As museums and art galleries have long been at the forefront of preserving cultural values and histories, there has been much discussion about whether they should mainly display domestic cultural artifact or a wider collection of artworks created by any artists from all over the world. As far as I am concerned, an international collection of artworks would bring
Firstly, it can positively contribute to cultural understanding. Undeniably, not some people cannot afford to travel abroad and even if they do, they are unlikely to get to know foreign culture deeply as tourists. In this case, museums provide a great opportunity for the general public to be exposed to diverse cultures, eventually enabling them to acquire the knowledge as to art, history and different minds. Moreover, viewed from the angle of the prosperity of the cultural industry, museums and art galleries should house the relics from other countries. For art lovers, both places open a gateway for them to appreciate a variety of artworks and antiques with distinct national identities, through which they can identify what connects and differentiates countries from each other. As a result, they can be inspired by those artworks and build their own aesthetic views, creating more works.
However, proponents of museums showcasing works from their own country argue that it can help domestic people build a connection with their native culture. If exposed to the more exotic culture, the young might feel that their own culture does not deserve preservation. So, museums and galleries need to serve as educational centers where local people can fully know their own history and gain a sense of belonging. Nevertheless, displaying works from other countries does not override the basic right of nations to preserve their own history.
Inconclusion, museums and galleries should show a mixture of works from their own country as well as other areas. From my perspective, individuals should have a broader view of culture in the context of globalization