It is undenied that technology gives us a brand-new way to observe historical artifacts and paintings, directly through our screens. While I partly agree with this viewpoint, I also suggest that the values of storage institutions such as museums or art galleries is indispensable.
In the Internet era, everyone can easily have a detailed copy of any works just a-click. It is such an convenient way for them when they can save an amount time (by saving a large amount of time spent on queing and waiting in an exhibitions event. Also, museums and art galleries can make the most of these trends when they can scan their artifacts through specialised scanner and collect money from viewers. For example, Natural Museums located in NY started to rolling out their virtual viewing serviced called LA; by augmented virtual ( AR ) , audiences would feel the same felling as roaming around any exhibitions.
However, these experience have some negative issues. Firstly is the membership costs, average cost of virtual services like LA usually fluctuates between 50 $ and 100 $, that is too high for an normal income. Seconds is the conception, without a profession, people can have some negative bias for a work, which usually comes from their misinformation about its characteristics situation when introduced to the world. These could lead to awful ( detrimental)consequences, for example, the masterpieces of Florence artist were boycotted by having a naked girl on canvas when people saw its copy on Facebook; actually, its hidden meaning is that women at that time was mistreated and often became the victim of sexual violence.
In conclusion, I agree that everyone can see historical objects or art works very easily, but sometimes the true values of some masterpieces would be misunderstood. (lạc đề), I agree that with the advancement of technology, people can easily access to art works; however, to alleviate the false meaning of asthetics, museums and galleries should be continute developing.