One of the points from Ways of Seeing that I found to be most interesting was in regards to the ownership of Art. The book argued that many people saw owning art as a means of owning what is depicted in the art. This includes paintings of food, animals, furniture, and even buildings. Art, and in particular the book discuses oil paintings, was used primarily to depict ownership of such items and represent the wealth of the commissioner.  According to John Berger, the only notable exception to this use of art to own what is depicted is landscapes.

In class, we discussed this idea further, but could reach no clear conclusions. Some noted that we do not necessarily want to own what we see in a piece of artwork. Sometimes we like the art simply for the beauty of the art itself. At other times we idolize what is depicted- but that is not the same as ownership.  It is also possible that the story of what is depicted is captivating to us, and it is the story, not the desire to own the subject, that fuels our interest in the piece of art.  There were others however, that agreed with Berger’s claims, and said that all of these claims still relate in some way to ownership. Ultimately the validity of what Berger stated depends on one’s definition of owning and ownership.

I am of the belief that art truly is about ownership. When we look at a work of art that we like, there is always something that we find to be interesting. This can be the subject, the painting itself, the story it tells, or anything else. In all of these cases, there is some level of ownership. We can want to own the physical object of the painting, the object that is being depicted, the traits of the subject (as is the case wit an idol), the emotional response we have (as with the story), or even simply the beauty of the art. If we consider ownership this way, even landscapes can be owned.