Q. With the prevalence of the Internet, museums are no longer necessary.
To what extent do you agree or disagree? (at least 250 words)
Since the Internet serves many functions in our lives, it is expected to replace lots of institutes and organizations, including museums. However, there are still some reasons why the Internet can not totally substitute for museums, in spite of its advance. First of all, the Internet can’t play a role as a place where gives direct experiences no matter how it advances. There is a limitation that the Internet can provide. For example, paintings that exhibited in museums gives the audience to awe and respect by its scale and its own technique, such as an impasto technique. It can’t be conveyed by the images online. This is the main difference of experience between that of the Internet and that of museums; museums can give whole sensory experience with relics by their atmosphere and originality. This experience is the first reason that museums is necessary in modern society despite the prevalence of the Internet. On the other hand, museums act in various roles related to history and archaeology. Although ordinary people only can see the exhibition that museums designed, it is only one of the tasks that museums do. Behind the exhibition hall, there are various efforts such as restoring old relics and repairing the impaired parts of the ceramic. In other words, museums preserve and research what they have and deliver them to the next generation with their knowledge. Since the Internet is hard to be a physical place where those things can proceed, it is obvious that there is still a value on museums. In conclusion, no matter how advanced our technology and no matter what the Internet can serve, it can’t replace museums because they have the original value that the Internet doesn’t have. |