Some people claim that public museums and art galleries are not needed today because historical projects and art works can be seen using a computer. To what extent do you agree or disagree？（2007.06.07旧题）
We live in a world where we can get information at the click of a mouse. Compared to even a decade ago， the Internet has allowed us to see and do more without ever leaving our desk. But when it comes to viewing objects of art and other items， is it the same as visiting them in person？ Clearly I think that there is a difference between something real and virtual.
First of all， begin by remembering a trip you made to a museum or historical relic. Surely much of what makes your memory great is not just seeing the object， but all of the other senses that you used as well： the smell， the atmosphere， the other people admiring it. These are only possible when viewing something in person.
Secondly， seeing something in person allows you to notice details that you might otherwise miss. For example， when I saw the pyramids in person， I was amazed at how uneven they were up to close， and how large. When I had seen then before online， I had no concept of these details.
Of course the Internet can still be a useful visual tool. Before a person goes on a trip， they can research the place they are visiting along with historical items. That way when they arrive， they can have a better idea of what to expect. But under no circumstances should we think that viewing something online is the same as in person.
To conclude， I feel that a virtual， online world should complement but not replace the real one. We all need to get out of our homes and go places to see things， because it is the overall experiences and journey that makes it memorable and meaningful.