To get things rolling my opinion is this:

I think named architects are a recent phenomena with most of them only coming to prominence recently due to advancements in technology facilitating their ideas.

For me, iconic infers a building that has stood the test of time, with its occupiers exhibiting an almost unnatural love for it and its idiosyncracies. i.e. it is earned. An archtiect should not claim they have designed an iconic building. It doesnt sit well with previous master builders - I'll bet Wren never claimed St.Pauls to be iconic. Another iconic building to me is the Seagram building in NY.

In the light of the thread going on about the freedom tower, I think this clearly illustrates how billing a design as iconic opens it up to far greater scrutiny and a whole new set of cirterion that the building hasnt a hope of achieving and this largely due to the level of expectation being unrealistically raised by using the work iconic.

I think iconic is a term that has entered clients vocabulary and this is what is driving the design and bastardisation of the term iconic.

thats true, I believe that too, an iconic building is a building that stood the test of time and as well as inspired other buildings/architects.

a building can be brand new and be iconic. being an icon doesn't automatically mean that the building is good. the at&t building was an icon as soon as the curlicues showed up on top during construction. many of the unbuilt entries for the chicago tribune were iconic.

i think iconic is about the building. a star architect's building may have an easier - or even immediate - path to iconic status. but a building by a no-name can also be iconic. the lincoln memorial: i don't know who did it. the met museum in ny: no idea.

i think it simply means that the building stands out and that it has some notable meaning for a large part of the population. whether that meaning is that architecture is returning to historical pastiche (at&t) or that it's communicating the power of an institution (chicago tribune) doesn't matter. it could be relatively mute about its purpose and still have meaning for a lot of people simply as a landmark. 2 columbus circle as an example > whether you think it's good or bad, it's the opposite of anonymous/bland.

I agree that creating a reaction is better than no reaction and perhaps this is what is meant by iconic. Its interesting that you mention no name architects can create iconic buildings too. I had not considered that.

I particularly liked your point about the communication aspect of the strength of the institution it represents.

You also raise a very interesting point - is landmark the same as iconic? Or is one a subset of the other? And is the difference between the two simply a matter of meaning? i.e. a landmark is exactly that, its features make it stand out and allow people to use it as point of reference, whilst an iconic building is one that is both landmark and carries meaning?

our modern world is one of hyperbole and the skewing of perception by this hyperbole. if somone says something enough times and enough people hear it enough times, it'll start to become reality. this is what you're getting at right?

it's also how we interpret the words, just look at the different interpretations of the word "iconic" between pencebor and Steven Ward as an example.

not to get too terribly anal, but there are several definitions for "icon", the two most pertinent here are:

1) an important and enduring symbol

2) one who is the object of great attention and devotion; an idol

technically, this means that both stonehenge and an outhouse built by frank lloyd wright could accurately be described as "iconic"

so i think the answers to your questions are "yes", "yes", "yes", and "only time will tell"