Museums and art galleries are not needed today, because of technology

we can get almost all through our screens

It is undenied that technology gives us a brand-new way to observe historical artefacts 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 are dispensable

In the Internet era, everyone can easily have a detailed copy of any works with just a-click. It is such a convenient way for them when they can save an amount of time of queuing and wait in an exhibitions event. Also, museums and art galleries can make the most of these trends when they can scan their artefacts through the 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 feeling as roaming around any exhibitions.

However, these experience have some negative issues. Firstly is the membership costs, the average cost of virtual services like LA usually fluctuates between 50 $ and 100 $, which is too high for a 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 consequences, for example, the masterpieces of Florence artist were boycotted by having a naked girl on the canvas when people saw its copy on Facebook; actually, its hidden meaning is that women at that time was treated very badly and often becomes the victim of sexual violence.

In conclusion, I agree that everyone can see historical objects or artworks very easily, but sometimes the true values of some masterpieces would be misunderstood.

Do not say that something is undeniable in the prompt restatement. Never offer an opinion that is unrelated to the discussion requirements as you are offering a truthful insight, trying to convince the reader of the truth behind your opinion, when it is not required of you in the instructions. Just follow the basic writing instructions provided to you. The response you gave is incorrect as you gave a measured response of partial agreement, which is meant for an extent essay. The original prompt only requires you to choose between one of the opinions. Either you agree or disagree. Now, these are the reasons why this essay is most likely to fail in an actual setting:

- Offering information not included in the original prompt
- Irrelevant discussion response
- Incorrect discussion format (reasoning paragraphs)
- Other GRA, LR and C&C errors in the presentation

Hi Long231312, I think there has been an unclear idea in your statement. Although you claim to be partially agreement to the advance of technology only, you provide words and ideas that make people confused whether which side you are on.

Some points were explained too short even though they need further supports while a few ideas were redundant from the argument.
I am not an expert, just a friend suggests you to make your ideas clearer to prove which side you agree on. Good luck!