Some people think that museums (and galleries) should be enjoyable places to entertain people, while others believe that the purerly entering place. v.1

Normally, museums are considered to have a vital function in serving their public for educational purpose, yet many museum goers also aim to seek an entertainment experience, which, I believe, is nearly impossible to end up with a 'purely entertaining' experience. There is no doubt that a primary role of museums is to educate the public. They provide tangible objects and collections that can be genuinely seen and touched by students. This provides excellent field trips for extensions of a classroom as well as enhancing their curriculum. If they were changed to be entertaining-oriented to attract more visitors, then the quality of art or a history would probably be degraded or distorted, hence weakening the function of educating. Eventually, museums would be nothing less like theme parks, aiming to profits generating rather than benefiting the public. However, there is also another voice claiming that museums should be interesting and playful, providing a relaxing place for people to have fun in their leisure time. Once they are solely built for learning without even a little of enjoyment, they would lose popularity and even financial support due to failing to attract enough visitors. My view is that education and entertainment don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive motivations for coming to the museum, but they can be integrated to achieve both aims. In fact, from our own school experience, we are more likely to be motivated to explore if content is truly entertaining, and meanwhile, if we can gain something meaningful through recreation, then it's a win-win situation. Nevertheless, at their core, museums are educational institutions, though by a unique and interesting way which differs from a traditional one in schools.