Prompt: Some people claim that museums and art galleries are not needed today because everyone can see historical objects or art works by computer. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In modern times, many people believe museums and exhibitions are no longer necessary since they can appreciate such artefacts online. I would have to say I strongly err on the side of disagreeing with this suggestion. Ċ Museums and galleries are a means to conserve antique and historical items. They are not only a paragon of beauty but also a mark of rich and varied culture since online observers can easily be confused a work of art with its origin. The Lourve, for instance, is the world's largest museum and historical monument, housing over 380000 objects ranging from Mona Lisa to Great Sphinx of Tanis. Moreover, without museums and associated places, tourists would have no culturally and historically important destinations to visit, and, more seriously, local children would not have any chance to witness what they have theoretically learnt at school Ċ To fully appreciate art, one must observe the entirety of the genuine piece, rather than the digitalized version of it. It is not through a screen that the harmony of colours or the shifting of emotions can truly be understood. In addition, museums and the likes provide people with exquisite experience, namely the nostalgia of historical times, that electronic devices cannot suffice. Memorial houses and art museums offer first-hand experience to visitors so that they can sense the atmosphere of historical events and people as well as contemplate artistic masterpieces with their bare eyes. Ċ In conclusion, even though the online-based information is a great way to learn about historical works and objects, museums and exhibitions are still important for real experience and irreplaceable.