A gigantic data about culture and history is free to see on the internet. Hence, there is contention over whether museums starts to lost their values. I completely disagree with that and I believe that galleries have a significance in a hystorical context. And web-information does not provide same feeling as visit into an real exhibition.
Firstly, museums plays significant role in cultural life and they are an extremely neccesary for poeple’s existence. It is an archive that contain all of the nation’s hystorical treasures that somehow affect on the particular county’s citizens, that is why it can not be totally replaced with internet features. For example, Kazakhstan has a museum dedicated to the past of the country which serve as a reminder of how difficult it was to get independece. This is crucial to keep and support this kind of archives.
Moreover, information received from the internet does not give an exact similar feeling as museums gives. There is no chance to observe exhibit in detail in digital way and it is an impossible to fully dive in exhibition’s historycal meaning. For instance, Leonardo Da Vinchi’s most famous art called Mona Liza located in Paris art gallery and any people have an opportunity to see an masterpiece in real life that was created hundred years ago, it’s an astonishing feeling. However, not everyone can afford live experience due to living in other part of the world or money issues. That’s where the internet comes in handly.
In conclusion, in my opinion exhibitions are profoundly affect on the hystorical and cultural meaning of the nation. Furthermore, the information in web-sites can not supersede live buildings, because ther are not giving the same affection.