PECULIARITIES OF ART MANAGEMENT IN A DIGITAL CONTEXT – CASE STUDY OF POLAND

. The digitalisation of the aesthetic experience affects the level of artistry and creativity transfer by the artwork and the quality of participation in the arts. Due to cultural differences between Poles other countries’ citizens in perception qualities, this study assesses the effect of the participation form (in-real or digital) in the aesthetic situation by receivers on artistry and creativity potential. The quality of participation in five arts types (musical, performing, literary, audio-visual, visual) was assessed using ten criteria. Data analysis, based on a worldwide sample (38 countries, n = 221). The participation form in arts determines participation quality in the aesthetic situation differently by Polish and non-Polish receivers. Furthermore, there are noteworthy cultural variances among Polish and non-Polish art receivers of particular types of arts and particular forms of participation in arts. The study outcomes may interest: art creators looking for the optimal way of delivering artworks among receivers from Poland and other countries; art managers and marketers for deeper understanding of Polish art receivers’ viewpoints and their preferences about participation in arts in-real or digitally; art receivers to compare their judgement about the participation ways in arts with the preferences of Polish art receivers. The first attempt in the literature assessing the quality of the participation in the aesthetic situation regarding the form of participation between Polish and non-Polish societies.


Introduction
For centuries, the content of human activities has been relatively fixed, although their forms change endlesslycurrently, in-real activities are quickly transferred to digital forms or changed by them.Because the form of participation affects participation content and accordingly switches contributions and results (Karayilanoğlu & Arabacioğlu, 2020), culture diversifies them even more (Hofstede, 2011;Vollero et al., 2020).Furthermore, digitalisation progressively transforms the culture in its wholeness: along with technological progress comes a conversion of social contacts, aesthetic experiences and forms of expression (Kröner et al., 2021).In constantlyevolved settings, also management needs new methodologies and tools.
The COVID-19 pandemic marked many processes and sped up digital participation in various areas, including the arts (Lei & Tan, 2021).Considering the participation in arts from the aesthetic situation perspective, the examination should be undertaken from two edges: the creators' and the receivers' (Gołaszewska, 1984;Szostak, 2020Szostak, , 2021a;;Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020a).Therefore, the spine of this examination is a function of the "aesthetic situation" and "digital technologies" to get evidence about the change of creativity and artistry potential.The leading research issue is analysing the impact of "digital technologies" on particular "aesthetic situation" components, adding the lens of cultural factors.Therefore, the central exploration on this issue was separated into two levels: 1) creator-artwork (creative process) and 2) artwork-receiver (receiving process).This article highlights the artwork-receiver perspective, and its goals are: 1) assessment of the influence of digital technologies on the perception of each type of arts by non-Poles and Poles; 2) assessment of the scale of the influence of digital technologies on the perception of each type of arts by non-Poles and Poles; 3) assessment of the scale of creativity and artistry loss or gain because of the use of digital technologies in each type of art seen by non-Poles and Poles.Therefore, based on cultural differences, the following research hypothesis was created to achieve these goals: The form of participation (in-real or digital) in arts shapes participation quality in the aesthetic situation by the non-Polish and Polish arts receivers differently.Therefore, the following research questions were set to verify this hypothesis: RQ1) How do the non-Polish and Polish arts receivers perceive the quality of participation in particular types of arts regarding the form of participation (in-real or digitally)?RQ2) What are the differences among the non-Polish and Polish arts receivers between particular forms of participation in particular types of arts?RQ3) What are the differences among the non-Polish and Polish arts receivers between participation in particular types of arts regarding the form of participation?

Literature review
Communism and ethnocentric individualism are two main metatheories explaining the faintness of postcommunist social capital.Weak but collectively accepted social capital habits link bribery, corruption, favouritism and achieve institutional fairness.Decades of conjunction with established democracies support citizens having ambitions well suited to the context of post-communist transformation to make up for the delay of decades gripping the jaws of communism (Soaita & Wind, 2020).Conversion between publicly-and privateowned assets shapes people's minds, behaviours, and objectives (Huber & Montag, 2020).Researchers explored the quality of social capital among post-communist societiesincluding Poland (Dolšak, 2019;Markowska-Przybyła, 2020;Nicoara, 2018;Soaita & Wind, 2020).Poland, placed between two powerful nations of Germany and Russia, has been a space of political conflicts and a safety buffer reducing the aggressors' impulses; this factor determines many social, behavioural, mental and cultural consequences of individuals and the whole nation.The far-reaching conclusion may be drawn here: the Polish nation has a severe problem with planned and constant improvement of social capital, which is seen in old-fashioned education, low participation, high emigration, constant internal fights (Aksiuto, 2019;Markowska-Przybyła, 2020;Markowska-Przybyła & Ramsey, 2016;Vučković & Škuflić, 2021).
It is worth asking about the reasons for dissimilarities between societies in assessing the receiving process of arts.The system transformation theory focused on time perspective for changes in culture and identity (individual and group) may be the first answer; longer and tighter embrace of communism, more significant changes and more extended period of leaving the past.These results were investigated by researchers of European post-communistic countries like the Czech Republic (Hornat, 2019), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (Kreuzer & Pettai, 2003), Slovakia (Mikloš, 2021), and still communist countries like China (Xue et al., 2021).There are three transformation approaches: gradualist approach, radical approach, and spontaneous approach (Mikloš, 2021).Each of them influences the cultural dimensions differently due to education system quality and governments' priorities during the transformation process (Birch, 2003;Golob & Makarovič, 2017;Hornat, 2019).The second answer may be Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory indicating the impact of a society's culture on its members' values and behaviours (Hofstede, 2011).Following this theory, communist and post-communist societies equipped with diverse values structures evaluate participation in arts inversely compared to societies without communist background (Szostak, 2022a); this record is confirmed by the research about cultural differences of perception of creative identities of artists, managers, leaders and entrepreneurs (Szostak, 2021b(Szostak, , 2021d(Szostak, , 2022d;;Szostak & Sułkowski, 2021c, 2021a).It cannot be forgotten that the communism burden had (or still has) been having diverse forms and influences: the Chinese society is differently influenced by its form of communism contrasted to Polish or Czech ones after dozens of years of freedom (Bartlová, 2019;Kozieł, 2019;Pavlica & Thorpe, 1998;Szostak, 2021d;Tan, 2012).Art history is filled with theories created by communist or fascist despots using culture as a crucial factor of their command (Gupta, 2010;Rasmussen, 2021).After the Cold War, profound political, economic, social, and cultural transformations in the former Eastern Bloc began, and forces started back to equilibrium (Kaljula, 2015).Post-communist countries started a new era of changes in the world of art.Gender factors, determining the structure of the society, may also have an essential influence on perception qualities by each nation (Szostak, 2021c(Szostak, , 2022b)).
In the aesthetic situation theory, the most visible sign of creativity is the artwork; in the creator's personality, the essential processes making up the phenomenon of creativity happen.The work of art is a carrier of creativity and artistry (Szostak, 2020); simultaneously, the level of creativity and artistry (including universal values) located in the artwork varies on the art receiver's attitude and the form of participation in arts (Szostak, 2021a).The activity of artistic creation is shaped by specified factors like personality conditions, social conditions, a wealth of experience.However, a straightforward creative attitude is insufficient to start the creative processcreativity itself, with a crucial role of motifs and inspirations, is also necessary (Szostak, 2020(Szostak, , 2021a)).Inevitably, cultural predispositions to improvisation and fixation play also an important role here (Szostak, 2019(Szostak, , 2021a)).Art, as a way of transferring the artist's will into the artwork to affect the receivers, plays an essential role in cultural development.The artist's role is to communicate inner states by expressing them and allowing recipients to achieve them (Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020a).From the aesthetic situation point of view, the creator generates his artwork reflecting the natural world and the world of universal values, and the creator departs this ready-made result (artwork) for the receiver.The receiver selects the way of participation in the receiving process fitting to particular conditions.On the other side, the unadjusted-to-the-circumstances choice of the perception form determines the content of the receiving process.More-experienced receivers may be supplementary fluent in using a less efficient form of participation without the quality of the content.Opposing, even the most efficient participation form may not be sufficient to distribute the entire content to the less-experienced receiver (Gołaszewska, 1984;Szostak, 2020).
Participation in arts involves senses (Ekmekçi et al., 2014;Sosnowska, 2015) andbecause of cultural differencessocieties use their senses differently (Doğan et al., 2019).However, despite arts' digitalisation being regulated by the technical possibilities to transmit the analogue senses' experience into virtual dimensions (Mao & Jiang, 2021), digital participation in arts plays the role of 'digital mediation', which locates the role of digital technology in a proper place, i.e., in 'between' the artwork and the receiver (Jarrier & Bourgeon-Renault, 2019).Furthermore, senses allow for physical, emotional (Buravenkova et al., 2018), intellectual, andspiritual (Rivas-Carmona, 2020;J. C. Wu, 2020) participation in art.Therefore, examination of the receiving process on all levels in the context of cultural differences exposes the investigated problem's complexity level.
The last decades revealed new general trends in arts: globalisation of opinions, globalisation of trends, direct contact between creator and the audience, mass production, popularisation and intensification of kitsch (McBride, 2005;Szostak, 2021a;Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020b).The digitalisation, constantly developing IT tools and social media forced arts to take a sharp turn (Handa, 2020).Performative arts has especially undergone a fundamental shift since ephemeral performance may currently be stopped, replayed and repeated (Dunne-Howrie, 2020).Even though the increase of digitalisation use in arts has been more intense year by year, the COVID-19 pandemic added new stimuli to this process.Parallelly, aside from the digital transformation of the participation in arts, there are complementary trends among artists like their shift to entrepreneurship (Szostak & Sułkowski, 2021b) or new problems with artists' auto-identification (Szostak & Sułkowski, 2021c).That is why digitalisation may be seen as a revolution or evolution.Digital technologies allow redesigning the environment and historical attempts to numerous issues.Therefore, it can be said that today's culture is ordered by digitalisation (Roberge & Chantepie, 2017).Because the digital transformation affects and is shaped by specific cultures differently, it also amplifies spirituality from its real context in the socio-cultural interpretation of the natural world to current digitally-mediated settings (Sosnowska, 2015).Mediatisation of cultural practices has been changing the processes of cultural memory structure, and online interaction skills have become the basis of education to balance tradition and innovation (Arkhangelsky & Novikova, 2021).The goal of using the Internet as a participating platform engaging the public in creating artwork is to showcase the relationship between the shared imagination and the specific artistic sensibilities of its participants (Literat, 2012).
Digitalisation, broadening horizons for art receivers, unlocks further concerns simultaneously.First, the mass receivers' attitude forces decreasing the artwork's artistic quality.Second, the digitalisation of arts develops the serving role of arts to make them more understandable, customer-friendly and artistry-reduced (Pöppel et al., 2018;Szostak, 2021a).Third, digital exclusion limits participation in the receiving process (Hracs, 2015;Rikou & Chaviara, 2016).Still, a vital question is a relationship between value and quality, which is used to measure and compare various objects they encounter (Fortuna & Modliński, 2021).E.g., considering musical arts, during the reception of a recital in in-real form, the receiver meets the artwork in its determined appearance: no volume adjustments, no pauses.On the contrary, the digital form of participation in musical arts allows for these adjustments, and the artwork may affect the receiver differently from the creator's desire.Fourth, in performing arts participated in-real, a receiver is also a hostage of the artwork; he must keep the regimes of the artwork (its length, volume, visibility).Digitalisation probably shapes the performing arts (Dube & İnce, 2019).Finally, the concept of self-historicisation, merging with the contemporary artistic language of performance, supports the artists' recognition in the international art context; a long period of communism shaping the culture of participation in art plays a vital role here (Proksch-Weilguni, 2019).The use of visual image technology in art also permits the growth of digital media art (Mao & Jiang, 2021) and, accordingly, a never-ending cycle of mutual inspirations.The form of the receiving process of visual arts profoundly affects the shape of the receiving process: a painting is determined by its content and form (e.g.size), environment, emotions shaped by these issues and linked to the receiver's approach towards the artwork.Based on that, digital collaboration in art, digital marketing and digital performance can differentiate and include audiences as authentic arts co-producers (Fortuna & Modliński, 2021).It seems interesting to examine how art receivers of different cultures (Polish and non-Polish) perceive artworks created in this process because the effectiveness and sustainability of the aesthetic situation digitisation are not apparent (Nawa & Sirayi, 2014;Rusinko, 2020).
From the point of view of management, companies and organisations can gain from aesthetics on many levels: 1) utilising artistic interventions for individual and group creativity development or problems solving (Schnuugg, 2019;Skoldberg Johansson et al., 2015); 2) interpreting arts into executive action using the effectiveness of art forms (Pöppel et al., 2018); 3) utilising abstract concepts of aesthetics into management theory and practice (Szostak, 2021a(Szostak, , 2022c;;Szostak & Sułkowski, 2020a, 2020b).Based on this, management selects and regulates the optimal type of participation in each type of art, considering the acceptable grade of creativity and artistry loss or gain.Furthermore, art creators work differently in the digital environment needing assistance from co-workers, contractors, and managers, playing a significant role in connecting, harmonising and curating projects and processes (Hracs, 2015).Also, marketers attempting to adjust to constant changes in the market may gain from this research.Cultural differences determine all these optics, and the communism factor plays an important role here.
Considering the above analysis, there is a vital research gap in the sensitivity of arts towards digital participation forms and defining the consequences of the differences between digital and in-real participation forms by Polish citizens compared to other countries, both post-communist and non-communist.For example, it may turn out that digital participation in an artistically valuable theatrical performance is much less valuable for a digital audience than a series of average quality designed for digital receptionthis research tries to fill this gap.
In the second step, a quantitative exploration was completed to estimate culturally-differentiated receivers' participation quality in each type of art analysed based on the ten criteria described above.Furthermore, this step aimed to conclude the results about possibly different artistic activities being comprehensible simultaneously.IBM SPSS and MS Excel software executed data analysis; however, complex statistics were not conducted due to the small sample size (n = 221).The quantitative investigation was held between May and December 2021, applying digital tools by SURVIO company.The survey, in English, was dispersed by social media, direct requests and official announcements.It contained 71 questions and was divided into six parts.The first five parts regarded each type of art.All questions were closed-type; respondents could select prepared answers only.While assessing the level of quality of a factor, the respondents used a 5-step Lickert scale: very low (1), rather low (2), neutral (3), rather high (4), very high (5).The sixth part of the survey permitted categorising the respondents regarding age, gender, nationality and education level.28.4% out of 777 visits concluded in 221 responses.The oldest participant was born in 1931 (90 y.o.) and the youngest in 2005 (16 y.o.).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.Respondents (55.2% men and 44.8% women) came from 38 countries including 37.2% from Poland.The participant assessed belonging to the Polish circle based on which country he had lived in for the longest period and which culture was closest to him.

Findings
86.2% of respondents (i.e.87.3% of non-Poles and 84.3% of Poles) participate in cultural life.On the contrary, 13.8% of respondents (12.7% of non-Poles and 15.7% of Poles) do not do it at all.See: Figure 1.Non-Poles participate in cultural life by choosing musical arts in 69.9%, performing arts in 62.1%, literary arts in 44.7%, audio-visual arts in 61.2% and visual arts in 51.5%.Poles participate in cultural life by choosing musical arts in 55.8%, performing arts in 57.1%, literary arts in 41.6%, audio-visual arts in 61.2% and visual arts in 28.6%.See: Figure 2. It can be said that Poles participate in arts much rare than non-Poles (in descending order): 44.5% less in visual arts, 34.4% less in audio-visual arts, 20.1% more in musical arts, 8.0% less in performing arts and 6.9% less in literary arts.See: Figure 3.

Regarding the type of arts
The majority of all types of arts receivers is involved both in classical and popular forms of arts: 54.4% of non-Poles and 81.4% of Poles in musical arts (difference: 49.6%), 64.1% of non-Poles and 76.7% of Poles in performing arts (difference: 19.8%), 65.1% of non-Poles and 74.2% of Poles in literary arts (difference: 13.9%), 78.3% of non-Poles and 67.7% of Poles in audio-visual arts (difference: 13.5%), and 68.1% of non-Poles and 77.3% of Poles in visual arts (difference: 13.5%).However, only the classical form is attended by: 36.8% of non-Poles and 9.3% of Poles in the case of musical arts (difference: 74.7%), 25.0% of non-Poles and 14.0 % of Poles in case of performing arts (difference: 44.2%), 25.6% of non-Poles and 16.1% of Poles in case of literary arts (difference: 37.0%), 3.3% of non-Poles and 9.7% of Poles in case audio-visual arts (difference: 190.3%), and 17.0% of non-Poles and 13.6% of Poles in case of visual arts (difference: 19.9%).On the other hand, only the popular form is attended by: 8.8% of non-Poles and 9.3% of Poles in case of musical arts (difference: 5.4%), 10.9% of non-Poles and 9.3% of Poles in case of performing arts (difference: 15.0%), 9.3% of non-Poles and 9.7% of Poles in case of literary arts (difference: 4.0%), 18.3% of non-Poles and 22.6% of Poles in case audiovisual arts (difference: 23.2%), and 14.9% of non-Poles and 9.1% of Poles in case of visual arts (difference: 39.0%).See: Figure 4   Source: own elaboration.

Regarding qualities of the aesthetic situation
After analysing general variances between the forms of participation in each type of art by the non-Poles and Poles, it is worth verifying how particular components of the aesthetic situation behave regarding the type of participation in each type of art concerning the art receiver's cultural roots.

Satisfaction
Musical arts receivers from non-Poland and Poland assess their satisfaction concerning the form of participation in the receiving process in the following distribution: in-real -  9 and Figure 10.
We can see the following variances between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding their satisfaction flowing from a particular type of art.First, non-Poles assess digital participation in musical arts as 25.5% less satisfactory than in-real; for Poles, this difference is slightly higher, i.e. 28.2%.Second, the non-Poles assess digital participation in performing arts as 26.9% less satisfactory than in-real; this difference is 31.0%for Poles.Third, the non-Poles assess digital participation in literary arts as 11.6% less satisfactory than in-real; this difference is 16.8% for Poles.Fourth, the non-Poles assess digital participation in audio-visual arts as 5.8% more satisfactory than in-real; this difference is 3.4% for Poles.Finally, the non-Poles assess digital participation in visual arts as 14.3% less satisfactory than in-real; this difference is 25.3% for Poles.See: Figure 11.We can see the following variances between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding their pleasure flowing from a particular type of art.First, non-Poles assess digital participation in musical arts as 25.5% less pleasing than in-real; this difference is 28.2% for Poles.Second, non-Poles assess digital participation in performing arts as 26.9% less pleasing than in-real; this difference is 31.0%for Poles.Third, non-Poles assess digital participation in literary arts as 11.6% less pleasing than in-real; this difference is 16.8% for Poles.Fourth, non-Poles assess digital participation in audio-visual arts as 5.8% more pleasing than inreal; this difference is 3.4% for Poles.Finally, non-Poles assess digital participation in visual arts as 14.3% less pleasing than in-real; this difference is 25.3% for Poles.See: Figure 14.We can see the following variances between the form of participation in the receiving process by the non-Poles and the Poles regarding their engagement flowing from a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.Source: own elaboration.Source: own elaboration.

Contact with the artwork itself
We can see the following about the variances between the form of participation in the receiving process by the non-Poles and the Poles regarding contact with the artwork itself in a particular type of art.First, the non-Poles assess digital participation in musical arts as allowing 25.8% less contact with the artwork itself than in-real; this difference is 24.8% for Poles.Second, the non-Poles assess digital participation in performing arts as allowing 28.7% less contact with the artwork itself than in-real; this difference is 29.7% for the Poles.Third, the non-Poles assess digital participation in literary arts as allowing 14.8% less contact with the artwork itself than in-real; this difference is 16.9% for Poles.Fourth, the non-Poles assess digital participation in audio-visual arts as allowing 10.4% more contact with the artwork itself than in-real; the Poles assess digital participation in audio-visual arts as allowing 1.6% more contact with the artwork itself than in-real.Finally, the non-Poles assess digital participation in visual arts as allowing 19.5% less contact with the artwork itself than in-real; this difference is 29.0% for Poles.See: Figure 23.Source: own elaboration.

Contact with the performer itself
We can see the following variances between the form of participation in the receiving process by the non-Poles and the Poles regarding their contact with the performer itself flowing from a particular type of art.First, the non-Poles assess digital participation in musical arts as allowing 30.9% less contact with the performer itself than inreal; for Poles, this difference is 34.5%.Second, the non-Poles assess digital participation in performing arts as allowing 29.9% less contact with the performer itself than in-real; this difference is 33.7% for Poles.Third, the non-Poles assess digital participation in literary arts as allowing 9.1% less contact with the performer itself than in-real; this difference is 19.8% for the Poles.Fourth, the non-Poles assess digital participation in audio-visual arts as allowing 4.2% more contact with the performer itself than in-real; the Poles assess digital participation in audio-visual arts as allowing 1.6% less contact with the performer itself than in-real.Finally, the non-Poles assess digital participation in visual arts as allowing 21.1% less contact with the performer itself than in-real; this difference is 22.6% for the Poles.See: Figure 26.Source: own elaboration.
We can see the following differences between the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art by the non-Poles and the Poles regarding their comfort level.First, the non-Poles assess the comfort of digital participation in musical arts as 19.3% lower than in-real; this difference is 10.1% lower for Poles.Second, the non-Poles assess the comfort of digital participation in performing arts as 18.9% lower than in-real; this difference is 11.9% lower for Poles.Third, the non-Poles assess the comfort of digital participation in literary arts as 7.6% lower than in-real; this difference is 20.2% for Poles.Fourth, the non-Poles assess the comfort of digital participation in audio-visual arts as 7.8% higher than in-real; the Poles assess the comfort of digital participation in audio-visual arts as 19.4% higher than in-real.Finally, the non-Poles assess the comfort of digital participation in visual arts as 12.0% lower than in-real; this difference is 12.5% lower for Poles.See: Figure 29.We can see the following differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by the non-Poles and the Poles regarding the possibility of shaping the aesthetical experience in particular types of art.First, the non-Poles assess the possibility of shaping the aesthetical experience in digital participation in musical arts as 9.5% lower than in-real; for Poles, this difference is 5.6% higher.Second, the non-Poles assess the possibility of shaping the aesthetical experience in digital participation in performing arts as 14.0% lower than in-real; this difference is 18.4% for Poles.Third, the non-Poles assess the possibility of shaping the aesthetical experience in digital participation in literary arts as 9.9% lower than in-real; this difference is 8.8% for Poles.Fourth, the non-Poles assess the possibility of shaping the aesthetical experience in digital participation in audio-visual arts as 9.7% better than in-real; this difference is 23.7% for Poles.Finally, the non-Poles assess the possibility of shaping the aesthetical experience in digital participation in visual arts as 13.0% lower than in-real; this difference is 4.3% for Poles.See: Figure 32.Source: own elaboration.
We can see the following about the differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by the non-Poles and the Poles regarding their motivation to participate in particular types of art.First, the non-Poles assess their motivation to participate digitally in musical arts as 23.3% lower than in-real; this difference is 11.4% Source: own elaboration.
We can see the following about the differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding the easiness of participation in a particular type of art.First, non-Poles assess the easiness of digital participation in musical arts as 4.1% lower than in-real; Poles assess the easiness of digital participation in musical arts as 25.3% higher than in-real.Second, non-Poles assess the easiness of digital participation in performing arts as 4.9% lower than in-real; this difference is 6.7% higher for Poles.Third, non-Poles assess the easiness of digital participation in literary arts as 1.4% lower than in-real; this difference is 0.9% lower for Poles.Fourth, non-Poles assess the easiness of digital participation in audio-visual arts as 18.4% higher than in-real; this difference is 38.3% for Poles.Finally, non-Poles assess the easiness of digital participation in visual arts as 5.3% lower than in-real; Poles assess the easiness of digital participation in visual arts as 2.3% higher than in-real.See: Figure 38.Source: own elaboration.

Conclusions
The form of participation (in-real or digital) in arts influences the level of participation quality in the aesthetic situation in the assessment of the Polish receivers compared to receivers from other countries.Cultural variances between participation in particular types of arts and cultural variances between particular forms of participation in particular types of arts by Poles and non-Poles are also visible.Extrapolating the conclusions, it can be said that these differences are based on fundamental cultural dimensions, e.g.individualism-collectivism or uncertainty avoidance and arise strictly from history.Probably, proportionally to time flowing from the moment of starting the journey from communism to capitalism, these differences will diminish and will confirm particular national features without the influence of post-communist traumas.It must be underlined that this research and paper is the first attempt in the literature assessing the quality of the participation in the aesthetic situation regarding the digital and in-real forms of participation between Polish and non-Polish societies' citizens.
Limitations of the research: 1) The majority of the sample (88.3%) represents individuals with Bachelor's, Engineer's Master's, Doctoral and Professorship qualifications, who are more aware of their behaviour and betterequipped to portray their perception of intangible assets and features in comparison to the rest of society; 2) The sample set was relatively small (n = 221).
The results of this analysis may be inspiring for: 1) Art creators exploring the optimal methods of distributing artworks among receivers from Poland and other countries; 2) Art managers and marketers for a more profound understanding of Polish art receivers' perspectives and their predilections about participation in arts in-real or digitally; 3) Art receivers to balance their opinion about the ways of participation in arts with the preferences of art receivers from Poland.
Potential research questions for future research may be the following: 1) How do Polish and non-Polish art creators perceive the artistry and creativity loss or gain regarding diverse forms of artwork distribution?2) What are the variances between Polish and other post-communist countries' citizens in artistry and creativity loss or gain regarding diverse forms of receiving process? 3) What are the variances in artistry and creativity loss or gain regarding diverse forms of receiving process by the Polish and other post-communist countries' citizens?

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Participation in all types of arts by non-Poles and Poles.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Participation in each type of art by non-Poles and Poles.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Differences between Poles and non-Poles in participation in each type of art.Source: own elaboration.
and Figure 5.The research exposes the following variances between non-Poles and Poles in the form of participation in arts.Musical arts receivers assess the quality of the aesthetic situation concerning the form of participation in the following distribution: in-real -4.15 by non-Poles and 4.02 by Poles (difference 3.0%), digitally -3.24 by non-Poles and 3.35 by Poles (difference 3.3%).Performing arts receivers assess the quality of the whole aesthetic situation as follows: in-real -4.01 by non-Poles and 3.96 by Poles (difference 1.4%), digitally -3.07 by non-Poles and 3.05 by Poles (difference 0.7%).Literary arts receivers assess the quality of the whole aesthetic situation as follows: in-real -4.04 by non-Poles and 3.90 by Poles (difference 3.6%), digitally -3.67 by non-Poles and 3.24 by Poles (difference 11.8%).Audio-visual arts receivers assess the quality of the whole aesthetic situation: in-real -3.64 by non-Poles and 3.56 by Poles (difference 2.0%), digitally -3.94 by non-Poles and 3.90 by Poles (difference 1.1%).Finally, visual arts receivers assess the quality of the whole aesthetic situation: in-real -4.07 by non-Poles and 3.94 by Poles (difference 3.2%), digitally -3.45 by non-Poles and 3.16 by Poles (difference 8.5%).See: Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Participation in particular arts regarding arts types (classical only, both classical and popular, popular only) by non-Poles and Poles.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Differences between non-Poles and Poles in participation in different arts regarding arts types (classical only, both classical and popular, popular only).Source: own elaboration.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Assessment of the aesthetic situation quality regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of arts between non-Polish and Polish citizens.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing the aesthetic situation quality regarding the in-real and digital form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Differences between non-Poles' and Poles' assessment of the receiving process regarding the aesthetic situation quality of a particular type of art considering the form of participation (in-real or digital).Source: own elaboration.According to non-Poles, musical arts comparing digital to in-real participation lose 21.9% of the receiving process quality and 16.8%, according to Poles.Performing arts lose accordingly 23.4% to the non-Poles and 22.9% to Poles.Literary arts lose 9.1% to the non-Poles and 16.9% to Poles.On the other hand, audio-visual arts, comparing digital to in-real participation, gain 8.4% to non-Poles and 9.3% to Poles.On the other hand, visual arts lose 15.4% to the non-Poles and 20.0% to the Poles.See: Figure 8.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9. Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' satisfaction flowing from a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 10 .
Figure 10.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing their satisfaction regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 11 .
Figure 11.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding their satisfaction flowing from a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 12 .
Figure 12.Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' pleasure flowing from a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing their pleasure regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 14 .
Figure 14.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding their pleasure flowing from a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 15 .
Figure 15.Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' engagement flowing from a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 16 .
Figure 16.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing their engagement regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 17 .
Figure 17.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding their engagement flowing from a particular type of art.

Figure 18 .
Figure 18.Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' possibility of experiencing catharsis in a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.Source: own elaboration.Musical arts receivers from the non-Poland and Poland assess their possibility of experiencing catharsis concerning the form of participation in the receiving process in the following distribution: in-real -4.08 by the

Figure 19 .
Figure 19.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing the possibility of experiencing catharsis regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.We can see the following variances between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding the possibility of experiencing catharsis from a particular type of art.First, non-Poles assess digital participation in musical arts as 25.1% less enabling experiencing catharsis than in-real; this difference is 23.6% for Poles.Second, non-Poles assess digital participation in performing arts as 20.3% less enabling experiencing catharsis than in-real; this difference is 26.1% for Poles.Third, non-Poles assess digital participation in literary arts as 10.7% less enabling experiencing catharsis than in-real; this difference is 22.0% for Poles.Fourth, non-Poles assess digital participation in audio-visual arts as 8.1% more enabling experiencing catharsis than in-real; Poles assess digital participation in audio-visual arts as 0.7% more enabling experiencing catharsis.Finally, non-Poles assess digital participation in visual arts as 15.4% less enabling experiencing catharsis than inreal; this difference is 34.2% for Poles.See: Figure 20.

Figure 20 .
Figure 20.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles the possibility of experiencing catharsis in a particular type of art.

Figure 21 .
Figure 21.Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' contact with the artwork itself in a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.Source: own elaboration.Musical arts receivers from non-Poland and Poland assess their contact with the artwork itself concerning the form of participation in the receiving process in the following distribution: in-real -4.20 by non-Poles and 4.35 by Poles (difference of 3.6%), digitally -3.11 by non-Poles and 3.27 by Poles (difference of 4.9%).Performing arts receivers assess their contact with the artwork itself as follows: in-real -4.13 by non-Poles and 4.09 by Poles

Figure 22 .
Figure 22.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing contact with the artwork itself regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 23 .
Figure 23.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding contact with the artwork itself flowing from a particular type of art.

Figure 24 .
Figure 24.Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' contact with the performer itself in a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.Source: own elaboration.Musical arts receivers from non-Poland and Poland assess their contact with the performer itself concerning the form of participation in the receiving process in the following distribution: in-real -4.19 by non-Poles and 4.21 by Poles (difference of 0.4%), digitally -2.90 by non-Poles and 2.76 by Poles (difference of 4.9%).Performing arts receivers assess their contact with the performer itself as follows: in-real -4.06 by non-Poles and 4.05 by Poles (difference of 0.3%), digitally -2.85 by non-Poles and 2.68 by Poles (difference of 5.8%).Literary arts receivers assess their contact with the performer itself as follows: in-real -4.23 by non-Poles and 3.90 by Poles (difference of 7.8%), digitally -3.85 by non-Poles and 3.13 by Poles (difference of 18.6%).Audio-visual arts receivers assess their contact with the performer itself: in-real -3.58 by non-Poles and 3.43 by Poles (difference of 4.1%), digitally -3.73 by non-Poles and 3.38 by Poles (difference of 9.5%).Finally, visual arts receivers assess their contact with the performer itself: in-real -4.06 by non-Poles and 4.00 by Poles (difference of 1.4%), digitally -3.20 by non-Poles and 3.10 by Poles (difference of 3.3%).See: Figure 24 and Figure 25.

Figure 25 .
Figure 25.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing contact with the performer itself regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 26 .
Figure 26.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding contact with the performer itself in a particular type of art.

4. 2
.7.Comfort of participation Musical arts receivers from non-Poland and Poland assess their comfort of participation concerning the form of participation in the receiving process in the following distribution: in-real -4.22 by non-Poles and 3.98 by Poles (difference of 5.8%), digitally -3.41 by non-Poles and 3.58 by Poles (difference of 5.0%).Performing arts receivers assess their participation comfort as follows: in-real -3.99 by non-Poles and 3.69 by Poles (difference of 7.4%), digitally -3.23 by non-Poles and 3.25 by Poles (difference of 0.5%).Literary arts receivers assess participation comfort as follows: in-real -4.14 by non-Poles and 4.00 by Poles (difference of 3.4%), digitally -3.83 by non-Poles and 3.19 by Poles (difference of 16.5%).Audio-visual arts receivers assess their participation comfort: in-real -3.66 by non-Poles and 3.47 by Poles (difference of 5.3%), digitally -3.95 by non-Poles and 4.14 by Poles (difference of 4.9%).Finally, visual arts receivers assess their participation comfort: in-real -4.12 by non-Poles and 3.86 by Poles (difference of 6.1%), digitally -3.62 by non-Poles and 3.38 by Poles (difference of 6.6%).See: Figure 27 and Figure 28.

Figure 27 .
Figure 27.Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' comfort of participation flowing from a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 28 .
Figure 28.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing their comfort of participation regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 29 .
Figure 29.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding the comfort of participation flowing from a particular type of art.

Figure 31 .
Figure 31.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing the possibilities of shaping the aesthetical experience regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 32 .
Figure 32.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding the possibilities of shaping the aesthetical experience in a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

4. 2
.9. Own motivation to participate Musical arts receivers from non-Poland and Poland assess their motivation to participate concerning the form of participation in the receiving process in the following distribution: in-real -4.26 by non-Poles and 4.05 by Poles (difference of 5.1%), digitally -3.27 by non-Poles and 3.59 by Poles (difference of 9.6%).Performing arts male receivers assess their motivation to participate in-real as 4.01 and 3.84 by Poles (difference of 4.4%), digitally -2.90 by non-Poles and 2.98 by Poles (difference of 2.7%).Literary arts receivers assess their motivation to participate as follows: in-realequally 3.84 by non-Poles and Poles, digitally -3.54 by non-Poles and 3.13 by Poles (difference of 11.6%).Audio-visual arts receivers assess their motivation to participate: in-real -3.65 by non-Poles and 3.53 by Poles (difference of 3.1%), digitally -3.89 by non-Poles and 3.86 by Poles (difference of 0.8%).Finally, visual arts receivers assess their motivation to participate: in-real -4.16 by non-Poles and 3.86 by Poles (difference of 7.1%), digitally -3.44 by non-Poles and 3.19 by Poles (difference of 7.2%).See: Figure 33 and Figure 34.

Figure 33 .
Figure 33.Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' own motivation to participate in a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 34 .
Figure 34.Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing their motivation to participate regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 35 .
Figure 35.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding their motivation to participate in a particular type of art.

Figure 36 .
Figure 36.Assessment of non-Poles' and Poles' easiness of participation in a particular type of art concerning the form of participation in the receiving process.

Figure 37 .
Figure 37. Differences between non-Poles and Poles in assessing the easiness of participation regarding the form of participation in the receiving process of a particular type of art.Source: own elaboration.

Figure 38 .
Figure 38.Differences between the form of participation in the receiving process by non-Poles and Poles regarding the easiness of participation in a particular type of art.
4.33 by non-Poles and 4.42 by Poles (difference of 1.3%), digitally -3.25 by non-Poles and 3.17 by Poles (difference of 2.4%).Performing arts receivers assess their satisfaction as follows: in-real -4.10 by non-Poles and 4.28 by Poles (difference of 4.3%), digitally -3.00 by non-Poles and 2.95 by Poles (difference of 1.6%).Literary arts receivers assess their satisfaction as follows: in- digitally -3.56 by non-Poles and 3.10 by Poles (difference of 13.1%).See: Figure