to be a hero

Man, it's been a while since I've been posted. I just get so caught up in my routines sometimes that I guess I forget to think about things outside of the upcoming test, or the paper or homework that's due the next day. I also sometimes forget how to give myself a break: to just sit down and read a book, or to write a post without being rushed. But really it's my fault; I heaped all this work upon me which causes almost everything else to fade into the background.

Anyway, last Wednesday I went the art exhibit "We Could Be Heroes" at the BYU MOA (yes, BYU does love acronyms). Although in my art history class I've been having a tough time trying to understand what an art work is trying to communicate, this art exhibit along with some of the comments which were made really got me thinking. Even if you're not an art person (like me), I would definitely recommend going to an art museum (even if it's not the MOA) and taking the time to go through one exhibit really slowly, trying to understand what the artist is trying to say and how it's applicable to you. After all, isn't that the purpose of art?

Okay. So about them heroes....

Yoram Wolberger

I think as people we have a tendency to look at the accomplishments of people and generalize those accomplishments in order to say something conclusive about that person. We take those accomplishments to be a microcosm of the person as a whole, even though we know that that is simply not true. Let me explain. As a totally random example, take the baseball player above. How many young boys (and girls) aspire to be like him? How many grown adults crowd around a TV screen because of a baseball player? But are aspirations formed to become like baseball players (or Steve Jobs, or Taylor Swift, or whoever it may be) because of who they are, or because of what they've done and the seeming impossibility of it?

Take a minute and look at the photographs and painting below:

Elzbieta Jablonska

Dulce Carmen Pinzon Barbosa: "Superman"

Jason Yarmosky: "High Rollers"

What my question would be is: Who exactly can be a hero? At least to me it seems to be a pretty tough call, because no matter how extraordinary someone seems to be in one aspect of their lives there always is some aspect in which they fall short of "superhero" status; although of course even superheroes have their flaws. I might suggest that there are two general types of heroes, one based on accomplishments and the other based on character. You'll get people like the Robber Barons of industry who were certainly extraordinary in what they did for American capitalism but were no means the most morally upright people. And then there's the people that are role models: parents, teachers, siblings, etc. who are extraordinary for their patience, their resolve in the face of difficulty, their integrity, and so forth but aren't necessarily well-known, and their accomplishments, while note-worthy, are not exactly that significant in the big scheme of things. Does there exist such a hero both in character and accomplishments? Perhaps. But I certainly can't think of any off the top of my head.

So, what kind of hero do you want to be? And is it worth it to have the accomplishments if we lose moral character? I think if you asked most people if they would be like Steve Jobs if they could, most people would say yes, at least at first. But although Steve Jobs is extraordinary in what he was able to do with his company, he certainly was not a morally good man. No one even wanted to work with him. To make a pop culture reference, Peeta told Katniss before the games started that the one thing that he was afraid of that the games would take away from him who he was. Maybe that's what happens when people become heroes of accomplishment. I guess really then, it's a question of what's most important to us. Is it about who we become, or where we end up?

Which begs another question, why do we have heroes? I know that I certainly don't want to be a hero; I would hate to have that kind of responsibility, knowing that my actions will directly influence the decisions of others. But yet we look to imperfect people to be our role models and create superheroes in our culture. Is the presence of heroes in our culture beneficial? Or, perhaps I might argue that it's harmful to compare ourselves to some type of end goal which we desire for ourselves without examining the in-between steps.

Jonathan Hobin: "Dear Leader"
He's supposed to be a representation of Kim Jung Il. At what
point do the games, comic books, and childhood aspirations
become reality? Where's the line between innocence and who
we ultimately become?

Anyway. Not to overwhelm you with thoughts, but I'm on a roll here. What about all of the violence that's portrayed in conjunction with superheroes? I personally think that the emphasis on violence comes because as people we want to see that our hero is one of action, not just of words, and the easiest way to show that is through violence. Without the action and the violence how are we to know that they are who they say they are, and not just all talk? The poster on the wall in the museum for the monsters section of the exhibit said, "heroes are heroes because they fight our monsters" (paraphrasing). So, would superheroes be such if it were not for the violence?

There's really so many unanswered questions here, and I think the only real conclusion that can be made is that, well, there are so many gray areas. So many squiggly lines that poorly define what makes a person great, or what it really means to be a hero. I don't know that I would be able to define what it means to become a hero, or that if I could there would be anyone--fictional or otherwise--who would be able to satisfy the assuredly unrealistic qualifications.

But, perhaps, in someone's eyes you too can be a hero. Although maybe not quite like Captain America. Or the Hulk. Or Wonder Woman. Or any of the rest of them.