Some people regard that we ought to spend money and time protecting wild animals.Others argue that it is better only to spend it on human populations.To what extend do you agree or disagree?

Throughout times multinational exhibitions consisting of various works of

art

collected from different parts of the world, have definitely been a matter of pride both for visitors and artists.

However

, nowadays, presenting the nation’s

art

is often considered to be of more significance than the display of foreign artworks in

art

galleries and museums, which seems to me (нужна ли в эссе персонализация или уйти в пассив??) to be against the very idea of the museum.

To begin

with, cultural diversity and variety are two the milestones (главных принципов) when it comes to visual

art

worldwide. As long as the audience is able to experience and compare the ambiguous atmosphere of rather evocative and thought-provoking landscapes, portraits, still life or abstract paintings created in different places,

this

audience overcomes the national stereotypes and gets the opportunity of a lifetime to “think out of the box”, i.e. to grow personally. Take

for instance

the Pushkin Museum in Moscow, Russia, whose unique collections from all over the world enable any visitor to experience the atmosphere of Pablo Picasso’s, Rene Magritte’s or Van Gogh’s paintings without leaving Russia. In my opinion, the main function of any

art

is to create alternative realities and break stereotypes. Drawing conclusion, museums' artworks exhibited must represent the reality seen from different angles which

is

Change the verb form

are

show examples

hardly possible within one single nation.

Otherwise

, the main function of the

art

is highly likely to be lost.