Photography and the Creation of Icons

I was reading the BBC earlier today and came across a write up on a man and an image that most have probably seen at least once in his or her life. That being of course: Che Guevarra.



I am sure that most of us have seen this photo. It was taken by a famous photographer, Alberto Korda on March 5 1960 after an ammunition truck exploded causing the death of hundreds of civilians. The event itself was erroneously blamed on the U.S. by Castro. In any event, Korda himself labled the photo as, "Guerrillero Heroico" (the heroic fighter), as "encabronadao y dolente" - angry and sad. Shortly after Alberto Korda made his way into many publications in Europe which paved his way to success.

The thing that strikes me the most is that the photograph itself is not what most people associate with Che Guevarra. It is the image by graphic artist, Jim Fitzpatrick that most people recognize. BBC goes on to explain the creation of the image:

"I deliberately designed it to breed like rabbits," he says of his image, which removes the original photograph's shadows and volume to create a stark and emblematic graphic portrait.

"The way they killed him, there was to be no memorial, no place of pilgrimage, nothing. I was determined that the image should receive the broadest possible circulation," he adds.

"His image will never die, his name will never die."

For Ms Ziff, Che Guevara's murder also marks the beginning of the mythical image.

"The birth of the image happens at the death of Che in October 1967," she says.

"He was good-looking, he was young, but more than that, he died for his ideals, so he automatically becomes an icon."

I always find it interesting how this image is viewed by people around the world. For Europe, the image has a more through provoking meaning to many. During this same time Europe faced its own inner demons and struggles with "revolution"; However in places such as North America his image has taken on a more commercialized and capitalistic meaning. More of a way for clothing manufacturers to make money it seems. Most don't really know anything about the image or the person. In that same sense though, Fitzpatrick and Korda got what they wanted.

While college and high school kids--for the most part--have no idea of the image emblazoned across their chest, the image still remains. The "legacy" of this man has found its way into the homes and lives of thousands of people across the world. But, does it really matter anymore? If people see an image but have no way of putting it into historical context, doesn't the entire reason for the image lose it's value?

In a way I would say yes. In reality, it becomes what many famous portraits become. A legend. In this case, A man loved by many and hated just as much by others. Whatever true crimes or heroic actions may have become lost in translation. I'm sure that you can find hundreds of different books, all of which I'm sure have their own biases, stating the "vicious crimes against humanity", or his "great heroic actions for the people of Cuba", but for the average person on the street, I have a hard time believing that many people honestly know what the image is really about. I also think that you can probably take other prominent iconic portraits and get pretty much the same result.