Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will not be needed because people can see historic objects and works of art by using a computer. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
当人们有firsthand experience，我们会使用更多的感官：视觉;听觉;甚至触觉 ，我们对于东西和东西背后代表的历史、思想印象更深。
It is no doubt that a large number of historic objects and works of art can be seen from the computer. Therefore, it is argued that public museums and art galleries should disappear. I strongly disagree with this opinion.
One main reason is that public museums and art galleries leave people a great impression of the historic objects and works of art that are displayed. If people go to museums or art galleries, they will see real objects, whereas if they use the computer, historic objects and works of art are all in the form of pictures or videos. When visitors are exposed to real objects, they have firsthand experience. Such experience engages multiple senses: sight, hearing, and even touch, making people gain an in-depth understanding of the thoughts and culture of these objects. However, it is easy for people to forget the historic objects and works of art when they see those things from the computer.
Another reason is related to the local economy. Public museums and art galleries are usually places of interest. If people want to visit public museums or art galleries, they may need to travel to other cities. When this is the case, they may live in the hotels, eat at restaurants and visit other places of interest in the same city, thus giving money to these places. As a result, a large amount of money is earned and the residents in those cities become richer. Nevertheless, if people see objects and works of art from the computer, they don't need to travel to other places and spend money, which cannot contribute to the economy of any city.
In conclusion, based on the evidence analyzed, public museums and art galleries are still needed because those places are beneficial to both individuals and the local economy.