The title of this post was also the title of a recent TV series, but the makers of the latter never tried to define what they meant by "icon". It's such an overused word nowadays that everyone thinks they understand its significance, and I'm not even counting the use of the word to refer to the little pictures on our computers and phones that guide us through the range of menu options. In reality, few people think about or care what "icon" really means. The Greek word actually translates as "image" or "representation". How can a person be an image? The answer, I think, is that the person in question represents something greater than his or her self. So, for example, a picture of Albert Einstein might represent genius, Marilyn Monroe might represent sex appeal, Muhammad Ali might represent either sport, or perhaps a certain kind of courage - those are the concepts that enter our thoughts when we look at a picture of them.
The adjective "iconic" is even more widely and ignorantly used than the corresponding noun these days. The covers of several Beatles albums have been described as "iconic". What does that mean? Does it mean that we immediately think of the Beatles when we see them? And if so, what's so significant about that? It's their album cover, after all - you'd expect it to represent them. Sometimes the term is wrongly used, but sometimes it might be used to say "this represents the 1960s" or "this represents a certain type of music".
On holiday in Bulgaria recently, I was in an Orthodox church while several visitors entered and reverently kissed the various icons that were on display around me. That was when I really started to think about the meaning and purpose of an icon. Later, I asked our guide whether the imagery in the decoration of both the interior and the exterior of the building (completed in the 19th century) was an attempt to recapture that of the medieval church that previously stood at the monastery's centre. No, he explained, the images had a significance entrenched in religious tradition. If you want to represent the Virgin Mary, that's what she looks like. If you want to paint a certain saint or apostle, that's how they look. Anything else might confuse the faithful.
Modern icons are thus often misnamed, when in fact their significance may be transitory; but make no mistake, some will last a lot longer than we anticipate. However, the image has to be immediately recognisable. Alan Turing was chosen by the public out of those featured in the Icons series as "the greatest person of the 20th century". Well, he may be that, but would the average person even recognise his name, let alone a picture of him? So perhaps Turing is not - at least, not yet - an icon.
I have so far been unsuccessful in finding any on-line references to Sassoon as an icon. Certainly not many people would recognise him from a photograph. Wilfred Owen is far more recognisable simply because there are fewer images of him; he remains forever young, captured in the "iconic" image used as the frontispiece of the 1920 collection of his poems. He is certainly revered by many of his fans in exactly the way traditional icons are. If Owen is an icon, what does he represent? It's not just poetic genius. It's not just the First World War. It's not just courage. Perhaps it's all three, plus the tragedy of premature death.
Sassoon's status as an icon - if he has one - is even harder to define. Both he and Owen have been called "gay icons", but that simply means that they are considered examples of men who could not acknowledge their sexuality because of the social restrictions of their times; I don't think it means that they are seen by most of the public as representative of the LGBT community. Sassoon's poetry and prose have gathered him many admirers, but I don't think that is the key to his status either. Increasingly he is looked at as a man who stood up for what he believed in, regardless of the possible consequences, thus, as with Muhammad Ali, his iconic qualities are intangible and may change with the times.
None of this is important to most of us. I happen to belong to a society that aims to encourage an interest in Sassoon and his work, but, like most members, I also belong to other societies reflecting my other interests. I don't "worship" Sassoon and I don't see him as a representation of something divine. Nevertheless, I do see him as an example for the 21st century, a proponent of peace, both physical and spiritual, and someone I admire despite his many flaws. I know that many others feel the same.
