Some people claim that public museums and art galleries are not needed today because everyone can see historic objects and works of art by using a computer. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Public facilities

such

as museums and

art

galleries are very important part of a well-planned city, but it is argued that these facilities could be removed since the historic objects and

art

works are easily available on the Internet. Personally, I completely disagree with

this

idea. The

first

reason why I disagree with

this

point of view lies in the fact that not everyone around the world has easy access to the Internet.

In other words

, a great number of people from some less developed areas are still suffering from poverty, either struggling to bring up a family or finding a stable job. In

this

case, it is impossible for those people to browse on a computer to enjoy the historic works of

art

as they would normally budget carefully and avoid extra expenses on their spiritual needs. What is more, provided that everyone could afford a computer and get connected to the Internet easily, the need of having public museums and

art

galleries could still be justified as the function offered by them could never be replaced by computers. The reason is that these facilities would give viewers the

firsthand

Suggestion

first hand

experience as they could see these historic objects and artworks in

flesh

Suggestion

the flesh

, which means that the sense of national identity and the respect for different nations would be fostered among people.

This

can never be done by just seeing some pictures or videos of the artworks on the Internet. In conclusion, I firmly disagree with the idea of replacing the real establishment of museums and galleries since computers are not accessible to everyone and the online presentation of historic artworks could never arouse people’s patriotism and respect as effective as the real exhibitions in museums and galleries do.