Nowadays, technological advancement cosiderably ease access to historical information. Although online platforms have their own benefits, I partially disagree with the statement that museums and art galleries have lost their necesssities, because they still perform functions that cannot be competely replaced.
On the one hand, computers allow individuals to access historical objects regardless of their place of residence. In other words, this approach is beneficial for people, who cannot afford to travel due to high prices or health conditions. For example, in France, the Louvre provides virtual tours, owing to which tourists from overseas countries can meet famous masterpieces at no charge. Consequently, digial technology significantly expand availability for history and art.
On the other hand, virtual views cannot comletely replace museum visit. This is primarily because, the real exhibits create an emotional impression, allowing visitors to see their plausible size, materials and details. In addition, museums hold educational events and temporery exhibitions. For instance, in the UK, visitors of the British Museum can see the Rosetta Stone live and take part in excursions, which is impossible to play through the screen. As a result, digital tools should complement cultural objects, instead of replacing them. For this reason I believe that these objects remain indispensable for the presirvation of cultural heritage and the full study of history.
In conclusion, online access make historical objects more convenient; however, i consider that the real museums provide an unique educational and cultural experience. If the art spaces continued to combine traditional expositions with modern technologies, they would attract much more visitors.