Note: Having recently attained a level of public attention with my induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame (and appearing on the Today Show!) I thought it time to revisit this blog I wrote over 6 years ago:
Been thinking about fame, actually the concept of “fame.”
I’ve never read what others have written about fame. Have philosophers delved into it? If those “old dead white guys” have, it is certainly not with all the nuances that today’s technological abilities and influence adds and brings to media, communications and the resultant insta-creation of “fame.”
I define fame as recognition of one’s achievement(s) in significant public forums. So historically speaking, that makes Edison, Elvis Presley, Michaelangelo, Marie Curie, Alfred Hitchcock, Louis XIV all famous, to name a widely varied few. Some were even recognized in their own time! I say this pointedly as too often it takes death to realize worth and confer the mantle of fame, especially regarding artists. This is a reflection of the doctrine of scarcity: now that the maker can no longer make her products, they become more desirable, of greater worth.
But I digress.
There seems to be a taint to fame these days; a cheapening. It has lost some of its dignity, its luster. I might even say it’s worth. Rock stars and movie celebrities are famous. TikTok couples and ASMR practitioners are “famous.” Politicians can become famous, especially when involved in a sex or money scandal. Ah! But I am wrong. Let me correct myself: The last is not fame. Remember the concept of infamy? When one becomes widely known for doing something nefarious or scandalous or both? Then one is infamous, not famous.
It seems to me the importance of that distinction has been a bit lost of late.
What is the point of fame or being perceived as famous? Fame exists in a broad spectrum, doesn’t it? There is the local Little League star, the winner of the Pumpkin Festival, and the State’s beauty queen. We go to rock concerts, symphonies, and museums to see well-known — “famous”– artists. We can be passionate about and cheer national sports figures and war heroes. We have scientific geniuses and technology gurus who become our heroes and heroines. Well known and famous for their contributions to society.
Then there are those who seek fame for just fame’s sake. I don’t get this; fame junkies must be really whacked, just very insecure, and have hungry egos. Why need the attention and admiration of masses of strangers? There’s no nutrition there; it’s pure junk food for the soul.
On the very, very other hand, there are those who have overcome difficult and obstinate obstacles in their striving to create/become/achieve/defend. These ones often are not thinking about becoming famous or seeking any recognition but are simply determined to look at and solve the problems in front of them, come hell or high water, so to speak. They gain public admiration and fame, sometimes to their own surprise. Think Helen Keller, the Grimke sisters, and Stephen Hawking.
I think the best thing about the notion of “fame” is that it confers a sense that a contribution to society has been made that inspires others, a road map… the individual (or group) responsible for the achievement is a role model for the rest of us. An inspiration.
So, at its most positive, fame’s purpose can be said to be to promote inspiration.
Other than that…fame is just a form of Viagra for the Ego.
And that is certainly not of True Beauty.
My mother used to say one is famous if you are remembered by more than one generation . My father had his books on cardiology and always bemoaned that he didn’t write three like his biologist father . My mother has a memorial garden at university of Vermont . The more famous one is the more opinions about the self u have to endure . Anything that put me in the public eye I slinked away from .. perhaps to
My own detriment of development . I don’t have the stomach for fame or the drive . I so enjoyed your lively blog . See you ❤️