Do you think it is better to leave artworks in their native settings, or is it more appropriate to keep them in museums?
Is it better for more people to have access to artwork in museums, or for fewer visitors to witness the full impact of a work in its original setting?
Is it better to leave artworks where weather and human actions may eventually damage them, or is it better to preserve them in a carefully controlled environment such as a museum?
How might the people of Iraq or Egypt feel knowing that some of their country's treasured artworks and art
Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
1: To me I feel like it is better to have art in musuems. I feel like since they are in museums they are more likely to be in a better shape, as in they wouldnt decay or get messed up. Although they would look much better in teir native settings, I feel like they are more likely to be in good condition while at a museum.
2: Yes it is good for people to view them in museums, many people who love art (like me) love to go visit museums and see the amazing artwork. It is good to have your artwork being shown. Depending on their native settings I feel like it wouldnt be good for hundreds of people everyday to walk into the native setting and view the artwork. They are much better at a museum.
3: It is alot better to keep them in a museum. Some (most) artwork is beautiful and if they are at a museum they can be kept beautiful and in good condition. Other than being in teir native settings with weather ruining the artwork.
4: Honostly I do not really know. I feel like they would be on both sides, kind of sad that they arnt in their natural settings. But also they would be happy because their artwork is in a big museum with hundreds of people everyday looking at it.
i think museums because with no contact from the aging world the works of art are more likely to be preserved much longer than in there native settings
It obviously depends on the artwork. Anything sacred, anything historically important, anything important to local culture or communities ought to be left as it is unless it's in danger. And for others, it depends on the type of artwork, the cost of restoration, the state of (dis)repair, the wishes of the artist, the wishes of the owners, and the wishes of the community. It's a very sensitive and subjective topic, and can't really be generalised.