The issue of whether museums and art galleries should prioritise more local artworks instead of global art has sparked controversial debate. While some people are deeply persuaded that the option brings multiple benefits, I firmly believe that museums don’t have to choose one way, it’ll be better to combine both of them.
On the one hand, local works carry a huge sense of cultural significance and identity, which contributes to preserving a nation’s history. Such artworks reflect the language, traditions, cultures and a mindset of the certain folk. Through them, visitors of museums can distinguish the smallest features of culture and how society understands itself. For example, national ornaments or paintings depicting historical events allow people to examine how their ancestors lived and what they followed. As a result, history isn’t lost, people will remember and appreciate the medieval hard times.
On the other hand, international pieces also provide many advantages, that are highly appreciable. One major is a way to broaden one’s horizons. The international art helps to recognise the cultures around the world, making people more diverse and erudite. For instance, the student who visited museum, such as Louvre or British, is able to see not only European paintings but also ancient Egyptian artefacts, Renaissance and Chinese arts. It gives inexhaustible opportunities to explore the wonders of the world, compare, and find out peculiar properties. As a result, people develop themselves, and think globally about some circumstances.
In conclusion, both viewpoints present convincing evidences, however none of the options is sufficient on its own terms. While promoting local development brings benefits only for local history, another is important for the worldwide community. The best approach is to combine both of them, then the benefit will be maximised. As it connects advantages and disadvantages into a single whole, creating an efficient solution.