Computers allow people to see works of art and important historical items without having to travel to a museum or gallery. While this is useful and convenient, I completely disagree with the idea that these institutions have become unnecessary as a result.
In my opinion, people should have access to digital images of historical objects and works, and we should also be able to see them up close in museums and galleries. To take just one example, many people are unable to travel to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, and it is far easier and more economical for them to view images of ancient Egyptian treasures online. However, this does not mean that the Egyptian museum has become redundant. It would be wrong to hide those treasures away from the thousands of visitors who do wish to see them in person.
A photograph on a screen cannot replace the experience of visiting a museum or gallery. For example, an image cannot convey the size of a dinosaur skeleton, such as the one on display at the Natural History Museum in London, or the brilliance of a painting like the Mona Lisa by da Vinci. In fact, images of these exhibits seem to inspire more people to travel to see them in person. Public museums and galleries are special places because they connect us with our ancestors, with historical events, or with the artistic geniuses of the past. This connection is almost impossible to achieve through an image on computer.
In conclusion, I would argue that public museums and galleries are irreplaceable, regardless of the wealth of pictures and information that we can access through our computers.