That's not true. Many people have a level of fame that contains minimal recognition, or even false recognition.
For example, there's a famous playwright in my world known as William Shakeaspeare. Many of his plays and poems have become widespread and famous in the literary canon,influencing countless other creators. However, there are many people that believe William Shakespeare didn't even write his most famous bodies of work.
Some believe that a contemporary of his known as Christopher Marlowe is the true author; among other theories. But we'll stick to Marlowe for the sake of simplicity.
So, if that's true, and William Shakespeare isn't the playwright, then he has no recognition of his own work, while still being famous. That's hardly genuine recognition, if you ask me, but he is famous nonetheless.
On the other hand, Christopher Marlowe's name is less well known, but his works are lasting and are household stories in many areas of the world. So, is he famous because his works are well known? Or is he not famous because someone else has stolen the credit? Where is the line drawn between fame and history?
...Of course, that's an extreme case. I can't imagine you would be very happy with your work being credited to someone that didn't deserve it. Most artists wouldn't be. But having your works remembered and lasting is still fame.
Another example-- there is a famous artist in my world who is known simply as CAT. He's quite prolific, and his artwork has inspired a countless number of people.
However, no one knows his true identity, because he hinds behind a nom de plume. So, would he be less famous, just because we don't know his real face or his true intentions?
no subject
For example, there's a famous playwright in my world known as William Shakeaspeare. Many of his plays and poems have become widespread and famous in the literary canon,influencing countless other creators. However, there are many people that believe William Shakespeare didn't even write his most famous bodies of work.
Some believe that a contemporary of his known as Christopher Marlowe is the true author; among other theories. But we'll stick to Marlowe for the sake of simplicity.
So, if that's true, and William Shakespeare isn't the playwright, then he has no recognition of his own work, while still being famous. That's hardly genuine recognition, if you ask me, but he is famous nonetheless.
On the other hand, Christopher Marlowe's name is less well known, but his works are lasting and are household stories in many areas of the world. So, is he famous because his works are well known? Or is he not famous because someone else has stolen the credit? Where is the line drawn between fame and history?
...Of course, that's an extreme case. I can't imagine you would be very happy with your work being credited to someone that didn't deserve it. Most artists wouldn't be. But having your works remembered and lasting is still fame.
Another example-- there is a famous artist in my world who is known simply as CAT. He's quite prolific, and his artwork has inspired a countless number of people.
However, no one knows his true identity, because he hinds behind a nom de plume. So, would he be less famous, just because we don't know his real face or his true intentions?