1. Introduction
The Web first created a connection with everyone in the world at any time. Later, the Internet of Things (IoT) revolution led to a remote connection with devices as well as people. Next, the notion of the semantic Web emerged by means of technologies, such as the Resource Description Framework and Web Ontology Language that make Web data more understandable by machines. This caters to multifarious intelligent applications, including media management and optimised Web search [
1], all driven by artificial intelligence (AI) subfields (e.g., machine learning and machine vision). At present, the concept of the Metaverse is a vision for the next evolution of the Web, focusing primarily on the type of communication, interaction (namely, 2D to VR/3D) and immersion, brought about at a key moment in time where there is both a visible growing hunger for a VR-driven Web transformation and the technology in place to cater to machine reading of Web content.
Yet, the idea of a 3D Web or Metaverse is not a new one. The technological capabilities to create interactive 3D virtual environments have been available for the last 30 years. For example, since 1994, the Virtual Reality Modelling Language (VRML) has enabled the use of vector graphics to be deployed on the Web, supporting the creation of sharable 3D environments. VRML as a browser plug-in is a technology that is still actively used in a broad range of research applications, as demonstrated by Li et al. (marine simulation [
2]) and Yan et al. (VR-based education systems [
3]) and, within the art and cultures domain, Xiaobing et al. employ the technology for ceramic painting and a fusion with virtual reality [
4]. Hitherto, with 3D content being graphically heavy, scalability has been a longstanding limitation for widescale updates due to computational boundaries. This has led to many using existing infrastructure for their 3D worlds, for example the online social game Second Life, which gained prominence in the early 2000s and is still actively used in research [
5], as well as Roblox [
6] and Minecraft [
7]. All three are popular choices, because the cloud infrastructure is already in place to cater to shareability, and users are able to create 3D environments without needing to learn how to code or create their own 3D assets and game world.
Hence, there is an organic push towards a 3D Web [
8] and this growing interest in the notion of the Metaverse [
9] is driving the creation of varied 3D-based platforms and siloed environments for commercial, entertainment, social and educational purposes. With this notion, Giannini et al. discuss that the digital identity of the museum is evolving alongside human interactions on the Internet [
10]. It must also be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying lockdown experiences have acted as a catalyst for this evolution as many galleries and museums began to offer alternative virtual visitor experiences [
11]. Still, beforehand, the technology was already particularly beneficial for virtual art galleries and cultural heritage applications. It offers the opportunity to preserve aspects of our physical historical sites (in event of climate change, war, etc.) in a format that is sharable and future-proof, as well as allowing artists to share their creations in a manner that is not just constrained to local visitors, but rather freely accessible to others around the globe. The 3D Web holds, therefore, high potential for cultural heritage, as discussed by Kantaros et al. [
12].
The Metaverse concept follows what Kalpokas et al. refer to as a ‘
shift to turn online as much of daily life as possible, ultimately leading to the dominance of digital media logistics across the whole society’ [
13]. Thus, referring to the growing intertwining of humans with digital medium where our life, work, sociality and entertainment are becoming increasingly inseparable from the digital realm. With the rigorous pace of technology evolvement, we can expect to see new ways of combining fine art embedded with Web3D services. Further, extended reality services (e.g., virtual reality and augmented reality) and AI provide to modern artists new technics, tools for showcasing their creations to their audiences in 3D digital platforms. As the development of the Metaverse continues, more possibilities for fine art artists are available. The utilisation of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) is, thereby, empowering (digital) artists, including those working in visual and audio media, to establish their creatorship of digital content [
14]. This revolutionary technology enables artists to prove ownership and safeguard their intellectual property rights, which is of paramount importance in the world of art. Additionally, NFTs allow artists to sell their designs as unique, one-of-a-kind digital assets, thereby providing publicly recognisable ownership [
15]. Hence, the ability to authenticate authorship and to sell digital art as distinctive assets are of immense significance in the art industry, and NFTs have opened up new possibilities for artists to monetize their talent and creativity.
Though the expected benefits for artists and the cultural society as a whole appear to be evident, less is known about the actual consumer preferences and opinions regarding AI-generated artwork exhibited in digital galleries. Hence, in this article, a novel focus is provided through reflection on the nexus between technologies related to the Metaverse, digital art, AI and NFTs. This nexus can be considered as emerging, with relatively untapped potential. Thus, the following research questions are put forward, from which the aggregated findings can be used to investigate what benefits and challenges may emerge as the technology develops: (1) To what extent are consumers currently aware of digital art and the Metaverse? (2) To what extent will the Metaverse be beneficial for artists? (3) How will consumers perceive AI-generated art? and (4) What role does AI play for digital art and the Metaverse? Answering these questions will prime an understanding of how artists could potentially use digital platforms to create and share digital art and explore the role of digital art in the context of society (and its potential social and cultural implications for consumers). The method used to answer the research questions relies on a synthesis of works in the existing literature and a mixed-method questionnaire surveying a community of consumers by developing an AI-based virtual art gallery. This narrative will contribute towards what is an unexplored topic through both a systematic view and methodological primary data collation process (for one specific use case) that can serve as a platform for subsequent research.
The remainder of this article is as follows.
Section 2 provides a background on the Metaverse concept and current state of the art within this domain.
Section 3 discusses the methodology used for the experimentation and survey process.
Section 4 provides the findings and answers the research questions, with a discussion of the key benefits and challenges outlined in
Section 5. The article is concluded in
Section 6.
4. Results
In this section, the questionnaire findings are presented and discussed, in which consumer responses are used to support a reflection on the research questions outlined in
Section 1.
4.1. Sample
In total,
n = 67 participants completed the questionnaire. It should be noted that our study was exploratory in nature, seeking to investigate potential consumer perceptions of AI-generated and AR-exhibited artwork. Although we took guidance from the works of Green et al. [
39] and Van Voorhuis and Morgan, who suggested that a sample size of 50 participants is sufficient to conduct relationship analyses, we did not intend to run any statistical relationship analyses [
40]. Instead, we adopted a mixed-method approach, combining descriptive statistics with qualitative insights to shed light on art in the Metaverse.
Nonetheless, we did carry out a cluster analysis to examine homogeneous clusters in our diverse consumer sample. Although no established guidelines exist for sample size in cluster analysis, a sample size of 100 is generally considered to be at the higher end to achieve sufficient statistical power [
41]. Therefore, our sample size of
n = 67 participants can be considered as adequate to support our research findings.
Participants ranged in age from 20–62 years, with an average (mean) age of 30.5. The balance of the survey completions included
n = 9 TW participants (12% of the total event attendees),
n = 17 WUL and a further
n = 41 SM.
Table 4 provides an overview of the participants’ professional statuses. The employment demographic distributed at 58.2% (
n = 39) classed as in an employed status, 38.8% (
n = 26) as a student and 2.9% (
n = 2) with no current employment. The survey covered
n = 22 different occupations and academic positions, providing a broad range of feedback from distinctive professions and user groups, offering valuable insight from both domain experts and the general population, as to align with the works in [
34,
35].
4.2. To What Extent Are Consumers Currently Aware of Digital Art and the Metaverse?
The research findings reveal that the use of terms such as ‘Metaverse’, ‘Metagalaxy’, and ‘NFT’ present some significant challenges for the participants, as the familiarity is not yet established (
Figure 3). While the term ‘Metaverse’ was the most recognised concept, with 51% of participants claiming to be familiar with it to some degree, the term ‘Metagalaxy’ was relatively unfamiliar, as only 3% of respondents stated they have heard of it. With regard to ‘NFT’, the familiarity trend was comparable to the ‘Metaverse’ trend, with 51% being somewhat or very much familiar with the concept, while 22% had no opinion, and 27% were unfamiliar with the notion. Hence, these survey results indicate that there is a need for further education on and awareness of these concepts to improve consumers’ understanding and integration into consumers’ nomological networks in the context of digital art.
An additional and interesting finding was the high percentage of individuals who have previously experienced artwork generated by AI, with 85.3% (n = 58) answering yes, 11.8% (n = 8) saying no and 2.9% (n = 2) not sure if they have or not. Yet, as an obstacle, a lower percentage of individuals have visited a virtual art gallery (e.g., an art gallery on the Web), as evidenced by only 28.4% of the participants (n = 19) stating that they had, 64.2% (n = 44) stating they had not and 7.5% (n = 5) being unsure if they had (question 7). This obstacle is closely linked to the responses provided to question 5, where the number of participants who do not consistently engage with 3D Web is 67%, with only a low percentage (15%) stating that they actively do so.
4.3. To What Extent Will the Metaverse Be Beneficial for Artists?
At a consumer level,
Figure 4 demonstrates that 51% of the participants would grade the future market potential for virtual art galleries in the Metaverse positively, with 30% neutral towards the notion. As discussed, the use of NFTs is expected to have the potential to create value through scarcity [
13]. Interestingly, however, in this study only 28.4% of the participants indicated that they want to be the sole owner of the AI-generated paintings, while 77.6% indicated to be not interested in owning the artwork. This finding contradicts previous research findings, displaying that NFTs are important for consumers in the context of digital art ownership, showing an 8% annual increase in value of artworks [
13,
35]. Thus, in a digital context, the significance of owning AI-generated digital art appears to be lower compared to in the physical world.
To further explore consumers’ perceptions on the benefits of the Metaverse for artists, we include the qualitative responses from question 14, ‘
To what extent do you think the Metaverse will be beneficial (or not beneficial) for artists?’. In
Table 5, we reflect on a sample of the positive and negative comments provided by the participants. Overall, qualitative responses were provided by
n = 51 of the participants, with
n = 7 providing no response and
n = 9 saying that they did not know.
Overall,
n = 25 written responses were positive regarding the notion, with
n = 7 negative and a further
n = 17 offering a balanced or mixed response. However, in viewing the answers it must be noted that
n = 43 of the participants had previously not visited a virtual art gallery before completing the survey (yet this question was given after experiencing the gallery outlined in
Section 3), with
n = 19 saying that they had previously done so and
n = 5 not sure if they had or not. Consumers evidently link advantages, such as ease of use, wider customer access, sources of inspiration, sharing prospects and accessibility for non-professionals to the utilisation of AI-generated art in the Metaverse.
Another remarkable benefit identified is that the technology nexus is recognised as having the potential to produce benefits beyond storytelling and entertainment. This is in line with previous research, as Cotter et al. discussed the ‘
impacts of visiting art museums on well-being outcomes, such as stress, emotional well-being, and feelings of connection. Within psychology, meanwhile, scholars have examined the role cultural engagement plays in depression, anxiety, and global well-being …’ [
11]. Further, other physical benefits were also identified by the survey participants when responding to question 14, with one participant stating that the technology ‘
will help people who do not have the physical ability to do a painting or a 3d object create art. And for people that are already artists, it may help them generating different ideas’. Thus, within this domain, we can also consider the integration of more advanced haptic devices for interaction and disability support for the design and creation of digital artefacts. For instance, combining this technology with haptic gloves may be of use in the future to enhance the experience of people with vision impairment in the Metaverse, an approach that is already being investigated for use with immersive video by Villamarín et al. [
42].
4.4. How Will Consumers Perceive AI-Generated Art?
Despite, or perhaps because of, the controversial nature of art, consumers have differing opinions on AI-generated artwork in a digital 3D environment. To further explore the diverse sample and to identify homogeneous consumer preferences related to AI-generated art, a k-means cluster analysis was conducted, relying on the standardised z-values of the constructs ‘expected market potential’ and the ‘request for ownership’ of AI-generated and in-the-Metaverse-exhibited art. Based on the results of the dendrogram to identify the number of expected consumer clusters, and the subsequent performed k-means cluster analysis, consumers can be divided into the following three consumer clusters: Consumers assigned to Cluster 1 (C1) believe that AI-generated artworks have a bright future and that owning digital art is not crucial but rather that the art should be considered as a public good that is available and accessible everywhere. In contrast, consumers assigned to Cluster 2 (C2) are pessimistic about the future of AI-generated art and, in addition, are not interested in owning AI-generated art. Consumers assigned to Cluster 3 (C3) show lower expectations of the potential of AI-generated art as exhibited in Web3D galleries but place a high value on ownership.
Taking the demographic characteristics into account, it can further be concluded that the age distribution in the respective clusters is not a distinguishing factor, as the average age is almost identical for all three clusters: 29.8 (SD7.6) for C1, 30.4 (SD9.5) for C2 and 31.9 (SD9.7) for C3 (
Table 6). This result suggests that demographic factors do not play a major role in the perception of AI-generated artworks, while other intrapersonal factors, such as the expected market potential and willingness to own the artwork, do.
4.5. What Role Does AI Play for Digital Art and the Metaverse?
In general, it can be said that when surveying the participants on the role AI can play for digital art and the Metaverse, the vast majority have a clear idea about the concept, evidenced by the response to question 13, ‘
What role does AI play for digital art and the metaverse?’ (
Table 7); of the 67 individuals,
n = 7 provided no reply and a further
n = 8 stated that they did not know. Compared to question 14, the responses were predominately optimistic, with
n = 43 providing a positive response, and only
n = 2 negative and
n = 6 mixed. Given the widespread debate on the use of AI for art generation [
43], these findings can be considered unanticipated.
5. Discussion
Whilst these findings do not contribute towards core aspects of the debate, such as how AI-generated art can be associated with human-centred creativity [
43], or what Grba et al. calls ‘
technologically entangled creativity’ [
44], what the findings do demonstrate is that there is potential for AI art to be perceived positively. In terms of the societal impact of AI art and 3D virtual galleries, there are many potential benefits. For example, such experiences could be used for storytelling purposes, and may have strong benefits for raising awareness about important social and environmental issues (such as climate change and food crises), or for cultural heritage, for example, as currently used by Nikolakopoulou et al. [
45] and Paulauskas et al. [
46], yet with a focus of Metaverse-related technologies such as virtual reality. By creating engaging and interactive digital art experiences that allow users to explore these issues in a more meaningful way, it might motivate people to take drastic actions to address these challenges. In
Table 8, a synthesis is provided of the key benefits and challenges identified in this article, both relying on secondary and primary data investigations, with quotes directly from the questionnaire included.
Overall, the future of fine art embedded with Web3D services and the Metaverse is a promising domain that is ripe for innovation and creativity. As technology continues to evolve, artists and storytellers will have even more tools at their disposal to create unique and immersive groundbreaking experiences that captivate audiences globally. Within these findings, accessibility of digital artwork was highlighted numerous times in the survey responses as a clear feature and benefit of the technology, meaning the aforementioned storytelling activities can take place on a large and unbounded scaled. As two participants express, the technology can be used ‘to help artists share their views, ideas, and others more easily and visual, help audiences more enjoy it’ and that ‘artists would be more visible across the world and their art would be more accessible’. It is of note that the participants under discussion were predominantly individuals who had not previously experienced an art gallery. Thus, it can be inferred that an exhibition based on AR has the potential to diminish the transactional costs incurred by consumers, thereby granting artists an avenue to access a wider audience than previously possible, possibly even one that is considered mainstream.
Regarding AI-generated artworks, the respondents were in general positive, with comments such as ‘I think it can adds new dimensions and can be a boost for creativity I think it might make it easier to create a more interesting environment’, and that AI can ‘be an inspiration for artists who have a temporarily block in creating artwork’. Yet, there was some hesitation, with one participant stating that an AI-driven approach ‘could be beneficial for artists if they want to explore digital art and showcase it in a digital format. However, there would need to be a mechanism to filter through good art if anyone could showcase their art as it would dilute the quality’. The results also show the need to account for individual differences in the perception of AI-generated and digital-exhibited art in future research, practice and art.
6. Conclusions and Future Directions
What is clear is that AI-generated art and Metaverse-based galleries can offer new ways for artists, consumers and collectors to expose, discover and purchase new art as well as engage and interact with fine art globally. It is also clear that an immersive Web is very much still in its infancy [
29] and there are several technical limitations (resolution, rendering, etc.) to capabilities that do not allow the creation of high-quality digital art experiences. Yet, existing research demonstrates that as a digital communication medium, the technology has the potential to increase interaction and bring higher levels of human awareness.
As our findings of the consumer questionnaire suggest, Metaverse-art-related experiences can and must be customised to the end users’ preferences and needs. Thus, if AI is integrated, innovative personalised approaches are to serve individual preferences that finally shape the consumers’ digital art perceptions, as displayed in the heterogenous consumer preference clusters identified in this study. Hence, personalised narratives can be developed leading to a more engaging and immersive experience for the user. Such experiences, if combined with other forms of media, music or narrative digital storytelling, can create fully immersive experiences for individual user engagement on multiple levels, building on the personalised data collected with AI.
Limitations of this research work include the earliness of the study. As discussed, the Metaverse is a somewhat evolving and emerging concept, as one participant indicated in the response, ‘I believe it is too early to say anything in this field’. So, the research findings might be seen as a first step towards a flourishing digital art experience. Furthermore, in this study we did not measure a change in knowledge for those who had no prior knowledge/experience of Web3D and had no prior knowledge of the Metaverse. Thus, future work could include adding to our preliminary findings on consumer perceptions by assessing the change in knowledge and awareness of the core concepts related to digital art and the Metaverse technologies after experiencing the virtual art gallery. Despite the significant effort made to ensure that a diverse sample was selected to represent the potential target audience of AR/AI artwork, it is possible that the chosen sample was impacted by sampling bias. To address this issue, future research should consider accounting for self-selection biases by recruiting a larger and even more heterogeneous sample. A further limitation of this study is the use of two AI-image generation tools. As a final note, it should be emphasised that there is an increasing volume of tools available, and to build on this article, future directions of the work could include an expansion of the gallery with a larger number of AI tools and a comparison of the different techniques used for AI-based image generation.