I have been reflecting on why some artists—whether in painting, writing, or music—are only recognized after their death. Is a created work complete in and of itself? Any work of art “develops” as a piece through the existence of an audience. When someone interacts with a work and feels something, something new is born.
On the other hand, we can evaluate a work precisely because it is considered a finished entity. This contradiction arises from the question of who is responsible for the work’s development. The former perspective views development from the side of the audience, while the latter points to the cessation of development from the side of the creator.
In other words, the reason a work may go unappreciated during an artist’s lifetime but gain acclaim after their death is that the creator’s death marks the definitive “completion” of the work. While the artist is alive, the work remains unfinished or retains the potential for further change; it is only through the artist’s death that a final evaluation becomes possible.
Take Vincent van Gogh, for example—why was he acclaimed the moment he died? It is because the work and the artist were so closely intertwined that, to put it bluntly, the artist lacked “social credibility.” Potential evaluators may have hesitated, unsure of the artist’s future actions, but death eliminated those uncertainties.
Furthermore, this “social credibility” does not necessarily refer to being a typically “good person.” Picasso is a counterexample. Social credibility, in this context, means that a social consensus has been formed around the identity of the artist—a fundamental understanding of “this is who this person is.”
