People are calling into question the usefulness of having museums. While some advocate the idea that the museums and art galleries are essential for visiting historical objects, others dismiss them as it can be seen on computers. Admittedly, I believe that the elimination of these places would have serious repercussions for the society owing to a number of compelling reasons.
To being with, the most rational justification is that these places are also a place for gathering more information. In other words, there are not only for keeping the historical objects but also a place to get more unique information about art works. That is to say, there are a lot of experts who dedicate their lives learning and studying these works, and by talking to them, ones can gain more knowledge about the artworks. The more people visiting these places and discussing about arts with experts, the more they learn. This in turn would have a far-reaching positive impact on society as individuals are likely to have more respect for artworks and artist as a whole.
Yet another compelling argument against watching these objects and works through computers is the nature of some artworks and historical objects. To put it differently, being unique and special, some artworks and historical objects cannot be seen on the screen. That is, by only seeing it in person, individuals will realize the uniqueness of that piece of work. Take the last supper paint as an example; if people only can see this through the screen, they cannot realize the details of this work or how hard would it be to drawn a piece of art in large format size.
To sum up, considering the points discussed above, the most rational conclusion to be drawn is that the elimination of museums and galleries can easily take its toll on society.
People
are calling into question the usefulness of having museums. While
some
advocate the
idea
that the museums and
art
galleries are essential for visiting
historical
objects
, others dismiss them as it can be
seen
on computers.
Admittedly
, I believe that the elimination of these
places
would have serious repercussions for the society owing to a number of compelling reasons.
To
being
with, the most rational justification is that these
places
are
also
a
place
for gathering more information.
In other words
, there are not
only
for keeping the
historical
objects
but
also
a
place
to
get
more unique information about
art
works.
That is
to say, there are
a lot of
experts who dedicate their
lives
learning and studying these works, and by talking to them, ones can gain more knowledge about the
artworks
. The more
people
visiting these
places
and discussing about
arts
with experts, the more they learn. This in turn would have a far-reaching
positive
impact on society as individuals are likely to have more respect for
artworks
and artist as a whole.
Yet
another compelling argument against watching these
objects
and works through computers is the nature of
some
artworks
and
historical
objects
. To put it
differently
, being unique and special,
some
artworks
and
historical
objects
cannot be
seen
on the screen.
That is
, by
only
seeing it in person, individuals will realize the uniqueness of that piece of
work
. Take the last supper paint as an example; if
people
only
can
see
this through the screen, they cannot realize the
details
of this
work
or how
hard
would it be
to drawn
a piece of
art
in large format size.
To sum up, considering the points discussed above, the most rational conclusion to
be drawn
is that the elimination of museums and galleries can
easily
take its toll on society.