CREATIVITY MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE AESTHETICAL SITUATION REGARDING THE IN-REAL OR DIGITAL FORM OF PARTICIPATION IN ARTS: ART RECEIVERS’ PERSPECTIVE

. Because digitalisation of the aesthetical experience, a process speeded up by the not-yet-finished COVID-19 pandemic, should be considered in the context of growth or loss of artistry/creativity, this paper aims to assess the influence 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 five 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 differently: 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.


Introduction
Living in the 21st century, we participate in different areas of human activities through new and new ways and methods without even particular notice.However, the form of participation 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 first studies indicate that global changes towards the intensification of digital transformation affect most activities, 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).Although significant changes affect 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 influenced 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 differently (Lei & Tan, 2021).Considering the participation in arts from the perspective of the aesthetical situation (Gołaszewska, 1984;Szostak, 2020Szostak, , 2021a;;Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020b), we understand this process from two separate ends: the creators' 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 divided 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 technologies 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 differently.
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.

Literature review
Art in human life has been existing since the earliest times.Although aesthetics as an autonomic 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).Primarily, creativity was recognised submissively as imitation (mimesis).Afterwards, the process of defining and analysing the wonder of individual creativity, which is crucial for our considerations, 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 defined states (Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020b).
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 circumstances.On the other side, from the practical point of view, the unadjusted to-the-circumstances 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 fluent in using a less efficient form of participation without losing too much from arts content.On the other side, even the most efficient form of participation may not be sufficient to deliver the entire content 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-finished COVID-19 pandemic, it will not be easy to assess which factors were the causes and the effects 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 identification (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 affective dimensions of art participation by going beyond the usual approach to arts.In new digital circumstances, arts workers and lovers stimulate inclusion and active participation 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 justified 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, andspiritual (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 find arguments for both approaches.Digital technologies allow reshaping the environment 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 affects and is shaped by particular cultures differently, 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 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 suffer from apathy, lack of interest and enthusiasm, which can accompany 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 participation 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 participation 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 significant problem is a relationship between value and quality, which humans use to assess and compare various objects, including 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 participation in musical arts allows for these adjustments and -if done randomly -the artwork influences the receiver differently from the creator's desire.Significantly, 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 affected by digitalisation, showing how different 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).
Theoretically, literary arts should not be deeply affected 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 fingertips, but the books themselves are increasingly changing from "physical repositories" to "access portals" to its content.We can find that people who are drawn to print artefacts (books, journals) often find that digital surrogates lack feeling.Digitised texts preserve the linguistic content of print works but not their many meaningful physical features that fundamentally shape interpretation and contain valuable historical traces and readerly interactions (Stauffer, 2012).Changing the physical interactions with artwork also may affect 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 significant differences 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 influenced 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 significantly determines the shape of the receiving process: a painting is determined by its content but also by its form (size), environment (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 effectiveness and sustainability of the aesthetic situation digitisation are yet to be proven (Lance Nawa & Sirayi, 2014).
Organisations can benefit from aesthetics on many levels: 1) translating arts into organisational 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(Szostak, , 2023;;Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020a, 2020b).Based on this, management -understood as achieving goals efficiently -is about choosing and moderating the optimal type of participation in each type of art considering 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).

Methods and materials
Initially, secondary-type research in reviewing literature and data was undertaken.The literature 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 five years (2017)(2018)(2019)(2020)(2021).The methodological approach to the literature review was based on an interdisciplinary 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.
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 meaningful results about possibly different 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 official announcements by universities.The survey, prepared in English only and containing 71 questions, was split into six segments.The first five 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 respondents 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 the research sample is the following.Respondents (55.2% male and 44.8% female) represented 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 bachelor, 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.

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 specific reasons for lack of participation: nor time limits, nor financial limits, nor lack of need, nor lack of appropriate companionship are the main reasons here (see Figure 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 performing 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 differences 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), literary 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 performing arts (3.10).Finally, the size of the quality differences 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).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 coefficient -according to Guilford's (1954) classification -between 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).

Regarding qualities of the aesthetical situation
After analysing the general differences 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.

Satisfaction
Musical arts receivers feel greater satisfaction flowing from in-real participation (4.35); next, in descending order, are performing arts (4.16), visual arts (4.10), literary arts (4.05), and audio-visual arts (3.74).Audio-visual arts receivers feel greater satisfaction flowing 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 differences 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 insufficient to exceed the traditional ways.

Pleasure
Musical arts receivers have greater pleasure flowing 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 flowing 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 differences 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 participation without digital intermediaries (only audio-visual arts receivers have the opposite opinion).

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 audio-visual arts (3.72).Audio-visual arts receivers feel greater engagement during digital participation (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 differences between participation in real and digitally looks as follows (in ascending order): performing arts (-27.5%),musical arts (-26.9%),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.

The possibility of experiencing catharsis
Musical arts receivers feel a higher possibility of experiencing catharsis during in-real participation (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 literary arts (3.41), musical arts (3.14), visual arts (3.11), and performing arts (3.08).The size of differences 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.

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 better 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 differences 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 participation in most art types (excluding audio-visual arts) allows receivers to maintain contact with the artwork more deeply than the digital forms of participation.

Contact with the performer itself
Musical arts receivers feel the best contact with the performer itself during in-real participation (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 performer 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 differences 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.

Comfort of participation
Musical arts receivers feel higher comfort during in-real participation (4.07); next, in descending 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 performing arts (3.29).The size of differences 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.The size of differences 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 aesthetical 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.

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 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 differences between own motivation to participate 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.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.

Conclusions
Answering the hypotheses of this research, it can be said that: H1) the digital form of participation 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, participation comfort, possibilities of shaping the aesthetic experience, motivation to participate and participation easiness) clearly shows detailed levels of differences; 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 differently: 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%)represents 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-educated society; 2) the sample set (n = 221) is relatively small for concluding with the whole society, especially without concern about differences 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 perceive the artistry/creativity loss (gain) regarding different forms of artwork distribution?2) what are the differences in artistry/creativity loss (gain) regarding different forms of receiving process between different cultures?3) what are the differences in artistry/creativity loss (gain) regarding different forms of receiving process between societies with different wealth levels?

Figure 1 .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 3 .Figure 4 .
Figure 3. Types of particular arts preferred by the receivers (source: created by authors)

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Receivers' assessment of their satisfaction flowing from a particular type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Receivers' assessment of their pleasure flowing from a particular type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Receivers' assessment of their engagement in a particular type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)

Figure 8 .
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)

Figure 9 .
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)

Figure 10 .
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)

Figure 11 .
Figure 11.Receivers' assessment of comfort of participation in a particular type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)

Figure 12 .
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)

Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Receivers' assessment of their motivation to participate in a particular type of art concerning the form of participation (source: created by authors)