Yesterday on my drive home from Plymouth State I listened to a 1999 interview (Terry Gross with Dave Brubeck). He'll be 90 this Monday. In the interview he discussed a period of his long, collaborative career in which he used the phrase or something close to it: "becoming known". He traced the kick-off of "becoming known" to his appearance on the cover of Time Magazine.
So in this sense, "becoming known" moves beyond being appreciated by a few people for the quality of your work. "Becoming known" means widening the audience with all the implications that come with that.
Then I suppose, once you "become known" that "becoming known" has become a dimension of your work.
One wonders if the consequences this dimension are anticipated? Certainly they can't be fully known.
I'm sure this NPR interview is a podcast somewhere. It was pretty good.
Keeping in line with the Raverty article.The author suggests that at times (periods in history) that people need to attach themselves to iconic figures (mis understood genius,heroes). It may be that "becoming known" relies much on the people who are enabling you enact in becoming known. I think Pollock rejected this with a rugged Americanism (persona)...but yet this probably made his life even more laden with mysticism.
ReplyDeleteHis version of "becoming" was still evolving even up until his death... Artists rarely get to enjoy this sort of recognition. In Pollock's case he uniquely experienced his own fame,though some may argue that Pollock never really revealed himself at all.