This one is a particular favourite of Mike Gerrard from Pacific-Coast-Highway-Travel.com. He’s right, too; a word that was once used to describe genuine icons such as the Eiffel Tower or Sydney Opera House is now used for absolutely anything.
In any reasonable terms, an icon is something that can be used as a symbol or instantly recognisable representation of something else. The Eiffel Tower makes sense – it can be used to represent Paris. Uluru can stand for the Australian Outback. The Hollywood sign can stand for LA. They’re all genuinely iconic.
Some overpriced restaurant with a relatively big name chef, however, is not iconic in the slightest. Neither is a luxury hotel with a tenacious marketing department. And neither is some church, beach or building that most people have never heard of.
If you have to explain what something is or looks like, it is by definition not iconic. Thus to bang on for 400 words about something ‘iconic’ becomes an almost instantaneous tautology.
This doesn’t stop travel writers doing it, though, when what they really mean is “quite popular”, “quite good” or “has been around for a bit”.
In the same spirit, Melbourne’s St Kilda Road has a sign at one end describing it as a ‘world famous boulevard’. Really? Has anyone outside Melbourne even heard of it? It’s mostly quite dull, in any case, being lined by ugly office blocks.
Iconic can’t hold a candle to “unique.” Yes, I admit it, I’ve used it. But only when describing specific details or attractions/events at a destination that actually fit the term. A seaside cottage, an ocean view, a “lush landscape?” Not unique.
Keep ‘em coming, David, I love this series!
Well, I’ve heard of St Kilda Road, but only because I’ve battled the traffic down it. It’s hardly the Champs Elysees, is it?