What makes art?

Being a logical geek, I find that just about everything in life can be boiled down to an algorithm or formula. Some are more complicated than others, and I don't understand a lot of them very well, but that doesn't make it not true..

A conundrum that vexed me for some while is the question of what makes art art. I talked to one man who was of the opinion that all it takes to create a poem is to write something with personal meaning, something that need not be accessible or meaningful to anyone else.

This never sat quite right with me, but not having nailed down the definition of what actually makes something art, I didn't have any well thought out retorts at the time. I believed that art should be accessible to a larger audience then the person who created it, but where do you draw the line? Is it art when 50% of the people who see it come away with some appreciation for what you created?

Since then, I have become convinced that accessibility does not actually have anything to do with art. I think most real art is accessible to a large number of people, but its accessibility is not what makes it art.

To me, art seems to be the result of a function that takes two parameters: complexity and coherence. If you have something with high complexity that is totally incoherent, such as many pieces of modern art, I would call it a poor example of art.

On the flip side, if an art piece is coherent and straightforward but has no complexity, I would see little reason to laud it either.

It is when you create something that is both highly complex and yet still understandable that you create what I would call art. It is accessible because it is enjoyable, and it makes a lasting impression for something other than shock value.

Homeschooling and socialization

Homeschooled children getting enough socialization is an argument that won't seem to die, and I'm not about to rehash it. However, I did have a random thought the other day.

I realized that the allegations of poor-socialization skills continue because most homeschoolers are different. On the whole, homeschoolers are generally less likely to have done at least one of the following:
1. Watched a television show regularly
2. Kept up on the latest blockbuster movies
3. Listened to all of the top-40 hits from the the last decade
and have probably spent more time in front of a book than a television set.

This does not make them less likely to be able to articulate their ideas to others, or less of a people-person. It does mean that they are less likely to be able to take part in a workplace conversation about pop culture.

I've spent plenty of time in the last few years consuming my share of pop culture, and what have I gained? The ability to state an opinion about a recent movie with a decent chance of someone else having seen it as well, or the ability to quote a popular internet meme and share a laugh with some of my nerdier friends.

If I were suddenly transplanted to another culture, all those hours watching Family Guy would have been in vain. I could either fall back on my homeschooling background and spend some time communicating with people I didn't share a background with, or wonder why everyone else was less socialized than myself.

If someone can't stand to communicate with you simply because you don't share the same knowledge of pop culture, that is a failure in their education - not yours.

Decency

Was reading Digg today, and found a link to an article about decency. Or more specifically, an interview of a person who wrote a book about decency in America.

The upshot of it all seems to be that there is a war going on in America. A Decency War (C). This war is taking place between the religious right (a crusade against sex and nudity and such) and people who want boobs on TV.

One of the basic premises of the book seems to be that this war has been increasing in intensity over the past 30 years or so. The author seems to think that, while the issue has been around for a while, people haven't cared about it much before now.

Now, sex has been around for a while. And for as long as it has been around, sex has been described in whatever medium men had at hand. I also think that there have always been people who cared about whether or not their children had access to this media.

The change that's happened over the last 30 years isn't with the issue, or with people's opinions on it. I think that the difference we've seen over recent decades is one towards reliance on our government.

To quote the author of the book in question, "the breast-baring accidents of Hollywood actors such as Faye Emerson and Jayne Mansfield did not result in any mass campaigns for 'family values.'" This is true, but not because people didn't care.

If people have a problem with what is on TV, they should turn off the TV. Media is not forced upon us. If popular media has become too objectionable - (and, for the record, I think that popular media reflects popular culture - not the other way around) - then we should disconnect ourselves from the popular media.

But Americans today (even the radical right-wing religious folks) have become too dependent on their government. They don't have the balls to remove themselves from the popular media - they want big brother to do it for them.

It occurs to me

It seems that most men and women between the ages of 18 and 22 would like to meet those of the opposite sex in one or more of these ways:

1. By going to meeting places frequented by people with similar interests
2. By talking to someone at a meeting place they both spend time at (work, class, other organizations).
3. While under the effects of alcohol.

I just don't see the point of social events (for the purpose of meeting new people) that don't fall into one of these categories.