Public facilities such as museums and art galleries are very important part of a well-planned city, but it is argued that these facilities could be removed since the historic objects and art works are easily available on the Internet. Personally, I completely disagree with this idea.
The first reason why I disagree with this point of view lies in the fact that not everyone around the world has easy access to the Internet. In other words, a great number of people from some less developed areas are still suffering from poverty, either struggling to bring up a family or finding a stable job. In this case, it is impossible for those people to browse on a computer to enjoy the historic works of art as they would normally budget carefully and avoid extra expenses on their spiritual needs.
What is more, provided that everyone could afford a computer and get connected to the Internet easily, the need of having public museums and art galleries could still be justified as the function offered by them could never be replaced by computers. The reason is that these facilities would give viewers the firsthand experience as they could see these historic objects and artworks in flesh, which means that the sense of national identity and the respect for different nations would be fostered among people. This can never be done by just seeing some pictures or videos of the artworks on the Internet.
In conclusion, I firmly disagree with the idea of replacing the real establishment of museums and galleries since computers are not accessible to everyone and the online presentation of historic artworks could never arouse people’s patriotism and respect as effective as the real exhibitions in museums and galleries do.
Public facilities such as
museums
and
art
galleries
are
very
important
part of a well-planned city,
but
it
is argued
that these facilities could
be removed
since the
historic
objects and
art
works are
easily
available on the Internet.
Personally
, I completely disagree with this
idea
.
The
first
reason why I disagree with this point of view lies in the fact that not everyone around the world has easy access to the Internet.
In other words
, a great number of
people
from
some
less developed areas are
still
suffering from poverty, either struggling to bring up a family or finding a stable job.
In this case
, it is impossible for those
people
to browse on a computer to enjoy the
historic
works of
art
as they would
normally
budget
carefully
and avoid extra expenses on their spiritual needs.
What is more
, provided that everyone could afford a computer and
get
connected to the Internet
easily
, the need of having public
museums
and
art
galleries
could
still
be justified
as the function offered by them could never
be replaced
by computers. The reason is that these facilities would give viewers the firsthand experience as they could
see
these
historic
objects and artworks in flesh, which means that the sense of national identity and the respect for
different
nations would
be fostered
among
people
. This can never
be done
by
just
seeing
some
pictures or videos of the artworks on the Internet.
In conclusion
, I
firmly
disagree with the
idea
of replacing the real establishment of
museums
and
galleries
since computers are not accessible to everyone and the online presentation of
historic
artworks could never arouse
people’s
patriotism and respect as effective as the real exhibitions in
museums
and
galleries
do.