aliensbuiltthepyramids

Millions of dollars. Wolfgang Beltracchi scammed millions of dollars from wealthy buyers and art enthusiasts alike by selling them forged artwork said to originate from late famous painters. But did Wolfgang really scam them? In each case, the buyer observed the work they planned on purchasing, and made a decision based on how it fit their taste or pleased their eye. Each buyer received the piece they were promised — the piece Wolfgang had painted himself — and valued it as great art.

I do believe Beltracchi’s paintings are art. However, to defend that, I first need to understand, what is art? When it comes to art, whether modern, Roman, medieval, Greek, realism, surrealism, etcetera, I am no expert. I only happen to know those categories through a quick Google search. However, I would argue that what is classified as art is subjective, and the definition belongs to the eyes that look upon whatever is being judged. As one who has never quite understood the “hype” behind some famous paintings from previous eras, even I would agree that Wolfgang’s forgeries are pleasant to the eye. His paintings capture my attention, provoke thought, and elicit awe; His paintings are not only art, but great art at that (to me). If anything, Wolfgang’s story shows how one doesn’t need to be an expert to identify art, as even some of the most renowned art “experts” were not only fooled by Beltracchi’s forgeries, but acclaimed them as beautiful works of art as well. Additionally, I would even argue that if Wolfgang had not made mistakes with his paint selection, his works would have survived for a very long time as the “original pieces” he had claimed them to be (I have placed “original pieces in quotations because, while they are not from the painters they claim, each piece is technically an original). 

Some may argue that art is meant to be an expression of self, and that Wolfgang may not have intended to express himself, but rather other artists. While I may agree with the first statement, I believe Wolfgang was expressing himself. It takes a certain dedication, effort, passion, and appreciation for art and the famous individual artists to be able to embody their styles and create something entirely new. Wolfgang may not seem to have created art that expressed himself at first, but at second glance, one can see how Beltracchi planned and painted each piece himself, and painted an extension of himself and his love for the claimed artists. 

In addition, one may even claim that Wolfgang had produced greater works than some of the artists he set out to imitate. Again, I believe much of judging art is left to subjectivity, but it cannot be denied that Beltracchi mastered multiple styles and eras of art, all while completely imagining his works to pass as someone else’s. By creating paintings, he, and many others, could imagine a greatly acclaimed artist would have painted, he brought entirely new art into the world and displayed a tremendous amount of creativity. Is it possible that some of Beltracchi’s own acclaim and success comes from the artists he had imitated who had built their own fame? Yes, it is very possible; but who is to say that the “actual” artist’s work is far greater than Beltracchi’s when that person thought Beltracchi’s work was the artist’s to begin with?

I am also greatly amazed by the man who decided to keep his $7 million “Max Ernst” painting after finding out it was a Beltracchi. Not only did the man keep the “fake” painting, but said it was the “one of the best Max Ernst’s he had ever seen,” (12:35). Although the man had been fooled by the name the art was under, he certainly never had a doubt about its beauty. 

Another thing I may never understand is how we value art. At least in some forms, the value of art can be quantified by the resources and time placed into it, and even its practicality, such as a car (Yes, I believe cars, along with many other things, are expressions of art, especially luxury/performance vehicles). However, paint on a canvas can range from hundreds to millions of dollars. When Beltracchi’s work was thought to be that of others, it sold for millions. However, they were devalued as soon as they were exposed as forgeries. I see this as great hypocrisy, however it was necessary. If some art is going to have inexplicable value, Beltracchi’s lies cannot throw off that balance. Art, like everything, is a market; and the consequences of keeping Beltracchi’s work valued at what it originally was could completely destroy that market. Something is only worth what someone will pay for it, and although Beltracchi’s paintings may no longer sell for millions of dollars, his art has already proven itself as million dollar art. While the false pretenses show how buyers may place more value on the name rather than the look of the work, the visual appeal of Wolfgang’s paintings will always have contributed to their insane original value.

Finally, while Wolfgang intended to dupe buyers around the world, it does not change the value of his art in my eyes. The true question here is if one can separate the art from the artist. When things are not always as they seem, it is simply easier to take them at face-value. Ernst or not, $7 million or just $7, I am still fascinated by that painting with the nondescript buildings and colorful rings in the sky. Beltracchi could definitely fool me any day without trying, and I would be none the wiser, and never any less fascinated.

Across many works, ignorance is a common trait found among characters that plays a larger role in the work and is typically found early on in the work. A character’s ignorance can create issues to be resolved later in the story, create room for character growth and development, or lead to the downfall of that character to provide a lesson for the intended audience. Additionally, a reader can sometimes experience an enlightenment of sorts alongside a character as that character gains knowledge, providing a lesson for the reader through the eyes of the character. These themes can be observed in texts such as The Epic of Gilgamesh, Genesis, and Oedipus Rex, and have continued to be used in more modern works such as the 1996 film Lone Star.

In The Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh originally displayed ignorance by desiring to slay the beast Humbaba to prove his strength and earn fame and glory. Gilgamesh brings Enkidu with him, and after Humbaba is dead, they go on to kill the Bull of heaven as well. Gilgamesh’s thirst for glory, which can only be described as ignorance, leads to the cursing and death of Enkidu, which serves as a great loss for Gilgamesh. If Gilgamesh had not been so ignorant as to spite the gods, his friend Enkidu may have lived. Additionally, Enkidu’s death inspires Gilgamesh to embark on a great quest for knowledge. Here, Gilgamesh is ignorant to the one true promise from life; Where there is life, there is death, all that lives will die. Therefore, Gilgamesh travels a great distance to meet Utnapishtim, who is immortal, only to learn that his own dreams of immortality are impossible. Utnapishtim says, “There is no permanence. Do we build a house to stand for ever… ?” (107). With this newfound knowledge, Gilgamesh stops chasing the impossible, and instead makes the most of his remaining years. Utnapishtim’s knowledge is so valuable because without it, Gilgamesh may have died chasing immortality; With it, he was able to immortalize his spirit and memory, even after his flesh was no longer.

In Genesis, Adam and Eve live in Eden with an air of childlike innocence. Now, that innocence is not to be confused with the ignorance they display when they disobey the word of God; Adam and Eve consciously choose to eat the fruit of the tree which God tells them not to eat of, presenting the character’s ignorance, while the consequence is their expulsion from Eden and the loss of their innocence. Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which the serpent tells them “[their] eyes shall be opened, and [they] shall be as gods, knowing good and evil,” (3). Funny enough, the true knowledge they gain is that of the consequences of their actions. If they had possessed that knowledge before their fall from grace, Adam and Eve may have refrained from eating the fruit — unfortunately, their ignorance predated their knowledge, and they were forced to face the harsh truths of life.

In Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, King Oedipus is the embodiment of ignorance. When Tieresias shares his knowledge with Oedipus and the reader, that “[Oedipus is] the murderer whom [he] seeks,” Oedipus’ ignorance shields him from the blatantly obvious truth, while the reader screams “It’s you! You are the murderer!” (20). While Oedipus’ ignorance delayed his enlightenment to the truth, it was also what put him in such a predicament in the first place. If Oedipus had the knowledge that the man he was about to kill was his father, instead of thinking he possessed the knowledge that the man was not his father (ignorantly so), his father may have lived, he may not have married his mother, and he may have saved himself from gouging his own eyes out. Knowledge is powerful, and as seen in the story of Oedipus, where one lacks knowledge, ignorance fills its place, and ignorance can only lead to poor outcomes.

In Lone Star, where ignorance is plentiful and knowledge is hidden as secrets, one example of ignorance is with Sam Deeds and his relationship with Pilar. When Sam thinks he loves Pilar while they are young, and Buddy tries to break them apart, Sam’s ignorance as to why Buddy acts the way he does drives a wedge in his relationship with his father rather than that with Pilar. Luckily for the young Sam and Pilar, their paths diverge for quite a while, protecting them from making an awful mistake before they uncover the knowledge of the nature of their relationship. However, Sam’s relationship with Buddy has been forever poisoned, as we can see throughout the film when Sam tells others that their glowing recollections of his father are not similar to his own memories. Sam’s ignorance ruined his relationship with Buddy, and the knowledge that Pilar is his half-sister was found far too late. Additionally, Sam also uncovers the knowledge of how Charlie Wade dies. The viewer knows something is up when Mayor Hollis says, “Hey look at all this will ya? Tackle, boat, all this just to catch a little old fish minding his own business down at the bottom of a lake. Hardly seems worth the effort, does it Sam?” Hollis’ comment warns Sam to leave the case alone, yet Sam, determined to place his father at the scene of the crime, continues to search for answers. His ignorance is revealed later, when he finds out how Charlie died in Big O’s tavern, and realizes that Hollis was right. In the end, the knowledge he was searching for was not what he wanted to find, and he understands that he can not let the truth out in order to protect Big O and Mayor Hollis. 

Knowledge, while it can be painful to possess, can prevent a great deal more pain than that which it causes. Ignorance, on the other hand, is repeatedly shown to ruin all that it crosses. In Genesis, Lone Star, The Epic of Gilgamesh, and Oedipus Rex, each character is plagued by ignorance, which only knowledge can heal. The value of knowledge is to enlighten and liberate one. Knowledge allows each character to grow and progress from their mistakes. Realizing one’s ignorance is also a key step in attaining knowledge, which forces each character to learn from their ignorance and pursue truth and knowledge in the future.

Every time we make a decision, we put our brain to work. Either consciously or subconsciously, we weigh the pros and cons, costs and benefits, and risks and rewards of the actions we are about to take — or abstain from taking. Whether we like to admit it or not, our “doing good” is driven by a consultation with the reward center of our brains. Acting in a way that most benefits ourselves happens through a process embedded in our nervous system; This truth is quite literally “in our D.N.A.”

I guess the question is, in a clean-cut situation where there is no reward for doing what is obviously morally right, will one act justly and do the right thing? The answer: We can only hope so. In a perfect world, we would not need to see reward in an outcome to make that outcome into reality; if it were right, we would just do it. By rewarding those who do right, yes, we may promote “doing the right thing,” but we may also be promoting doing those things for the wrong reasons. It would be more beneficial for humanity to do the right thing solely for the nature of their actions, so that in a scenario similar to what was previously discussed, one would do the right thing without hesitation from weighing the reward. However, I believe this could only be achieved by removing any and all reward from doing right, so that in time it is no longer hardwired into our brains to consult our reward center. Unfortunately, that would only work if people continued to do the right thing. I hate to be pessimistic, but I do not believe that would be the case. Therefore, rewarding do-gooders is our only way of ensuring good is being done in the world. Additionally, actions usually deemed as “wrong” would be actions that come at the detriment of others. For the most part, I don’t think people act to spite others. Where complication begins to exist, however, is where we are rewarded for something that may harm someone else. Then, we are tempted with weighing our personal gain against someone else’s loss. Because we are naturally selfish creatures, it becomes easier to do the wrong thing than give up the observed reward. For weaker-willed individuals or those who may be more susceptible to moral corruption, rewarding doing the right thing will ensure that is the path taken, and that others are not harmed at the personal gain of any one individual. As pessimistic and disappointing as it is, I believe rewarding good is important in the grand scheme of general welfare. It is easier to say that evil should always be met with punishment, especially true evil. Although, it is important what we deem evil as. Let’s say evil is doing something morally wrong. The exception to this though process would be when one does the wrong thing for good (or good enough) reason (example: stealing food from a multi-million-dollar company to feed innocent, starving children). In some scenarios one could argue that a morally wrong action (stealing) done for good reason (feeding starving children) then becomes the right thing to do. Therefore, I would argue evilness is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. In that case, yes, I believe punishment is essential in deterring evil.

I would like to think my accomplishments came from hard work and dedication, like many others would, but that is not entirely true. While I can attribute some success to making use of opportunity, to justify my good fortune, I must also take into account factors like luck and help from others that present me with opportunity. One can’t really justify good fortune; one can only accept it for what it is and acknowledge it isn’t entirely in one’s control. Understanding the external factors at play is the first step to realizing there is no justification. One person does not exactly deserve better fortune than the next person.

The obvious answer to why one should act ethically in the absence of a reward is that it is the right thing to do. Digging deeper, I don’t believe there is ever the absence of a reward. Acting ethically is beneficial to one’s own person and can inspire others to act ethically as well, which is a reward in itself. Acting ethically can stimulate a sense of pride in oneself and one’s actions and can possibly inspire a positive feedback loop. It is human nature to repeat what we see, so if we act ethically, we can very well inspire others to do the same. Additionally, it is healthy to sustain a clear conscience through acting ethically. When one acts unethically, it can cause a sense of guilt or regret, instead of that “warm fuzzy feeling” one gets from doing the right thing. In other words, it is “good for the soul” to do what is right. Our actions make up our identity, so wouldn’t we all want to be better people and forge ourselves as ethical, moral people? Now, in the event that one will be punished for acting ethically, one will just have to think selflessly and put the ethics of one’s actions above the consequences.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he must have known that Job would remain faithful. My only explanation is that God put Job through these trials because he knew Job would endure them long enough to receive the reward God intended for him. After all, suffering, as horrible and undeserved as it may be, is only temporary, while the gifts Job receives from God last until the end of Job’s life. At the same time, God is not testing Job for discovery of an outcome, but rather for demonstration. God is able to prove a point to Job’s “friends” and Satan through the example made of Job. Ultimately, there is no one answer to why God allowed Job’s punishment. The story proves that suffering is not always punishment for sin, and that humanity may never understand the motives of the divine.

In Emily Dickinson’s poem, “Eden is that old-fashioned House,” Dickinson suggests that Adam and Eve took Eden for granted as one would an old-fashioned or dilapidated house. In the poem, “we” leave the old-fashioned house, unaware that “we” may never return. Similarly, in the story Genesis in the bible, Adam and Eve make a decision that would lead to their expulsion from Eden, however, they leave seemingly happy or carefree. Dickinson explores the idea that neither Adam Nor Eve understood the severity of the consequence of their actions, highlighted by the characters’ sauntering from the old-fashioned home that is Eden in her poem. The reader can find evidence of this in Genesis, as there is no apparent resistance towards God’s word — no last stand — from Adam or Eve. While it is not impossible that Adam and Eve had come to terms with their actions and corresponding consequence, it is far more likely that an explanation for their complacency aligns with Dickinson’s interpretation; Adam and Eve are unaware that goodbye for now means goodbye forever. It may not have dawned upon Adam or Eve that they will never again see Eden and call it home.

Eden was a paradise, offering sanctuary and eternal life to Adam and Eve, the only humans “lucky” enough to have experienced the garden. Despite all that Eden offered and provided, Adam and Eve “sauntered” away, and even drove away (from?) Eden. Whether they drove away from Eden or drove off Eden itself is another question; Taken one way, it would not quite make sense, as the reader has no knowledge of either Adam nor Eve having access to a chariot or anything one would drive to make a metaphorical connection to; a much more reasonable explanation is that Dickinson seems to interpret Adam and Eve’s consumption of the fruit as a clear act of rebellion without knowledge of the consequences of their actions. When Eve eats, and Adam eats, and they are faced with the judgement of God, they almost own their actions with pride, as one can glean from their lack of denial. They appear as childish, as they did something they were not told to do (either easily tricked or in self-righteousness it does not matter, as both gullibility and contrariness are traits of petulant or innocent children) and do not observe or understand consequence.

Currently, like many, I am focused on applying to colleges, preparing for the next step of my life. Instead of enjoying what I have around me right now at Amity, I am too focused on the future and have very likely taken Amity High School for granted, as Adam and Eve have the garden. Parallel to Dickinson’s description, I am driving high school away. Not only have I applied to schools out of excitement and curiosity for a new experience, but also out of boredom and distaste towards high school. I feel like I will be happier once I escape the tedium of Amity, but now reflecting upon the circumstances, I realize Amity isn’t all that bad, and I have had some really great times there. Of course, college may offer more freedom and fun activities, but that is to be expected when you are paying thousands of dollars for a service. I can learn from Dickinson’s poem, and the mistakes of Adam and Eve, and enjoy all that Amity has to offer. Taking something for granted is the same as rejecting an opportunity or throwing it away, and by this time next year, I may really regret not making the most of my final year in high school.

I guess I could say that I was worried my friends and I would grow apart when we branch off to new places and meet new people, but most of my friends are a school year older than I, and we are still as close as ever. I have already driven to see them at their colleges in Hamden, Providence RI, and New York, and they really haven’t changed. When friendships are already strong, I don’t believe distance can break them. Now, I guess I am more worried that my little sister will get my truck while I am gone, since she didn’t have to spend her own money on a vehicle (and she’s a bit of a reckless driver in Forza, Need for Speed, etc.). Jokes aside, I think I am afraid of losing a connection to some people I am not really that close to, but wish I was closer with. There are some people who are more than acquaintances but not quite great friends for no real reason other than time spent together, and some are really great people who I worry I will never be able to build that connection with if we go our separate ways. Realistically, at the end of the day, whatever is meant to be will be, and everyone will meet new people and make new friends, and if I am to forge those relationships or not, that will be on me.

An F. I had received a 50% on the math test that I thought was the easiest thing that had ever crossed my desk in school. Being an overconfident and scrupulous seventh grade student, I went home with my head hung low, feeling as if the world were ending. To make things worse, I learned from my algebra teacher the very next day that I had gotten every answer correct. I simply had not shown any work. This bothered me because I had originally missed the test, and had to make up the test in front of him, one-on-one. Even though he watched me work through every question in my head and write down each answer without cheating, he decided to teach me a lesson. It didn’t matter to me that my algebra teacher had a point, or that I would survive in the end, I just let that grade chew me up. It was as if I had the F branded on my forehead, as it was definitely burned into my brain — I felt like an F on the inside, if that makes any sense.

That same day, feeling worse after my talk with my teacher, I came home surprised to find my grandfather, or Poppy, as my sisters and I called him, at my house, alone, sitting on my back deck after school. He may not have always cared to hear all the bad parts of my day, but he was the only one there — and so after I had vented to him, he laughed. As I sat there stressing over how I would save my grade, he laughed. Then, he pulled out his phone and opened up YouTube and beckoned to me. Feeling betrayed, as if he had just changed the subject and thrown salt in my wound, I walked around the little glass table to view his screen. There, he played for me a video titled “A Pale Blue Dot,” in which Carl Sagan spoke over visuals of an increasingly broadening view of the universe. In the next three-and-a-half minutes, I came to understand why Poppy had laughed in the face of my turmoil.

  I will always remember how Poppy leaned back, looked at me and said, “You see, the world is too large to worry about something so small, and both our lives are too short to keep listening to your whining!” He was always cracking lighthearted jokes and spewing loving banter, and as always, he was able to cheer me up. I really loved that about him, and his words and the video he shared with me have stuck with me ever since. No matter how hopeless a situation feels, or how bad things seem to be heading, I always think back to that day with Pop. Each problem is just another measly bump in a highway, a singular wave in the ocean, a mere moment in an eternity. Through his wisdom and jokes, Poppy was able to broaden my perspective. By focusing less on the present, and more on the entirety of my life to come, I have learned to get back up from my falls, brush off the dust, and shake my feelings of stress and anxiety. Pop’s advice has helped me achieve a healthier mindset that has allowed me to live a happier life. Pop was really important to me, and because it was him who showed me that video, “A Pale Blue Dot” will stick with me until the end.

-A-

1.) 1967 Shelby Eleanor GT500

2.) Driving a Porsche GT3 RS

3.) Go Paramotoring

4.) A Dog

5.) A house on a large ranch in Montana

(B) 6.) Humility

C.) One and two are both important to me because I have a passion for cars. Driving is exhilarating to me, and my dad has surrounded me with gas powered motors and vehicles since I was a baby. I love working on cars, looking at them, and driving them. Classic cars hold a special place in my heart, but I also have an appreciation for modern racing technology (which is why I would love to drive that Porsche). For the third item in my list — although it may seem counter-intuitive, as I am afraid of heights and experience pretty bad vertigo — I would love to paramotor. Whether it is taking in the view while gently gliding through the sky, or speeding through the trees a few feet above the ground, it is just the right mixture of relaxation and high-octane activity. Plus, it is a great way for me to get over my “fear.” For the fourth thing on my list, I chose to own a dog. I have always wanted a dog of my own, but instead have only gotten to experience pet ownership through my grandparents’ and close friends’ dogs, along with my pet rabbits (which I love, but are greatly different from a dog). Dogs seem to like me, and I think that could be attributed in part to my love for them — it is almost as if they can sense humans’ feelings. Now, it is more likely that they are just gentle and affectionate dogs by nature, but either way, I love their happy energy. For the fifth item, I would love to live on a grand ranch, which are typically found in places like Montana. Montana specifically boasts a beautiful and rugged landscape that makes for dynamic expanses of land. I could ride a dirt bike or live the rest of my life peacefully learning how to farm. The final item in my list, the trait I wish to be remembered by, stems from my hatred of another trait. I hate arrogance. I find humility to be a trait I enjoy in people; Even when someone has every right to brag, they don’t — and that is extremely refreshing. I hope to be one of those people — not that I wish to have things to brag about, but that I am never caught bloviating or trying to show off.

D.) The first three items in my list are simply of material value, and don’t hold much intangible or intrinsic worth, but rather make me as an individual happy (as some others can also speak to). They are methods of transportation, which hold their own place in society, and are essential to what we as humans have established, but are not much more than material desires. Dogs however, are of far greater value to the human race. Dogs offer unconditional companionship. My friend’s dog lies curled up next to me on the couch as I write this. They offer emotional support and constantly display physical affection. Dog truly is “man’s best friend.” If I were to have a rough day, there isn’t a friendly dog on the planet that couldn’t cheer me up; I believe this stands true for many people. Additionally, pets as a whole offer comfort to the world. These creatures are typically free from desire, hatred, greed, jealousy, and many of the traits that plague humanity and make our world a worse place to live in. Most importantly, I haven’t met an arrogant dog yet. The last item represents the dream of living off of the land and being connected with nature. The large expanses of open land and the rugged contrast of mountains embody freedom and clarity. Being in nature is soothing, and the connection between human and nature is one that must be preserved. Finally, we come to humility. Famous writer C.S. Lewis wrote, “Humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.” Humility is an amazing virtue to posses, as it allows one to prioritize others above oneself. By abstaining from talking about oneself, and even diverting attention away from oneself, one is able to create true connections with others. The world needs more great listeners and people who make others feel good and valued. In the presence of the opposite trait, arrogance, we can sometimes find ourselves flustered, annoyed, or feeling less of ourselves by comparison. Humility does not mean belittling oneself; True humility keeps one from comparing themselves to others, and enables one to foster healthy habits and relationships. Humility comes from the ability to be content with oneself, and will make one more likeable to others and to oneself.

When one tries to imagine permanence, few things can come to mind. Whether we think of tattoos, mountains, or even the Earth, nothing really satisfies this idea of permanence; Tattoos fade, mountains erode, and one day, even if no human will live to see it, the sun will engulf the Earth — everything will cease to exist. Unlike the sun, our impermanence is more obvious; it is more timely. Humans have contemplated mortality for ages. Wherever there is creation, there is destruction; wherever there is life, there is death. The world is faced with death every day — over 7,000 human lives each hour demonstrate the notion of impermanence (World Population Review 2024).

In literature, the idea of human impermanence consumes characters like Gilgamesh and Hamlet. For Hamlet, his grief following his father’s death leads him down a path of anger and depression. Hamlet’s emotions cause him to contemplate life, which brings him to face humanity’s most daunting question — what is the purpose of life? Throughout the rest of the play, Shakespeare shows the reader how this question begs an answer, yet cannot be fulfilled. In the grand scope of existence, a human life does not seem to serve a purpose. Even the Earth, and the Sun, and our galaxy pale in comparison to the (observable) universe. A human is a mere, insignificant speck of space-dust among the vastness of creation. This answer, while it is the truth, cannot be accepted by mankind. Instead, to find purpose one must focus on a much smaller scale, and look within. Although Gilgamesh set out on an impossible quest, he felt a sense of purpose. Gilgamesh intended on finding immortality — and while he did not succeed in escaping death, he did not fail in his quest. Gilgamesh achieves immortality through his dedication to better human life in Uruk. Beyond death, Gilgamesh is immortalized through his work and the memory of others — “He was wise, he saw mysteries, and knew secret things, he brought us a tale of the days before the flood,” “…of mankind, all that are known, none will leave a monument for generations to come to compare with his,” (117 – 118).

Although a true, ultimate “purpose” may be unattainable, humans can at least enjoy a “false” perception of purpose — and while life may not hide a deeper meaning, our existence is irrefutable. It is possible to go on with every day life if one simply looks past these depressing realities and enjoys what it means to exist among humanity. One can live through feelings — and there is no feeling as great as that of helping others. Therefore, it can be said that a human existence is given meaning by the lives it touches. If one ever finds oneself in the shoes of Hamlet, simply look among humanity and find someone to help to ground oneself. Knowing you have positively impacted another’s life can help you achieve that “false,” fleeting perception of purpose that makes you feel like you really matter — and that really is what is important.

Humans have found a sense of order and eternal life through stories, religion, and legacy. While we have already seen Gilgamesh and Enkidu eternalized through story, and Hamlet eternalized in Denmark through legacy, it is also common for every-day humans to do such. Even more common is the ability to find eternal life through religion. In religions such as Islam and Christianity, eternal life is the promised reward of a life of dedication and practice. If humans believe in this reward, they have already achieved it. Practicing religion is another way people have found meaning in this world, and have created a sense of eternal life.

Throughout history, authors of renowned literature, directors of captivating movies, and raconteurs of ancient epics have utilized or referenced an element central of the story — the hero. From ancient myth to stories of the present day, it is not uncommon to refer to the protagonist as the “hero” of the story. Whether it be superhuman abilities, unimaginable sacrifice, or the tendency to act by moral code, something links these protagonists to an archetype of story built around heroism. Independent of how the hero looks, acts, or sounds, however, is the knowledge that they will save the day — but what does that necessarily look like?

In most cases, a hero is a character who embodies and emanates courage, perseverance, and moral integrity. A hero is relatable and serves a purpose. Throughout the story of the hero, the hero undergoes a transformative process fueled by loss or sacrifice that allows them to grow; The hero’s personal growth is key to their success in some ludicrous, important quest. No matter the reason or the quest, the hero always fulfills a noble cause.

Looking at many of humanities’ favorite heroes, why isn’t there as much female representation? While the lack of heroines in ancient stories and literature can be attributed to ancient patriarchal cultures and stereotypes — primarily those of which men are providers and protectors — why are females still missing in present day movies and literature? It appears to be easier to create male heroes, as they can be stubborn and spontaneous, and are traditionally associated with strength and power. Although female heroes are becoming increasingly more common, directors and authors have not completely moved away from a world of male-dominated heroism — however, this is likely to change.

Heroes also model certain traits to audiences and teach readers, viewers, and listeners how to conduct themselves. Heroes teach traits of courage and bravery, along with teaching how to act selflessly and seek justice. Heroes are typically leaders, and show their audience how resilience and perseverance are important traits to finding success. Most importantly, heroes can teach us how to become better members of society, how to deal with internal struggle, and help us become more in touch with our own humanity. Heroes represent hope, and without hope, life seems to lose meaning. Humans need heroes to show that there is light somewhere amid overwhelming darkness; They show that challenges can be overcome.

German playwright Bertolt Brecht said, “Unhappy the land that needs heroes.” Brecht wanted to communicate the significance of heroes to society. Not only would a hero-less world lack go-getters and ingenuitive individuals to solve some of humanities’ problems, but would also present a world without hope. Brecht knew that without our depictions of heroes, or our real-life heroes, the world would lack the motivation of every-day men and women, leaving us with an unhappier, unfulfilled world.

Welcome to your brand new blog at Edublogs!

To get started, simply visit your blog’s dashboard, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

Like more help?

We can walk you through step-by-step in our guide to getting started with your blog.

Happy blogging!