Art

David Carrier starts his article by explaining the powerful and unique experience an art museum offers its visitors. Unlike in a historical textbook which only contains stories of the past, a photograph which presents still and lifeless images, or a movie that shows mere reenactment of historical accounts with the use of improvised props or sometimes make-believe gadgets, an art museum allows one to be immersed in an important historical event through the art collection it houses. Every piece of artwork in a museum is a treasure it tells of a distinctive culture and a rich story which a visitor can be a part of.

Carrier goes on to describe this experience as a form of imaginative time travel or going back to the time and place these artworks existed. For example, Carrier cited, a visitor can peak into the real story of Jesus Christs last meal with his apostles through Nicolas Poussins work, The Last Supper. Similarly, Jacques  Louis Davids Death of Socrates lets a visitor experience Socrates last few moments on Earth without having to travel thousands of years back in history.

Then, Carrier introduces the museum skeptics  people who take a rather adversarial view on museums. For them, an art museum is exactly the opposite of what people think of it. Rather than protecting precious works of art, museums actually destroy them by taking them out of their context and by moving them away from the objects that are closely associated with them. Artworks are robbed of their purity and authenticity by placing them within the four walls of the museums.
While museum skeptics recognize that museums are able to physically preserve old objects, they believe that museums are unable to preserve these objects true relevance and symbolism. Worse, efforts to restore an artwork to its original state have transformed it to a completely different object, though sometimes cleaner and more attractive, making it lose its personality altogether.  

This view can be compared to what animal protection activists think of zoos. People think that by putting animals in a cage, they are able to protect them more and preserve their species. On the contrary, activists think that people are doing the animals more harm than good by taking them out of their natural habitat where they are supposed to learn survival techniques and be with other animals. No matter how hard zoo owners try to imitate the animals natural habitat, it is just never the same. As a consequence, animals lose their true identity and authenticity.

Museum skeptics also argue that the actual architecture of the museum contributes to its ineffectiveness to function as the true guardian of art and history. Some museums, for example, have been badly affected by signs of modernization and urbanization such as construction of new roads and other infrastructure. In some cases, museums have become so commercialized that people see them as places to eat, hang out with friends or watch a concert instead of as sacred institutions. This development has then affected the way people view artwork. They no longer think of an artwork as a valuable object that gives a reflection of the past, but rather as a typical commercial item that is displayed for visitors to feast their eyes on.

Finally, museum skeptics believe that having museums means that true artistic sense and creativity is deteriorating. For them, artworks should be seen anywhere and everywhere, and not confined to buildings claiming to be stewards of art and history. They say it should be like before when there were no museums but art is in good health and creative vitality flourishes.