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. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion? (Culture)

There is an argument claiming exhibitions and archives are not required anymore to demonstrate artists’ works since anyone can see them on the Internet. In my view, the virtual version is not an extensive illustration of the real product.

Additionally

, expositions are valuable tourist attractions.

This

essay intends to elaborate on the mentioned reasons and explain why I oppose the argued notion. The photo of an artwork does not comprehensively demonstrate its ingenuity, especially if the picture is two-dimensional. A professional would need to examine a composition from different angles, in various lighting to evaluate it.

Besides

, with the advancement of technology, soon, it will be too hard to distinguish mankind’s product from the output of a computer on the web.

For instance

, there are Artificial Intelligence algorithms that are capable of generating high-quality paintings. In many cases, an amateur is not able to differentiate them from an artist’s work.

Thus

, in today’s world, art galleries will be even more appreciated as places where reality is assured.

Moreover

, museums are considered tourist attractions and

therefore

have a significant financial profit. When visitors go to these facilities, they often purchase food and other items in the neighbourhood. As an effect, not only the museum but

also

the nearby businesses benefit from the expositions. As an example, so many travellers travel to Paris every year to visit the Louvre Museum and other art galleries.

As a result

, the city has a huge income from tourism. In short, expositions are great places to present artworks in optimum conditions, and they are profitable as alluring sites for visitors. Given these points, I do not consider online pictures as proficient substitutes for exhibitions.