Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will not be needed because people can see historic objects and works of art by using a computer. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

There is no doubt that the public can access artworks through computers.

Therefore

, it has been suggested that there is no need for

museums

and

galleries

.

However

, I strongly disagree with

this

statement. Admittedly,

people

can appreciate a piece of artwork through a computer, whereas

people

who visit offline

museums

and

galleries

can have a firsthand visiting involvement which engages more senses,

such

an experience can leave visitors with a great impression of what they have visited and given them a better understanding of the historical artefact.

For example

, if you visited the Great Wall only via a computer, you would not sense the changing times through the faded colour and might not understand how hard it is to build up the heritage.

However

, if you visited the historical site yourself, you would have a firsthand understanding of what had been written in the books. While computers may help

people

somehow gain a firsthand experience by using AI technology someday,

galleries

and

museums

can offer other benefits which are non-replaceable. The venues for appreciating artworks are not only for visiting purposes, the spaces can

also

assist

people

to meet others who share the same interest as them.

Moreover

, cultural heritages will be better preserved due to the charging of admission fees of

museums

and

galleries

. In conclusion, based on the evidence analyzed, despite computers can somehow help

people

who live in remote areas to see historical objects or artworks online, offline

galleries

and

museums

still attach great importance due to their benefits and should not suffer from disappearance.