Some people claim that museums and art galleries are not needed today, because everyone can see historical objects or art works by computer. Do you agree or disagree?

It is true that technology gives most people a chance to see historical objects and works of art on a computer screen. I partly agree with the view, therefore,that museums and art that galleries are no longer necessary. It is very expensive to maintain a museum or art gallery, and governments often have to provide funding for these institutions. If national or local authorities have to allocate resources to keep these cultural facilities open, then less money is available to spend on health, education and social services. Faced with such a choice, some countries opt for a mixed funding model for the arts in order to reduce costs. Therefore, I believe that it is an unaffordable luxury to retain these wonderful public collections. Their artifacts and paintings can all be accessed freely and almost instantly at the touch of a key on a computer keyboard. While I agree that museums and art galleries are not essential in this computer age, I would be sad to see their disappearance. Firstly, the buildings which house their collections are themselves part of our tangible cultural heritage. For example, the National Gallery in London is a striking and impressive historic building. Secondly, the feeling of awe on seeing the size of the great dinosaur skeletons in the Natural History Museum in New York would be impossible to experience by simply looking at an image on a laptop or cell phone. It would be an immense loss if such places were to close their doors to the public. In conclusion, although these cultural facilities have unique aesthetic qualities, now that people can acess their treasures thanks to the digital revolution, the expense of keeping them open cannot be justified
Submitted by naresh on
What to do next:
Try other services:

All the services are free for Premium users

Recent essays: