Content uploaded by Michał Szostak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michał Szostak on Jan 26, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited.
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
CREATIVITY STUDIES
ISSN: 2345-0479 / eISSN: 2345-0487
2024
Volume 17
Issue 1
Pages 41–58
https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2024.16418
CREATIVITY MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE AESTHETICAL SITUATION
REGARDING THE IN-REAL OR DIGITAL FORM OF PARTICIPATION
IN ARTS: ART RECEIVERS’ PERSPECTIVE
Michał SZOSTAK
1 , Łukasz SUŁKOWSKI2
1Institute for Management Research, Collegium Civitas, plac Delad 1, PKiN, 00-901 Warszaw, Poland
2Institute of Public Aairs, Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gołębia 24,
31-007 Kraków, Poland
Article History: Abstract. Because digitalisation of the aesthetical experience, a process speeded up by the
not-yet-nished COVID-19 pandemic, should be considered in the context of growth or loss
of artistry/creativity, this paper aims to assess the inuence of the participation form in the
aesthetical situation by receivers on the level of artistry/creativity potential loss. Assessment
of the quality of participation by the receivers in each of ve types of arts (musical arts, per-
forming arts, literary arts, audio-visual arts, visual arts) was done using the same ten criteria
for each type of art: satisfaction, pleasure, engagement, the possibility of experiencing cathar-
sis, contact with the artwork itself, contact with the performer itself, comfort of participation,
possibilities of shaping the aesthetical experience, own motivation to participate, easiness of
participation. The literature review was run using NVivo Pro software. Data analysis (n = 221)
was executed using IBM SPSS and Microsoft Excel. Answering the research hypotheses: H1) the
digital form of participation in arts determines the level of quality of participation in the aes-
thetical situation by receivers; H2) the form of participation in art shapes the level of quality of
participation in the aesthetical situation by receivers of each type of art dierently: in musical
arts, performing arts, literary arts and visual arts, in-real participation gives higher quality than
digital participation; in audio-visual arts, in-real participation gives lower quality than digital
participation. The research results may be helpful for: art creators wanting to choose the
optimal way of distributing their artworks; art managers to better understand art receivers’
perspectives and their opinion about participation in arts in real or digitally; art receivers to
compare their private opinion about the ways of participation in arts with the general opinion
of art receivers.
■ received 29 January 2022
■ accepted 30 September 2022
Keywords: aesthetic situation, aesthetics, arts digitalisation, creativity change, management, participation in arts, receiving process.
Corresponding author. E-mail: michal.szostak@civitas.edu.pl
1. Introduction
Living in the 21st century, we participate in dierent areas of human activities through new
and new ways and methods without even particular notice. However, the form of participa-
tion shapes the content of participation and consequently changes our inputs and results
(Karayilanoğlu & Arabacioğlu, 2020). Furthermore, digitalisation increasingly changes culture
and arts: along with technological progress comes a transformation of social interactions,
aesthetic experiences and forms of expression (Kröner et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic,
according to the common opinion of researchers, has resulted in a multi-sector acceleration
of digitisation and computerisation processes (Kudyba, 2020). The rst studies indicate that
global changes towards the intensication of digital transformation aect most activities,
42 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
ranging from the health, education and social welfare sectors, through the information and
technology sectors, to manufacturing, trading, and art and media (Bradley et al., 2020). Al-
though signicant changes aect both the private and public sectors, they relate to small,
medium and large organisations. The direction of changes towards virtualisation, teleworking,
remote management, and interactive network communication has been set for many decades,
but both the pace and scale of these activities changed in the years 2020–2021, which was
the result of the COVID-19 pandemic (Tregua et al., 2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic that has inuenced our lives since the end of 2019 sped up
digital participation in a broad spectrum of areas. One of these areas is art in general, and, in
particular, each type of art dierently (Lei & Tan, 2021). Considering the participation in arts
from the perspective of the aesthetical situation (Gołaszewska, 1984; Szostak, 2020, 2021a;
Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020b), we understand this process from two separate ends: the cre-
ators’ and the receivers’. Therefore, the meta-model of this research may be described as a
function of the combination of “aesthetical situation” and “digital technologies” to get the
result in the form of information about creativity/artistry loss. In other words, it is about the
impact of “digital technologies” on particular elements of the “aesthetical situation” in optics
of creativity/artistry loss. Therefore, the fundamental research on this matter should be di-
vided into two stages: 1) creator-artwork (creative process) and 2) artwork-receiver (receiving
process). This paper focuses on stage 2.
The goals of stage 2 are: 1) to assess the impact of digital technologies on the perception
of each type of art (positive-negative); 2) to assess the scale of the impact of digital technol-
ogies on the perception of each type of art; 3) to assess the scale of creativity/artistry loss/
gain because of the use of digital technologies in each type of art. To achieve these goals,
the following research hypotheses were created: H1) the form of participation (in-real or
digital) in arts determines the level of quality of participation in the aesthetical situation by
receivers; H2) the form of participation in arts shapes the level of quality of participation in
the aesthetical situation by the receivers of each type of art dierently.
It must be underlined: the research and the paper focus on the receiver’s in-real and
digital receiving process of artwork, not on using digital tools for speaking about arts and
artworks.
2. Literature review
Art in human life has been existing since the earliest times. Although aesthetics as an auto-
nomic discipline was detached from philosophy relatively late, it existed from the initiation of
abstract thought within philosophical discourses. Primarily, the concept of individual creativity
was not separated, and art was recognised as the ability to merge three factors: material
(given by nature), knowledge (arising from tradition), and work (originated from a man). Pri-
marily, creativity was recognised submissively as imitation (mimesis). Afterwards, the process
of dening and analysing the wonder of individual creativity, which is crucial for our con-
siderations, has just begun. Art is a practice of transmitting, and its role is to communicate
internal states; artists externalise their states of mind to allow recipients to achieve desirable
and dened states (Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020b).
Creativity Studies, 2024, 17(1), 41–58 43
From the theoretical point of view (the aesthetic situation especially), the creator creates
his artwork considering the real world and the world of universal values, and the creator
leaves this ready-made result (artwork) towards the receiver. The receiver may choose the
method of participation in the receiving process according to his will, possibilities and circum-
stances. On the other side, from the practical point of view, the unadjusted to-the-circum-
stances decision regarding the form of perception may deeply determine the content and the
receiving process because each form of participation has its advantages and disadvantages.
It should also be noticed that more-experienced receivers may be more uent in using a less
ecient form of participation without losing too much from arts content. On the other side,
even the most ecient form of participation may not be sucient to deliver the entire con-
tent to the less-experienced receiver (Gołaszewska, 1984; Szostak, 2020).
Art has taken a sharp turn with advanced information technology tools, digitalisation,
social media, and business skills lastly (Handa, 2020). Especially performative arts in the digital
age has undergone a radical shift when ephemeral performance may now be relived, replayed
and repeated (Dunne-Howrie, 2020). The increase of digitalisation use in arts has been faster,
broader, and more profound year by year. Aside from this, the COVID-19 pandemic added
new impulses to this process: lockdowns, social distancing. At this point of the not-yet-n-
ished COVID-19 pandemic, it will not be easy to assess which factors were the causes and the
eects of the digitalisation of arts (Habelsberger & Bhansing, 2021; Zahra, 2021). However,
we see parallelly that aside from the digital transformation of the participation, there are
other new trends among artists like the shift towards entrepreneurship (Szostak & Sułkowski,
2021a) or even problems in their identication (Szostak & Sułkowski, 2021b, 2021c) that were
rare or unknown before.
The combination of the digitalisation and casualisation of work due to outsourcing by
corporations, non-governmental organisations and governments create wholly new labour
conditions (Hermes et al., 2017). That is why more devotion should be paid to the cognitive
and aective dimensions of art participation by going beyond the usual approach to arts.
In new digital circumstances, arts workers and lovers stimulate inclusion and active partici-
pation in arts (Huang, 2015). Participation in arts requires senses. However, arts digitalisation
is limited by the possibilities of technology to transfer the analogue senses’ experience into
virtual dimensions (Mao & Jiang, 2021). Therefore, it is justied that digital participation
in arts should be called “digital mediation”; this concept sets the role of digital technology in
a precise position, i.e., “between” the artwork and the receiver (Jarrier & Bourgeon-Renault,
2019). Senses allow physical, emotional (Buravenkova et al., 2018), intellectual, and spiritual
(Rivas-Carmona, 2020; Wu, 2020) participation in art; analysis of the receiving process on all
of these levels reveals the complexity level of the researched problem.
There is also a fundamental question, whether digitalisation is evolution or revolution. We
may nd arguments for both approaches. Digital technologies allow reshaping the environ-
ment and destroying historical approaches to many issues. It can be said that today’s culture
is somehow structured by digitalisation (Roberge & Chantepie, 2017). Remembering that
the digital revolution aects and is shaped by particular cultures dierently, it also expands
spirituality from its fundamental context in the socio-cultural interpretation of the natural
world to contemporary digitally mediated environments (Sosnowska, 2015). Mediatisation
44 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
of cultural practices has been changing the mechanisms of cultural memory formation, and
online communication skills have become the foundation of education to balance tradition
and modernisation (Arkhangelsky & Novikova, 2021). Participation in arts through digital
tools also has new applications, i.e., the form of an advanced treatment against ageing and
dementia patients who suer from apathy, lack of interest and enthusiasm, which can accom-
pany memory and cognitive deterioration (Tao et al., 2020). The idea of online crowdsourced
art is understood as the practice of using the Internet as a participatory platform to engage
the public in the creation of artwork directly; the goal of this approach is to showcase the
relationship between the collective imagination and the individual artistic sensibilities of its
participants (Literat, 2012). The digitalisation of the aesthetical experience (digital participa-
tion tools use) should also be considered in the context of growth or loss of creativity.
Digitalisation brings broader horizons for art receivers, but it opens other issues. First,
the mass receivers’ approach to the artwork’s quality: higher artwork quality means fewer art
receivers; lower artwork quality more art receivers. Second, the digital exclusion limits par-
ticipation in the receiving process: except for the will to participate in art, the receiver must
have appropriate digital tools (hardware, software, Internet access). Third, the digitalisation
of arts can be used to develop the serving role of arts to make them more comprehensible
and customer-focused (Pöppel et al., 2018). However, a signicant problem is a relationship
between value and quality, which humans use to assess and compare various objects, includ-
ing arts, they encounter (Fortuna & Modliński, 2021).
Considering musical arts, during reception of a concert in in-real form, the receiver faces
the artwork in its desired-by-artist shape; no volume adjustments – it is strictly projected by
the artist; no pauses – the form of the artwork is clear and unchangeable no matter what
is the opinion the listeners, the receiver avoids leaving the audience spot, the pauses in the
opera are marked and designed by the composer. On the contrary, the digital form of par-
ticipation in musical arts allows for these adjustments and – if done randomly – the artwork
inuences the receiver dierently from the creator’s desire. Signicantly, electronic music,
computer music and digital sound art have their creative practices and historical processes
separate from so-called classical music (Born & Devine, 2016); the electronic environment and
digital way of participation are natural for this kind of music. In performing arts perceived
in-real, the receiver is also a kind of a prisoner of the artwork; he must keep the rules of
the artwork (its length, pauses, volume, visibility). Contemporary performing arts enhance
intermediality, hybridisation and dialogue between diverse media and languages. With the
expansion of digital technology, performing arts experience new possibilities that shape their
ontology (Zorita-Aguirre, 2020).
Among all arts, performing arts are the most aected by digitalisation, showing how dif-
ferent interaction methods determine user experience (Dube & İnce, 2019). Social media can
be used as a marketing tool and as a form of digital staging that helps to involve audiences
in theatrical performance development and outcomes. Nevertheless, social media platforms
can be harnessed in unusual ways to hybridise the digital/physical space between performer
and audience, resulting in an original, co-produced performance. This boundary blurring
resituates marketing as co-created interaction while inviting audiences to participate in the
performance itself (Miles, 2018).
Creativity Studies, 2024, 17(1), 41–58 45
Theoretically, literary arts should not be deeply aected by the form of participation;
however, the questions raised by the interactive technologies have their predecessors in
pre-electronic artistic traditions (Ryan, 2015). Digitisation puts literary collections at one’s
ngertips, but the books themselves are increasingly changing from “physical repositories”
to “access portals” to its content. We can nd that people who are drawn to print artefacts
(books, journals) often nd that digital surrogates lack feeling. Digitised texts preserve the
linguistic content of print works but not their many meaningful physical features that funda-
mentally shape interpretation and contain valuable historical traces and readerly interactions
(Stauer, 2012). Changing the physical interactions with artwork also may aect the change
in its sense (Forlini et al., 2018).
Audio-visual arts, from their nature, are coherent with the digital form of participation.
However, being a receiver of an audio-visual artwork (e.g. a movie) in-real at the cinema or
digitally at home, we can imagine signicant dierences between these forms. For example,
the receiver cannot stop or change the volume of a movie at the cinema; at home, yes, it is
possible. Furthermore, at the cinema, the receiver is inuenced by the audience’s reactions;
at home, he is alone. Therefore, the application of visual image technology based on user
interface and virtual reality technology in art allows the development of digital media art
(Mao & Jiang, 2021).
The form of the receiving process of visual arts also signicantly determines the shape of the
receiving process: a painting is determined by its content but also by its form (size), environ-
ment (in which it appears to the receiver), emotions created by these issues and connected to
the receiver’s approach towards the artwork. The painting’s frames cut the external world from
the painting world, but the external world also determines feelings around and towards the
painting. Based on that, digital collaboration in art, digital marketing and digital performance
can diversify and incorporate audiences as authentic arts co-producers (Fortuna & Modliński,
2021). Following this, it seems interesting to investigate how art receivers perceive artworks
created in this process – as created by machines or humans, as created by the artists only, by
the receivers only, or by both sides together. However, the eectiveness and sustainability of
the aesthetic situation digitisation are yet to be proven (Lance Nawa & Sirayi, 2014).
Organisations can benet from aesthetics on many levels: 1) translating arts into or-
ganisational action using the potency of art forms (Pöppel et al., 2018); 2) applying artistic
interventions for individual and group creativity development or problems solving (Schnugg,
2019; Johansson Sköldberg et al., 2016; Williams, 2001); 3) applying theoretical concepts of
aesthetics into management theory and practice (Szostak, 2021a, 2023; Szostak & Sułkowski,
2020a, 2020b). Based on this, management – understood as achieving goals eciently – is
about choosing and moderating the optimal type of participation in each type of art con-
sidering the acceptable level of creativity/artistry loss/gain for art creators and/or receivers.
Art creators work “harder” by professionalising and “smarter” in the digital environment by
re-specialising and getting help with creative and non-creative duties from collaborators and
contractors. In this new organisational model, managers play an essential intermediary role in
connecting, coordinating and curating these helpers (Hracs, 2015) to combine both ideology
and technology, highly advocating the organisation’s core concept through the global digital
trend, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic (Lei & Tan, 2021).
46 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
3. Methods and materials
Initially, secondary-type research in reviewing literature and data was undertaken. The litera-
ture review was based on a qualitative selection of the content of EBSCO Information Services,
Google Scholar, JSTOR, Mendeley, and Scopus databases, especially from the last ve years
(2017–2021). The methodological approach to the literature review was based on an inter-
disciplinary and multi-paradigm tactic taking into account the publications from aesthetic
theory, reception studies, information visualisation, human-computer interaction, digital arts
and management. The literature review was run using NVivo Pro software.
For this research, art was divided into ve distinct types: 1) musical arts (instrumental/vo-
cal concerts, oratorios); 2) performing arts (dance, ballet, opera, theatre, mime, performance);
3) literary arts (prose, ction/non-ction, drama, poetry); 4) audio-visual arts (movie, clip, vid-
eo game); and 5) visual arts (painting, drawing, photography, sculpture, ceramics, architecture,
comics, design, fashion). Therefore, the receivers participation quality in each type of art must
be analysed by using criteria understandable for the receivers but at the same time applicable
to each type of art. Therefore, after the literature review, ten factors were set for this purpose:
1) satisfaction (Guo et al., 2020; Jarrier & Bourgeon-Renault, 2019; Quattrini et al., 2020; Zollo
et al., 2022); 2) pleasure (Dunne-Howrie, 2020); 3) engagement (Dube & İnce, 2019; Quattrini
et al., 2020; Sosnowska, 2015; Wu et al., 2017); 4) the possibility of experiencing catharsis
(Craig et al., 2020; Lee, 2011; Phillips, 2000); 5) contact with the artwork itself (Habelsberger
& Bhansing, 2021); 6) contact with the performer itself (Wu et al., 2017); 7) comfort of par-
ticipation (Guidry, 2014); 8) possibilities of shaping the aesthetical experience (Jackson, 2017;
Jung Park & Lim, 2015); 9) own motivation to participate (Hobbs & Tuzel, 2017; Pianzola et al.,
2022); 10) easiness of participation (Dunne-Howrie, 2020; Fancourt et al., 2020).
Secondly, quantitative research in the form of a questionnaire was conducted. This step
aimed to assess the receivers participation quality in each type of art analysed based on ten
criteria chosen after the literature review. Furthermore, this step aimed to conclude mean-
ingful results about possibly dierent artistic activities being coherent and similar at the
same time. Data analysis was executed using IBM SPSS and Microsoft Excel; however, complex
statistics were not conducted due to the small sample size (n = 221). Therefore, this article
exhibits only a number of the conclusions from the entire investigation.
The quantitative research was held between 1st May, 2021 and 17th December, 2021, i.e.
230 calendar days using Survio tools accessible digitally only. The link to the survey entitled
“Digital Transformation and New Art Experience” (Szostak, 2021b) was distributed in various
ways: social media, direct requests and ocial announcements by universities. The survey,
prepared in English only and containing 71 questions, was split into six segments. The rst
ve segments regarded each type of art. All questions were closed-type; respondents could
choose prepared answers only. While assessing the level of quality of a factor, the respond-
ents used a 5-step Likert scale: very low (1), rather low (2), neutral (3), rather high (4), very
high (5). The sixth segment of the survey included questions categorising the respondents,
i.e., gender, age, education level, nationality.
777 visits concluded in 221 (28.4%) answers of the research participants. The majority of
participants (63.8%) answered all questions between 5 and 30 minutes. The characteristic of
Creativity Studies, 2024, 17(1), 41–58 47
the research sample is the following. Respondents (55.2% male and 44.8% female) represent-
ed 38 countries from all continents (in descending order): 37.2% from Poland, 11.2% from the
United States, 7.4% from Ukraine, 7.4% from Finland, 3.7% from Germany, 3.7% from India,
2.7% from Turkey, 2.7% from the United Kingdom; other countries were represented by less
than 2.2% (i.e. 4 or less participants). The majority of respondents (60.1%) graduated bach-
elor, master, or engineer studies; 28.2% had a doctorate, habilitation, or professorship; 9.4%
graduated from a technical college or high school, and 2.3% from primary school or junior
high school. The oldest participant was born in 1931 and the youngest in 2005.
4. Findings
86.2% of respondents participate in cultural life (music, theatre, literature, painting, sculpture,
video game, architecture, fashion) sporadically, sometimes, often, very often, or all the time,
in opposition to 13.8% who do not do it at all. However, there are no specic reasons for lack
of participation: nor time limits, nor nancial limits, nor lack of need, nor lack of appropriate
companionship are the main reasons here (see Figure 1).
Participants of cultural life choose the most often musical arts (58.8%), followed closely by
performing arts (58.4%), then audio-visual arts (49.3%), literary arts (41.2%) and at the end,
visual arts (39.4%) (see Figure 2).
Figure 1. Reasons for not participating in cultural life (i.e. musical arts, performing
arts, literary arts, audio-visual arts, visual arts) in general (source: created by authors)
Figure 2. Participation in each type of art (source: created by authors)
48 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
4.1. Regarding the type of arts
The vast majority of all types of arts participate both in classical and popular forms of arts
(in descending order): audio-visual arts (72.3%), visual arts (72.7%), performing arts (68.6%),
literary arts (68.2%), and musical arts (63.1%). However, only the classical form of all arts is
participated by 27.7% of musical arts receivers, 22.4% of literary arts receivers, 22.3% of per-
forming arts receivers, 14.3% of visual arts receivers, and 6.9% of audio-visual arts receivers.
Only the popular form of all arts is participated by 20.8% of audio-visual arts receivers, 13.0%
of visual arts receivers, 9.4% of literary arts receivers, 9.2% of musical arts receivers, and 9.1%
of performing arts receivers (see Figure 3).
The research reveals the following dierences in the form of participation in each type
of art. First, musical arts receivers assess the quality of the whole aesthetical situation higher
during in-real participation (4.07); next, in descending order, are performing arts (3.98), liter-
ary and visual arts (3.97), and audio-visual arts (3.58). Next, audio-visual arts receivers assess
the quality of the whole aesthetical situation as higher during digital participation (3.91); next,
in declining order, are literary arts (3.53), visual arts (3.35), musical arts (3.29), and perform-
ing arts (3.10). Finally, the size of the quality dierences in the whole aesthetical situation
between participation in real and digitally looks as follows (in ascending order): performing
arts (–22.0%), musical arts (–19.1%), visual arts (–15.6%), literary arts (–11.1%) and audio-visual
arts (9.1%; only this group assess the quality of the whole aesthetical situation higher during
digital instead of in-real participation) (see Figure 4).
Figure 3. Types of particular arts preferred by the receivers (source: created by authors)
Figure 4. Receivers’ assessment of the whole aesthetical situation quality in a
particular type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
Creativity Studies, 2024, 17(1), 41–58 49
It can be said that performing arts lose 22.0% of the receiving process quality in the
assessment of the receivers due to the use of digital tools of participation; musical arts lose
19.1%, visual arts lose 15.6%, and literary arts lose 11.1%. Only audio-visual arts gain 9.1%
of the receiving process quality in the assessment of the receivers due to the use of digital
participation tools.
The Pearson correlation coecient – according to Guilford’s (1954) classication – be-
tween the level of education and participation in all arts is poor (r = 0.132), particularly in
musical arts is almost none (r = 0.075), in performing arts is poor (r = 0.178), in literary arts
is poor (r = 0.187), in audio-visual arts is almost none (r = –0.057), and in visual arts is poor
(r = 0.101).
4.2. Regarding qualities of the aesthetical situation
After analysing the general dierences between the types of participation in each type of art,
it is worth checking how particular qualities of the aesthetic situation behave regarding the
type of participation in each type of art.
4.2.1. Satisfaction
Musical arts receivers feel greater satisfaction owing from in-real participation (4.35); next,
in descending order, are performing arts (4.16), visual arts (4.10), literary arts (4.05), and au-
dio-visual arts (3.74). Audio-visual arts receivers feel greater satisfaction owing from digital
participation (3.90); next, in declining order, are literary arts (3.56), visual arts (3.40), musical
arts (3.19), and performing arts (3.01). The size dierences between participation in real and
digitally look as follows (in ascending order): performing arts (–27.7%), musical arts (–26.7%),
visual arts (–17.1%), literary arts (–11.9%), and audio-visual arts (4.5%; only here the greater
satisfaction is perceived from digital instead of in-real participation (see Figure 5). The data
analysis shows that from the art receivers’ satisfaction point of view, participation in most
art types is higher in person without digital solutions (only audio-visual arts receivers have
the opposite opinion). Even though digital solutions add new possibilities for shaping the
aesthetic situation, their impact on the receivers’ satisfaction is insucient to exceed the
traditional ways.
Figure 5. Receivers’ assessment of their satisfaction owing from a particular type
of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
50 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
4.2.2. Pleasure
Musical arts receivers have greater pleasure owing from in-real participation (4.36); next,
in descending order, are performing arts (4.35), literary arts (4.22), visual arts (4.13), and
audio-visual arts (3.83). Audio-visual arts receivers have greater pleasure owing from digital
participation (3.90); next, in declining order, are literary arts (3.56), visual arts (3.40), musical
arts (3.30), and performing arts (3.17). The size dierences between participation in real and
digitally look as follows (in ascending order): performing arts (–27.2%), musical arts (–24.3%),
visual arts (–17.7%), literary arts (–15.6%), and audio-visual arts (1.8%; only here the greater
pleasure is perceived from digital instead of in-real participation) (see Figure 6). Like in the
case of receivers’ satisfaction, their pleasure in most art types is higher in in-person participa-
tion without digital intermediaries (only audio-visual arts receivers have the opposite opinion).
Figure 6. Receivers’ assessment of their pleasure owing from a particular type of art
concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
4.2.3. Engagement
Musical arts receivers feel greater engagement during in-real participation (4.19); next, in
descending order, are performing arts (4.11), visual arts (4.06), literary arts (3.95), and au-
dio-visual arts (3.72). Audio-visual arts receivers feel greater engagement during digital par-
ticipation (3.96); next, in declining order, are literary arts (3.47), visual arts (3.25), musical arts
(3.06), and performing arts (2.98). The size of dierences between participation in real and
digitally looks as follows (in ascending order): performing arts (–27.5%), musical arts (–26.9%),
Figure 7. Receivers’ assessment of their engagement in a particular type of art
concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
Creativity Studies, 2024, 17(1), 41–58 51
visual arts (–19.8%), literary arts (–12.3%), and audio-visual arts (6.4%; only here the greater
engagement is perceived from digital instead of in-real participation) (see Figure 7). The
analysis shows that in-real participation in the majority of art types (except audio-visual arts)
is more engaging than the digital one.
4.2.4. The possibility of experiencing catharsis
Musical arts receivers feel a higher possibility of experiencing catharsis during in-real partic-
ipation (4.04); next, in descending order, are literary arts (3.95), performing arts (3.94), visual
arts (3.85), and audio-visual arts (3.56). Audio-visual arts receivers feel a higher possibility
of experiencing catharsis during digital participation (3.78); next, in declining order, are lit-
erary arts (3.41), musical arts (3.14), visual arts (3.11), and performing arts (3.08). The size of
dierences between participation in real and digitally looks as follows (in ascending order):
musical arts (–22.3%), performing arts (–21.7%), visual arts (–19.1%), literary arts (–13.7%),
and audio-visual arts (6.0%; only here a higher possibility of experiencing catharsis is (see
Figure 8). The analysis shows that in-real participation in the majority of art types (except
audio-visual arts) allows receivers for better possibility of experiencing catharsis than the
digital forms of participation.
Figure 8. Receivers’ assessment of the possibility of experiencing catharsis in a
particular type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
4.2.5. Contact with the artwork itself
Musical arts receivers feel better contact with the artwork itself during in-real participation
(4.25); next, in descending order, are performing arts (4.10), literary arts (4.06), visual arts
(4.04), and audio-visual arts (3.58). On the other hand, audio-visual arts receivers ha feel bet-
ter contact with the artwork itself during digital participation (3.85); next, in declining order,
are literary arts (3.45), visual arts (3.24), musical arts (3.18), and performing arts (2.93). The size
of dierences between participation in real and digitally looks as follows (in ascending order):
performing arts (–28.7%), musical arts (–25.0%), visual arts (–19.6%), literary arts (–15.0%), and
audio-visual arts (7.7%; only here the better contact with the artwork itself is perceived from
digital instead of in-real participation) (see Figure 9). The investigation shows that in-real par-
ticipation in most art types (excluding audio-visual arts) allows receivers to maintain contact
with the artwork more deeply than the digital forms of participation.
52 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
Figure 9. Receivers’ assessment of contact with the artwork itself in a particular type
of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
4.2.6. Contact with the performer itself
Musical arts receivers feel the best contact with the performer itself during in-real participa-
tion (4.13); next, in descending order, are literary arts (4.08), performing arts (4.00), visual arts
(3.96), and audio-visual arts (3.46). Literary arts receivers have the best contact with the per-
former itself during digital participation (3.56); next, in declining order, are audio-visual arts
(3.53), visual arts (3.16), musical arts (2.90), and performing arts (2.82). The size of dierences
regarding contact with the performer itself between participation in real and digitally looks
as follows (in ascending order): musical arts (–29.9%), performing arts (–29.5%), visual arts
(–20.2%), literary arts (–12.9%), and audio-visual arts (2.0%; only here the better contact with
the performer itself is perceived from digital instead of in-real participation) (see Figure 10).
The analysis shows that in-real participation in the majority of art types (except audio-visual
arts) allows receivers to maintain deeper contact with the performer itself than during the
digital forms of participation.
Figure 10. Receivers’ assessment of contact with the performer itself in a particular
type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
4.2.7. Comfort of participation
Musical arts receivers feel higher comfort during in-real participation (4.07); next, in descend-
ing order, are literary arts (4.04), visual arts (3.98), performing arts (3.88), and audio-visual
arts (3.56). Audio-visual arts receivers feel higher comfort during digital participation (4.01);
next, in declining order, are literary arts (3.64%), visual arts (3.53), musical arts (3.48), and
Creativity Studies, 2024, 17(1), 41–58 53
performing arts (3.29). The size of dierences between participation in real and digitally looks
as follows (in ascending order): performing arts (–15.1%), musical arts (–14.7%), visual arts
(–11.2%), literary arts (–9.9%), and audio-visual arts (12.6%; only here the higher comfort is
perceived from digital instead of in-real participation) (see Figure 11). The exploration shows
that in-real participation in the majority of art types (except audio-visual arts) gives higher
participation comfort than the digital forms of participation.
Figure 11. Receivers’ assessment of comfort of participation in a particular type of art
concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
4.2.8. Possibilities of shaping the aesthetical experience
Visual arts receivers feel better possibilities of shaping the aesthetical experience during
in-real participation (3.84); next, in descending order, are performing arts (3.76), literary arts
(3.75), musical arts (3.60), and audio-visual arts (3.36). Audio-visual arts receivers better pos-
sibilities of shaping the aesthetical experience during digital participation (3.93); next, in
declining order, are musical arts (3.52), visual arts (3.48), literary arts (3.47), and performing
arts (3.23). The size of dierences between participation in real and digitally looks as follows
(in ascending order): performing arts (–14.1%), visual arts (–9.2%), literary arts (–7.5%), musical
arts (–2.5%), and audio-visual arts (16.8%; only here better possibilities of shaping the aes-
thetical experience is perceived from digital instead of in-real participation) (see Figure 12).
The analysis shows that in-real participation in the majority of art types (except audio-visual
arts) allows receivers to shape the aesthetical experience more conveniently than the digital
forms of participation.
Figure 12. Receivers’ assessment of possibilities of shaping the aesthetical experience in
a particular type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
54 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
4.2.9. Own motivation to participate
Musical arts receivers feel a higher motivation to participate in the in-real form (4.18); next,
in descending order, are visual arts (4.05), performing arts (3.97), literary arts (3.84), and
audio-visual arts (3.60). Audio-visual arts receivers feel a higher motivation to participate
digitally (3.87); next, in declining order, are literary arts (3.43), musical arts (3.38), visual arts
(3.31), and performing arts (2.99). The size of dierences between own motivation to par-
ticipate in real and digitally looks as follows (in ascending order): performing arts (–24.6%),
musical arts (–19.2%), visual arts (–18.3%), literary arts (–10.6%), and audio-visual arts (7.6%);
only here the higher motivation to participate is perceived from digital instead of in-real
participation) (see Figure 13). The study shows that in-real participation in the majority of
art types (except audio-visual arts) is higher motivating to participate for receivers than the
digital forms of participation.
Figure 13. Receivers’ assessment of their motivation to participate in a particular type
of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)
4.2.10. Easiness of participation
Literary arts receivers feel a better easiness of participation in the in-real forms (3.77); next,
in descending order, are visual arts (3.71), musical arts (3.51), performing arts (3.50), and
audio-visual arts (3.40). Audio-visual arts receivers feel a better easiness of participating dig-
itally (4.20); next, in declining order, are literary and musical arts (3.76), visual arts (3.62), and
performing arts (3.54). The size dierences regarding the easiness of participation in the
Figure 14. Receivers’ assessment of the easiness of participation (accessibility, time
to organise yourself, time to prepare yourself) in a particular type of art concerning
the form of participation (source: created by authors)
Creativity Studies, 2024, 17(1), 41–58 55
in-real forms and digitally looks as follows (in ascending order): visual arts (–2.3%), literary
arts (–0.4%), performing arts (1.3%), musical arts (7.3%), and audio-visual arts (23.6%) (see
Figure 14). The analysis shows that digital participation in most art types (except literary and
visual arts) is easier for receivers than digital ones.
5. Conclusions
Answering the hypotheses of this research, it can be said that: H1) the digital form of par-
ticipation in arts reduces the level of quality of participation in the aesthetical situation by
receivers. Analysed issues of the aesthetic situations (like satisfaction, pleasure, engagement,
the possibility of experiencing catharsis, contact with the artwork and the creator, participa-
tion comfort, possibilities of shaping the aesthetic experience, motivation to participate and
participation easiness) clearly shows detailed levels of dierences; H2) the form of participa-
tion in art shapes the level of quality of participation in the aesthetical situation by receivers
of each type of art dierently: in musical arts, performing arts, literary arts and visual arts,
in-real participation gives higher quality than digital participation; in audio-visual arts, in-real
participation gives lower quality than digital participation.
Limitations of the research: 1) the majority of the sample (60.1% + 28.2% = 88.3%) repre-
sents individuals with Bachelor’s, Engineer’s, Master’s, Doctoral and Professorship diplomas,
which means they are more conscious of their behaviour and better-equipped with tools
describing their perception of particular intangible cultural assets in comparison to less-ed-
ucated society; 2) the sample set (n = 221) is relatively small for concluding with the whole
society, especially without concern about dierences in connotations among the variety of
cultures to particular types of arts.
The results of this research may be valuable for: 1) art creators wanting to choose the
optimal way of distributing their artworks; 2) art managers for a better understanding of art
receivers’ perspectives and their opinions about participation in arts in real or digitally; 3) art
receivers to compare their private opinion about the ways of participation in arts with the
general opinion of art receivers.
Potential future research questions may be the following: 1) how do the art creators per-
ceive the artistry/creativity loss (gain) regarding dierent forms of artwork distribution? 2) what
are the dierences in artistry/creativity loss (gain) regarding dierent forms of receiving process
between dierent cultures? 3) what are the dierences in artistry/creativity loss (gain) regarding
dierent forms of receiving process between societies with dierent wealth levels?
References
Arkhangelsky, A. N., & Novikova, A. A. (2021). A transmedia turn in educational strategies: Storytelling in
teaching literature to school students. Voprosy Obrazovaniya: Educational Studies in Moscow, 2, 63–81.
https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2021-2-63-81
Born, G., & Devine, K. (2016). Gender, creativity and education in digital musics and sound art. Contem-
porary Music Review, 35(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2016.1177255
Bradley, Ch., Hirt, M., Hudson, S., Northcote, N., & Smit, S. (2020). The great acceleration. McKinsey and
Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-nance/our-insights/the-
great-acceleration#/
56 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
Buravenkova, Y., Yakupov, R., Samsonovich, A. V., & Stepanskaya, E. (2018). Toward a virtual composer
assistant. Procedia Computer Science, 123, 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.01.084
Craig, Sh. L., Eaton, A. D., Pascoe, R., Egag, E., McInroy, L. B., Fang, L., Austin, A., & Dentato, M. P. (2020).
QueerVIEW: Protocol for a technology-mediated qualitative photo elicitation study with sexual and
gender minority youth in Ontario, Canada. JMIR Research Protocols, 9(11).
https://doi.org/10.2196/20547
Dube, T. J., & İnce, G. (2019). A novel interface for generating choreography based on augmented reality.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 132, 12–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.005
Dunne-Howrie, J. (2020). Documenting performance: The contexts and processes of digital curation and
archiving. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 16(2), 217–218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14794713.2020.1778840
Fancourt, D., Baxter, L., & Lorencatto, F. (2020). Barriers and enablers to engagement in participatory arts
activities amongst individuals with depression and anxiety: Quantitative analyses using a behaviour
change framework. BMC Public Health, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8337-1
Forlini, S., Hinrichs, U., & Brosz, J. (2018). Mining the material archive: Balancing sensate experience and
sense-making in digitized print collections. Open Library of Humanities, 4(2).
https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.282
Fortuna, P., & Modliński, A. (2021). A(I)rtist or counterfeiter? Articial intelligence as (D)Evaluating factor
on the art market. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 51(3), 188–201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2021.1887032
Gołaszewska, M. (1984). Zarys estetyki: problematyka, metody, teorie. Państwowe Wydawnictwo naukowe.
Guidry, K. R. (2014). Non-response bias on web-based surveys as inuenced by the digital divide and par-
ticipation gap [PhD/Doctoral Thesis, Indiana University, United States]. https://www.proquest.com/
docview/1561559658?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20
&%20Theses
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
Guo, L., Lu, R., Zhang, H., Jin, J., Zheng, Zh., Wu, F., Li, J., Xu, H., Li, H., Lu, W., Xu, J., & Gai, K. (2020, 19–23
October). A deep prediction network for understanding advertiser intent and satisfaction. In CIKM ’20:
Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
(pp. 2501–2508). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3412681
Habelsberger, B. E. M., & Bhansing, P. V. (2021). Art galleries in transformation: Is COVID-19 driving
digitisation? Arts, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/arts10030048
Handa, J. (2020). Impact of social media and digitalization on the growth of fashion designers. Interna-
tional Journal of Textile and Fashion Technology, 10(1), 1–12.
Hermes, J., Koch, K., Bakhuisen, N., & Borghuis, P. (2017). This is my life: The stories of independent work-
ers in the creative industries in the Netherlands. Javnost – The Public, 24(1), 87–101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2017.1280892
Hobbs, R., & Tuzel, S. (2017). Teacher motivations for digital and media literacy: An examination of Turkish
educators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12326
Hracs, B. J. (2015). Cultural intermediaries in the digital age: The case of independent musicians and
managers in Toronto. Regional Studies, 49(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.750425
Huang, Y. (2015). Review of “Audience engagement and the role of arts talk in the digital era”, by Lynne
Conner. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 45(4), 269–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2015.1065537
Jackson, K. (2017). Where qualitative researchers and technologies meet: Lessons from interactive digital
art. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(10), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417731086
Jarrier, E., & Bourgeon-Renault, D. (2019). The role of digital mediation devices in the satisfaction of art
museum audiences. Journal of Marketing Trends, 5(3), 67–84.
Johansson Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Berthoin Antal, A. (2016). Routledge research in creative and
cultural industries management. Artistic interventions in organizations: Research, theory and practice.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315743486
Creativity Studies, 2024, 17(1), 41–58 57
Jung Park, H., & Lim, K. H. (2015). A study on experiential digital art user experience. International Journal
of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 10(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2015.10.4.36
Karayilanoğlu, G., & Arabacioğlu, B. C. (2020). Digital interactive experiences in contemporary art muse-
ums. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, 10(4), 423–440.
https://doi.org/10.7456/11004100/007
Kröner, S., Christ, A., & Penthin, M. (2021). Stichwort: Digitalisierung in der kulturell-ästhetischen Bildung –
eine kongurierende Forschungssynthese. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24, 9–39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-00989-7
Kudyba, S. (2020). COVID-19 and the acceleration of digital transformation and the future of work. Infor-
mation Systems Management, 37(4), 284–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1818903
Lance Nawa, L., & Sirayi, M. (2014). Digital technology and cultural heritage sites in the city of Tshwane.
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 44(4), 246–257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2014.964384
Lee, H. J. (2011). Joystick soldiers: The politics of play in military video games. Journal of Communication
Inquiry, 35(3), 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859911415408
Lei, P., & Tan, E. B. (2021). Applying digital arts experience to strengthen the organizational culture in
higher education during the pandemic. International Journal for Innovation, Education and Research,
9(5), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss5.3080
Literat, I. (2012). The work of art in the age of mediated participation: Crowdsourced art and collective
creativity. International Journal of Communication, 6, 2962–2984.
Mao, T., & Jiang, X. (2021). The use of digital media art using UI and visual sensing image technology.
Hindawi: Journal of Sensors, (Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9280945
Miles, S. (2018). “Do we have LIFT-O?” Social media marketing and digital performance at a British Arts
Festival. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 48(5), 305–320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2017.1366379
Phillips, M. (2000). The Sadeian interface: Computers and catharsis. Digital Creativity, 11(2), 75–87.
https://doi.org/10.1076/1462-6268(200005)11:2;1-R;FT075
Pianzola, F., Toccu, M., & Viviani, M. (2022). Readers’ engagement through digital social reading on Twit-
ter: The Twletteratura case study. Library Hi Tech, 40(5), 1305–1321.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-12-2020-0317
Pöppel, J., Finsterwalder, J., & Laycock, R. A. (2018). Developing a lm-based service experience blueprint-
ing technique. Journal of Business Research, 85, 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.024
Quattrini, R., Pierdicca, R., Paolanti, M., Clini, P., Nespeca, R., & Frontoni, E. (2020). Digital interaction with
3D archaeological artefacts: Evaluating user’s behaviours at dierent representation scales. Digital
Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2020.e00148
Rivas-Carmona, M. del M. (2020). The power of (re)creation and social transformation of binomial “Art-
Technology” in times of crisis: Musical poetic narrative in Rozalén’s “Lyric Video” Aves Enjauladas.
Cultura: International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, 17(2), 217–231.
https://doi.org/10.3726/CUL022020.0017
Roberge, J., & Chantepie, Ph. (2017). The promised land of comparative digital cultural policy studies.
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 47(5), 295–299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2017.1398584
Ryan, M.-L. (2015). Narrative as virtual reality: Vol. 2: Revisiting immersion and interactivity in literature
and electronic media. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book.72246
Schnugg, C. (2019). Palgrave studies in business, arts and humanities. Creating artscience collaboration:
Bringing value to organisations. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04549-4
Sosnowska, E. (2015). Touch, look and listen: The multisensory experience in digital art of Japan. CITAR:
Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, 7(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.7559/citarj.v7i1.147
Stauer, A. (2012). The nineteenth-century archive in the digital age. European Romantic Review, 23(3),
335–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509585.2012.674264
Szostak, M. (2021a). Artistry, management, and creativity: Links and common denominators. Discourses
on Culture, 16(1), 23–54.
58 M. Szostak, Ł. Sułkowski. Creativity management within the aesthetical situation regarding the in-real or digital form...
Szostak, (2021b). Digital transformation and new art experience. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.
net/post/Digital_Transformation_and_New_Art_Experience
Szostak, M. (2020). Creativity and artistry in organ music. The Organ, 391, 24–31.
Szostak, M. (2023). Perception of creative identities by artistic and non-artistic individuals: Consequences
for management. Creativity Studies, 16(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2023.15081
Szostak, M., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2021a). Identity crisis of artists during the Covid-19 pandemic and shift
towards entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(3), 87–102.
https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.090306
Szostak, M., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2021b). The challenges in identication of artists-managers: Consequences
for creativity. Creativity Studies, 14(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.13822
Szostak, M., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2021c). The identity and self-perception of artists-managers. Problems and
Perspectives in Management, 19(1), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.32
Szostak, M., & Sulkowski, L. (2020a, 1–2 April). Kitsch in management: Characteristic forms, carriers and
propagators. In K. S. Soliman (Ed.), 35th International Business Information Management Association
Conference (IBIMA 2020). Education Excellence and Innovation Management: A 2025 Vision to Sustain
Economic Development during Global Challenges (pp. 7584–7598). Seville, Spain. Curran Associates, Inc.
Szostak, M., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2020b). Manager as an artist: Creative endeavour in crossing the borders of
art and organizational discourse. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 351–368.
https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.11373
Tao, T., Sato, R., Matsuda, Y., Takata, J., Kim, F., Daikubara, Y., Fujita, K., Hanamoto, K., Kinoshita, F., Col-
man, R., & Koshiba, M. (2020). Elderly body movement alteration at 2nd experience of digital art
installation with cognitive and motivation scores. Multidisciplinary Scientic Journal, 3(2), 138–150.
https://doi.org/10.3390/j3020012
Tregua, M., Mele, C., Russo-Spena, T., Marzullo, M. L., & Carotenuto, A. (2021, July 25–29). Digital transfor-
mation in the era of Covid-19. In Ch. Leitner, W. Ganz, D. Sattereld, & C. Bassano (Eds.), Lecture Notes
in Networks and Systems: Vol. 266. Advances in the Human Side of Service Engineering: Proceedings of
the AHFE 2021 Virtual Conference on the Human Side of Service Engineering (pp. 97–105). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80840-2_10
Williams, S. (2001). Increasing employees’ creativity by training their managers. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 33(2), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850110385642
Wu, J. C. (2020). From physical to spiritual: Dening the practice of embodied sonic meditation. Organised
Sound, 25(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771820000266
Wu, Y., Zhang, L., Bryan-Kinns, N., & Barthet, M. (2017). Open symphony: Creative participation for audi-
ences of live music performances. IEEE Multimedia, 24(1), 48–62.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2017.19
Zahra, Sh. A. (2021). International entrepreneurship in the Post Covid world. Journal of World Business,
56(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101143
Zollo, L., Rialti, R., Marrucci, A., & Ciappei, C. (2022). How do museums foster loyalty in Tech-Savvy visi-
tors? The role of social media and digital experience. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(18), 2991–3008.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1896487
Zorita-Aguirre, I. (2020). Mutaciones del espacio escénico en la era digital. Arte, Individuo y Sociedad,
32(2), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.5209/aris.65437
