Museums and art galleries should concentrate on works that show the history and culture of their own country rather than works of the other parts in the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is an intriguing debate brewing up since there is a lobby that believes museums and art galleries should display those artworks which represent their local culture as well as history instead of presenting exhibits from across the globe. This essay will justify the rationale behind both the notions and explore which one is agreeable.
Museums as well as art galleries tend to leave a profound impression on any spectator and play an important role in shaping their personalities. The exhibits portraying native cultural and historical significance help individuals to remain associated with their roots and render them abundant information about their past, ways of life, the ancestors, and so on. Furthermore, these works serve as an heirloom to the future generations which motivates them to preserve and perpetuate that lineage forever.
Moreover, demonstrating artworks of different societies from all over the world is perceived as an invasion by diverse cultures in the country by conservatives who fear that the populace might get influenced by the cultures of other nations, especially those of affluent ones, and try to adopt them, thereby ending up losing their own cultural identity.
However, in the concurrent era, the world has become a global village posing a cut-throat competition for every individual and to face this, people need to keep themselves updated with the past events, cultures and traditions across the length and breadth of the globe to establish harmonious relations with the people of other nations.
To reiterate, despite having several affords of displaying exhibits from all over the world, the artworks having cultural and historical relevance would aid people in upholding their unique cultural identity which is imperative for any citizen of a country. Hence, I concur with the statement.
