I dont get art, what is so great about a basket of fruit or a picture of a lady. I must be missing the big picture. Enlighten me o great art masters.

The "problem" is not the basket of fruits or the lady, but the way it's shown to the public. The artist has to find the good way to show the feeling or the idea that he wants to talk about. Each art can makes you feel different things (music, cinema, paints, sculptures...) : do you feel the same while listening to Mozart or Sum41? do you feel the same while watching Philadelphia or Fight Club? That's the same with paints, pictures...

Edit : I'm not a great art master :D

after sg-n's great rersponse theres really not much left 2 b said.
but remember, not all paintings are portiates or still lifes. theres of course also abstract and non-representatianle. in the cases of the previusly menchioned two the content matter is un-important, or non existant, so that it is purly about the emotion being conveys rather than what the painting is lieteraly of.

Dada of Berlin is horseshit..there is said it....Nietzche..(can't spell his name) was on crack commending these and Fauve artists when clearly they had talent but chose to do bullshit turd art that in no way requires any skill


Art "showing the beauty of chance" my ass:rolleyes:

Art in the European sense of high culture has only been around since the time when the sciences themselves were distinguished as disciplined, about 300 years.
It is only now that scientific disciplines are about to be used to understand and explain the arts, with the success they have had with other aspects of life, such as the influence on all modern societies of technology and medicine.
What will soon be replacing the postmodern academics on university campuses - including the poststructuralists and deconstructionists - has its best title from the collection of essays from a recent conference - Biopoetics.
A woman founder of this discipline has published two books with the Seattle, University of Washington Press. I am reading the second one, Homo Aestheticus. She uses studies of human play and ritual ceremonies to show the art as a part of cultures is worldwide and began when we became the human species. So she is against any elite, Eurocentric theory of art.
Her theory is that art, as much as any activities a Eurocentric elite would look down on as practical and useful, has been and is necessary to our survival as a species.