Can we possess an artwork by apprehending it?

I found really interesting the relation of Marx’s and Kracauer’s texts, as they talked about the same situation but their analysis follow pretty different processes. I enjoyed Kracauer's "top-down" scrutiny of the mass ornament as the surface-level expressions of that time as "their structure reflect that of the entire contemporary situation". He establishes very clear parallelisms between the Tiller Girls and the capitalist production like when he says "The hands in the factory correspond to the legs of the Tiller Girls", or "Although the mass gives rise to the ornament, they are not involved in thinking it though". While Marx depicts the alienation of the worker from the product of his/her work, to end describing the consequences it has over the whole social structure, Kracauer studies the “tip of the iceberg”, this is, the mass ornaments, to end up going to the ground causes that produce it.

Watching the video Faheem posted from the Beijing's opening ceremony and the huge crisis capitalism is living nowadays, I think both texts regain huge relevance but as many of you have already posted comments about related topics, I would like to throw another different thought/question related to a Marx quote: "Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for as capital, or when it is directly possessed, eaten, drunk, work, inhabited, etc., in short, when it is used by us." Of course, the strict meaning of this sentence is true, but one could consider (Marx is actually pointing this), that obviously you don't need to posses an object to make it yours. In an art context, when we apprehend a piece in a gallery or exhibition space, are we making it ours?

Julio