Question: Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will not be needed because people can see historical objects and works of art by using a computer? Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
In this day and age, technology has penetrated practically every possible field. With its impacts being so immense, it is believed that public museums and art galleries will become redundant due to the fact that antiques and artworks are accessible via the assistance of computers. I disagree with this idea as I subscribe to the view that these places will maintain their popularity notwithstanding the significant growth of technology.
First of all, museums and art galleries provide the necessary environment for visitors to relish the works and objects. Generally speaking, there is a relatively tranquil atmosphere in museums and art galleries. Such serenity allows people to immerse in the intricacies of the objects and works on display. As a result, visitors can have favorable conditions to boost their creativity and critical thinking via the process of contemplation. By contrast, using computer can be distracting with constant notification of tasks; therefore, people are unlikely to have the calm mindset to enjoy themselves.
Secondly, going to museums and galleries offers various new opportunities to increase knowledge. By using the computer, people are liable to reach out to objects and works that are within their limited source of information while by going to museums and galleries, people can be exposed to virtually endless possibilities of encountering magnificent things beyond their boundaries. Moreover, these places also have adept staffs and expert curators readily available to elaborate on novel perspectives of the artworks and antiques. In short, museums and galleries can help one broaden their horizons.
In conclusion, it is my firm belief that although computers can be very convenient, it cannot become a substitute for real museums and art galleries.
Comments