Berger claims that when artwork is reproduced it loses its meaning and magnificence, so a meaning is tagged on and told to the viewers. This does not happen in novels. When a novel is reproduced there is not normally any differences from the original the text is the same and the story will be the same. A novel is not like a painting in the way that the area in which it is viewed will not change the meaning. Berger talked about how the painting can be perceived different if it is viewed out of context and the whole mood of the painting can actually change, but in writing there is usually set emotions that will take place no matter where the book is read. Berger commented that a person's background can affect the way they view a painting, well the same can be said about novels. Many people take books differently because of the way they can relate to the story. .
When books are made into movies, I think that it does take away from the book the same way that reproducing paintings take away from the originals. A movie tells you what the characters look like and it does not leave much room for any thought for the viewer. When a person reads a book it stimulates the mind whereas a movie will not let you think on your own. It attaches a meaning to the book just as a meaning is attached to a painting after its been reproduced so much. People will stop reading the book and instead they will watch the movie, just like people stop looking at original painting and just read what the meaning is. .
Movies are not the only things that take away from the novel. In my opinion, paintings can take away from the novel because it shows one person's opinions on the book. If the reader views the painting before the novel it is very likely that the reader will already have an opinion about the book based on the painting. It is better if a person does not come into a reading with a previous opinion because it could change his/her attitude.
