Public museums and art galleries are not needed because people can see historical objects and artistic works by using computers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, with the widespread of the Internet technology, people can visit the museums and galleries online website to see the historical collections. However, whether this sort of art appreciation would one day replace the real ones remains a controversial issue. I agree with the view that regardless of the convenience of online collections, the traditional expositions are still indispensable.
Firstly, it is obvious that only concrete museums can provide a both holistic and detailed view of varied items in front of visitors. This is because no matter how real and vivid computer images are, they are only digital signals that are in form of pictures, videos or texts, not the works that we see with our own eyes and even touch with our own fingertips. Therefore, museums and galleries are the main places of various kinds of collections.
Moreover, scientific research also primarily relies on the real objects rather than the Internet images. For example, with careful inspection of paper texture, the real size of pictures, etc, scientists are capable to dig the hidden information from the famous portrait painting, Mona Lisa. Frankly, the job can not be done via the second-hand images in the computer.
That is not to say that the online museums are useless. For many people who are keen on historical objects and artistic works but live far away from them, they only have the chances to see them by the modern technology. But to be honest, this will not impress them as greatly as the real things.
In sum, virtual images will never be able to take the position of the real public museums and art galleries; meanwhile, we have to admit the fact that the online collections indeed can help some particular people in some particular circumstances. We should not only fully harness the dissemination power of Internet, but attract visitors into the concrete museums.