Nowadays, some people claim that public museums and art galleries will not be needed because people can see historical objects and works of art by using a computer. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the age of information technology, many people believe that the

internet

can replace the need for

museums

and

galleries

since the historic

objects

and artistic works are available online.

However

, I completely disagree with the idea because the functionalities of these places are irreplaceable.

Museums

and

galleries

are not only the places to display their collections, but most importantly they are the organizations to store and preserve those artworks and antiques. Paintings, sculptures, and other artefacts require careful storage and delicate maintenance to prevent potential damage. To do

this

,

museums

and

galleries

need to hire lots of experts to conserve these invaluable but fragile

objects

.

On the other hand

, the

internet

is just a carrier of information dissemination. Without

museums

and

galleries

, the

internet

doesn't even have many

objects

to display. What’s more, the feeling of seeing real

objects

in

museums

or

galleries

is different from seeing digital format online. The

first

difference is that when people see the real

objects

, they can discover more details like the material, the texture, and the colour-changing under different shading, all of which present the audience with a better understanding of those

objects

.

Also

, the open and quiet space of

museums

and

galleries

creates a calm atmosphere for visitors to immerse themselves into the exhibition and to obtain more insights from the history and the art.

On the contrary

, people can be easily distracted while using the

internet

at home. In conclusion, due to the benefits that

museums

and

galleries

can offer, I believe that they are essential for both society and individuals and cannot be substituted.