.

Jim

[Paulo Bizarro]

Personally I never get tired of seeing beautiful and powerful photos, like the one being discussed here. This photo embodies the Afghan war and the whole country at the time, and carries on doing that after 3 decades. It's an icon, and as all icons, it was not chosen as such by its creator.

It comes from an era where photographers shot film, and connectivity and social networking on the www were non-existent.

What I do get tired of is being bombarded by countless and mindless news streams with poor quality imaging and poor quality editing and content. I get tired, because I have to spend time filtering out all the rubbish and setting up filters to block such content.

[Incastone]

I think you know that a photograph is really an icon when people start painting it.

You're going to hate me but..



This was an original work hanging in a friend's house in Communitat Valenciana. I'd also grown tired of the original photograph, I don't know how anyone couldn't over time with such massive exposure.
But seeing it in a different format, well it's just something you want to capture, even if it's not original. It definitely has some serious pulling power.
Plus I liked the idea of 'a portrait of a portrait of a portrait'

Cool painting. Here's a close-up in colour:

[Dale Villeponteaux]

For me, it's the "thousand-yard stare", sometimes seen in photos of combat troops. Eyes that have seen too much.

Regards,
Dale

[ripgriffith]

I know what you mean, Dave. It's a great picture, but it's been pushed a bit too often and too hard. I sometimes give a lecture on photographers in which I use this picture to illustrate a point. I'll ask my audience: "What is it that makes this picture so striking?" Almost always the answer comes back: "The girl's green eyes." So then I pop up a version of the picture with brown eyes. It's equally effective. Finally, I pop up a B&W version, which, it turns out, is most effective of all. Eventually we get into a discussion about why the picture's so effective with or without green eyes. It's an interesting question.

I hate to think that you and I agree so totally on something!

[ripgriffith]

Once upon a time, a ubiquitous image -- Guerrillero Heroico

Still is... I see that image on a thousand t-shirts here in Russia where Che is still considered a hero, not only among so-called counter-culture teens, and on the  walls of dozen or more restaurants, not to mention the souvenir cups and posters ad nauseum.

[ripgriffith]

Cool painting. Here's a close-up in colour:

I'm sorry, but this is anything but cool.  In fact, I find it absolutely disgusting!

[Kirk Gittings]

It's a perfectly composed photo a beautiful but frightened young girl with eyes that appear non-human. How could you not keep admiring it?

[ripgriffith]

Since I first saw this image so many years ago, I have always wondered how the photographer just happened to find a tent and an undergarment that so exactly matched the girl's eyes.

[Incastone]

Each to their own ripgriffith
Good thing art is subjective

Interesting comment though about the background/clothing. I wouldn't dare suggest it was a staged photo a la 'Drop the Dead Donkey' (remember the photographer in that? Classic!), but those colours do match pretty nicely. Maybe that's what makes it so striking. Wouldn't be such a compelling image if the background was pink and the undergarment was orange.

[mezzoduomo]

I'm tired of seeing the old, grainy B&W of the guy in the dark suit and hat about to step into the huge puddle.

[mezzoduomo]

On the other hand....

[Jim Pascoe]

Those who are tired of seeing iconic photographs are tired of life (or seeing).  Every time they are published they are seen by thousands of people for the first time.  This is why people need to die eventually - leave the world to those who can see through fresh eyes.  I bet if the ancients were still alive they would be saying - "not that damned statue of David again", or "why don't they throw the Mona Lisa on the bonfire - Ive been seeing it for hundreds of years......"

To stop seeing the same thing over again you need to shut your eyes, and that's what lots of old people do eventually.  Not all, thank goodness.

Jim

[mezzoduomo]

Those who are sanctimonious and have no sense of humor are...tiresome. 
Did anyone suggest that anything should be no longer published, or thrown on the bonfire (even the metaphorical bonfire)?
Because of my experiences, I'm hungry to move on to new images, and new art and artists, which reflects not at all on the value of the Mona Lisa or anything else. These days I'm quite taken by 19th century and early 20th century Mexican photographers, vs staring at Paul Strand and HCB over and over again....except of course for Martine's legs. To me, there's no sexier photograph that's ever been taken.

[ripgriffith]

Those who are sanctimonious and have no sense of humor are...tiresome. 

What he said... +1

[Jim Pascoe]

Those who are tired of seeing iconic photographs are tired of life (or seeing).  Every time they are published they are seen by thousands of people for the first time.  This is why people need to die eventually - leave the world to those who can see through fresh eyes.  I bet if the ancients were still alive they would be saying - "not that damned statue of David again", or "why don't they throw the Mona Lisa on the bonfire - Ive been seeing it for hundreds of years......"

To stop seeing the same thing over again you need to shut your eyes, and that's what lots of old people do eventually.  Not all, thank goodness.

Jim

Sanctimonious and lacking sense of humour are two terms that have never been applied to me before (to my knowledge) - but maybe that comes with getting past 50 and being a grandfather!

My point was a general one and responding to the title of the thread.  And seeing as a great many of my friends and neighbours are in their 70's and 80's I think well-observed.  We see lots of responses to questions on these forums too, along the lines of "we have discussed this before blah, blah, blah........"  The point being that new people are being born and growing up who are coming to these pictures and concepts for the first time.  I thought my post was relevant and with the quip about Mona Lisa and bonfire showed a little humour too.

Jim

[ripgriffith]

Sanctimonious and lacking sense of humour are two terms that have never been applied to me before (to my knowledge) - but maybe that comes with getting past 50 and being a grandfather!

Trust me, you will absolutely need your sense of humor with grandchildren (even more, in my case, with great-grandchildren).  However, sanctimonious won't play, either with them or on this forum.

[mezzoduomo]

Sanctimonious and lacking sense of humour are two terms that have never been applied to me before (to my knowledge) - but maybe that comes with getting past 50 and being a grandfather!

My point was a general one and responding to the title of the thread.  And seeing as a great many of my friends and neighbours are in their 70's and 80's I think well-observed.  We see lots of responses to questions on these forums too, along the lines of "we have discussed this before blah, blah, blah........"  The point being that new people are being born and growing up who are coming to these pictures and concepts for the first time.  I thought my post was relevant and with the quip about Mona Lisa and bonfire showed a little humour too.

Jim

Jim,
There's an aspect of what you've said that I do indeed agree with completely, and that's the tendency for cynicism and negativity to creep into the aging psyche. I watched my parents become increasingly critical and negative...and isolated. I'm 54, and my first grandson just now 3 months. I'm going to work very hard to see the world through his eyes. I'll show him the masters, and I hope he helps me see them anew.

[RSL]

There's a simple solution for those who are tired of seeing iconic pictures: Stop looking. I'd also suggest that if you're tired of iconic pictures and actually do stop looking you'll also stop looking when you're out with a camera. As HCB famously said, "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."