Last Friday, in our Honors Seminar, we discussed the final three chapters of John Berger’s “Ways Of Seeing.” In the session, we discussed, who should own art, and who decides what art is valuable. In chapter 5, Berger explains how the genre of the oil painting was to show the bright side of life, an advertisement of the people who lived the good life. He reasoned that people bought these paintings to reflect how they wanted to live their lives. This also showed the disparity between the upper and lower class, and how the rich determined how art would be sold and portrayed. We also discussed the monetary aspect of art. While I do believe that an artist should get paid for his or her work, art should also be made available to the masses as well. I also believe that money may corrupt art to an extent as well. A good example of this is in the music industry. Sometimes the greatest pieces of music that exemplify emotion and artistry (such as the recordings of Thelonius Monk, which were ravaged by critics at the time, but were later hailed as masterpieces) can be overshadowed by the best selling hits of the present (such as music recordings from pop stars and boy bands ex: Justin Beiber.) Sometimes the artist, musician, poet etc will diminish their talents in an effort to make a buck and effectively sell themselves out, thus limiting their potential to create enduring masterpieces. To conclude, I believe that putting huge price tags on pieces of art damages the actual value of the piece and obscures the viewer from seeing it for something greater than an dollar sign.