Nowadays, some people claim that public museums and art galleries will not be needed because people can see historical objects and works by using computers. Do you agree or disagree?

It cannot be denied that we are facing an era of upsurging technological advances. Undoubtedly, these developments grant more practical access to a plethora of things including exhibitions.

Nonetheless

, I firmly disagree that technology can completely replace physical exposition and

this

essay will elucidate the matter. At the outset, the virtual display of the exhibition translates to a broader range of audience. Admittedly,

this

would be a great advantage for artists or researchers who are seeking more recognition towards their crafts.

However

, in some exhibits, there are more senses in play than just sight.

For instance

, art galleries often incorporate interactive installations for visitors that will stimulate touch, smell, and other sensory perceptions in order to understand the creative idea thoroughly. The lack of tactile exposure from just seeing through a computer screen may result in participants missing the point that creators meant to convey with their work.

Moreover

, conversation that occurs along the tour is

also

part of the experience. As an example,

while

visiting a geology museum, one can discuss an artefact with fellow goers and pinpoint what piqued each other’s interest on the spot.

This

exchange could lead to more extensive knowledge about the historical object.

On the contrary

, accessing a museum via a device screen limits the possibility of interacting with others and getting extra information.

To sum up

, technological improvisation serves benefits in making art and inventions more accessible to the population,

nevertheless

, the existence of physical museums and art galleries is still essential to deliver a better understanding of creative ideas and prominent events in history.