Public museums and art galleries are not necessary because nowadays people can see the historical objects and works of art in these places on the Internet. To what extend do you agree or disagree

History plays a vital role for any society as it glorifies all the past incidents. It is often argued that public museum and art galleries would no longer be needed as people can find the historical objects and artworks on internet. I strongly refute the notion because of the rationales following. First and foremost, the computerized version of the historical objects and, paintings cannot give the real essence of things and people can’t do justice to their beauty. As long as a person does not physically touch or sees an artifact, they cannot appreciate it well and hence, it is important that a person physically feel or see these things. Besides, there is a unique aura at these places which helps people to connect with the history or art even more. The vibes and the calm atmosphere at these places cannot match the surroundings of home. Moreover, these places play a prominent role in the growth of tourism and eventually gives a boost to employment and economy. A horde of tourists are attracted to these places and hence, other facilities such as hotels, transportation, food joints, shops etc. needs to be setup to cater the needs of tourists which in turn gives employment to several people and thus acts as a catalyst for economy. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s ashram in Gandhinagar which has been converted to a public museum attracts a lot of tourists and since then city has been revolutionized in terms of economy. To conclude, museum and art galleries are indispensable part of society and it seems unrealistic that they will be taken over by digitally available information.