Museums and art galleries should concentrate on works that show history and culture of their own country rather than works of the other parts in the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is argued that museums and art exhibitions should purely display works representing the national history and culture. While I agree these works of arts are essential, I suppose that the international works should not be overlooked. One the one hand, it is undeniable that local historical and cultural events have various benefits for people. By showing pictures about indigenous history and culture, individuals could gain deeper insights into the national customs and values. In this way, these works would serve an educational purpose, since the local can learn about events in the past, and be promoted a sense of national pride and patriotism. In addition, through displaying works of the nation’s history and culture, museums and art galleries can greatly contribute to preserving the traditional values, which have been passed down from generation to generation. On the other hand, I suppose that foreign works of arts also bring many merits to individuals. Firstly, being given a bigger picture of the world, people can broaden their horizons. The reason is that having access to the history and culture of other countries might foster their awareness of the diversity of the world. Secondly, those people would be more prepared for the globalized world that they are living in. Thanks to these international works, the local will have opportunities to acquire a wide range of knowledge about other cultures, which could facilitate them to adapt themselves in terms of manners, customs and behaviors when they live in a new environment. In conclusion, although I agree that the national history and culture plays an important role in the society, I firmly believe that the contribution of the international works of arts is equally vital, therefore museums and art galleries should display both types of works.