Whether museums ought to exhibit masterpieces of only local artists than foreign artists is becoming a controversial topic among many people. Personally, I believe that showcasing works of all artists around the world would be better as it can give people many opportunities in terms of the finance and increase their horizon.
There are two main culprits behind why it is important for museums not to reveal their masterpieces. Initially, many museums try to disclose their arts so that other foreign artists cannot copy them and cannot be aware of hidden secrets behind making their works. As a result they can save their uniqueness among other museums. Furthermore, second reason is focused on the benefits of the country, since many breakthrough masterpieces which are not revealed to other countries are more likely to capture the attraction of people throughout the world, making a country more tourist attraction centre. For example, take a Mona Liza art as a great example, this art is bringing about many benefits, including an increase in the number of visitors, enabling a France more attractive country.
On the other hand, with many compelling reasons enabling individuals to see the works of all artists in one museum can end up with significant results. First of all, instead of paying a visit to the countries in order to just see the masterpieces of foreign artists, they make it happen in their own country, making doing so more affordable. Besides that, catching sight of distinct varieties of arts in one place allows humans to broaden their horizon.The underlying reason is that by doing so government can raise the awareness of public about different cultures and traditions. As a consequence, people may start to appreciate and venerate other cultures, making contribution to improved friendly atmposphere across distinct nations.
In conclusion, while countries can make a profit from disclosing their arts, combination of masterpieces of all artist tends to work for the benefits of individuals.