Some people claim that museums and art galleries will not bee need because people can see historical objects and works of arts by computers. Do you agree or disagree

It is argued by many individuals that computers will take over the way in which

art

is currently displayed. I completely disagree with

this

opinion because of the authentic feel of a physical piece of with

this

opinion because of the inspiration provide to young artists by

art

communities in a brick and mortar setting.

To begin

with, paintings exhibited on a museum wall feel drastically different when they are seen on a computer screen.

This

is because even though computers capture most aspects of a piece, they are generally incapable of captur`1ing minute details

such

as fainted strokes. Mona Lisa,

for example

, feels dramatically different to a keen eyed connoisseur on a digital interface than in reality.

Therefore

,

art

museums would never lose their essence in the future.

Finally

,

art

galleries not only provide a place to sell

art

, but

also

a fostering-community for aspiring artists. As

such

, if these establishments were to be removed, the future scope of

art

will be narrowed down.

For instance

, many artists who travel abroad to take inspiration from Vincent Van Gough's paintings by seeing them with their own eyes, will no longer have any means to do so.

Consequently

,

this

will limit their understanding of his style.

Hence

, because of the valuable motivation,

art

facilities will have fewer reasons to be overpowered by the latest technological advances. In conclusion, many people believe that

art

-establishments will be eradicated on account of computer devices. In my opinion,

this

scenario is unlikely to occur because of the authenticity of an in person experience, and the incubation provided to nascent-stage artists by these facilities.