International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 10 (October 2025), Pages: 20-27

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

The role of augmented reality in mediating the relationship between artist intention and viewer perception

 Author(s): 

 Gao Nannan 1, Yuhanis Bin Ibrahim 1, *, Mohd Firdaus Naif Bin Omran Zailuddin 1, Yao Heng 2, Xu Ying 1, Liu Xu 1

 Affiliation(s):

  1Faculty of Creative Technology and Heritage, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Kota Bharu, Malaysia
  2Chengdu Academy of Fine Arts, Sichuan Conservatory of Music, Chengdu, China

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9232-9337

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.10.003

 Abstract

This study investigates the role of Augmented Reality (AR) in shaping the connection between artistic intention and audience perception in contemporary art. Based on survey responses from 355 participants who engaged with AR-enhanced artworks, the results show that AR technology has a stronger effect on audience perception than the direct intention of the artist. While artistic intention guides how AR is applied, the technology introduces new interpretive possibilities that may alter or even replace traditional modes of artistic communication. These findings suggest a shift toward technology-mediated meaning-making in digital art, with significant implications for curatorial practice and artistic autonomy. The study also shows that AR can either limit or expand audience interpretation, depending on how it is used. Therefore, AR should be applied carefully to support artistic communication while preserving the viewer’s interpretive freedom. By addressing both theoretical and practical issues, this study offers guidance for artists and curators who wish to incorporate AR into their work. Future research should explore how different AR technologies influence various art forms to better understand the full scope of AR’s impact on the arts.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Augmented reality, Artistic intention, Viewer perception, Digital art, Curatorial practice

 Article history

 Received 2 April 2025, Received in revised form 28 August 2025, Accepted 1 September 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation in the study, and their responses were collected anonymously to ensure confidentiality.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Nannan G, Ibrahim YB, Zailuddin MFNBO, Heng Y, Ying X, and Xu L (2025). The role of augmented reality in mediating the relationship between artist intention and viewer perception. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(10): 20-27

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  Fig. 1

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Table 4 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (42)

  1. Aitamurto T, Aymerich-Franch L, Saldivar J, Kircos C, Sadeghi Y, and Sakshuwong S (2022). Examining augmented reality in journalism: Presence, knowledge gain, and perceived visual authenticity. New Media & Society, 24(6): 1281–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820951925    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alam SS, Susmit S, Lin CY, Masukujjaman M, and Ho YH (2021). Factors affecting augmented reality adoption in the retail industry. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(2): 142.  https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020142    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bailey-Ross C, Beresford A, Smith D, and Warwick C (2019). Aesthetic appreciation and Spanish art: Insights from eye-tracking. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 35(Supplement_1): i17-i35.  https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqz027    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bilbow S (2021). Developing multisensory augmented reality as a medium for computational artists. In the Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Salzburg, Austria: 1-7.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3430524.3443690    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bongers B (2022). Exploring extended realities in environmental artistic expression through interactive video projections. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 6(4): 125.  https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6040125    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chevalier C and Kiefer C (2020). What does augmented reality mean as a medium of expression for computational artists? Leonardo, 53(3): 263–267.  https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01740    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ganesan M and Kumar BD (2024). Augmented reality: The key to unlock customer engagement potential. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 42(6): 976-1009.  https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2023-0408    [Google Scholar]
  8. Guo X, Qian Y, Li L, and Asano A (2018). Assessment model for perceived visual complexity of painting images. Knowledge-Based Systems, 159: 110–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.06.006    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hammargren E (2017). Tate modern in the digital age: A case study addressing the use of digital technology, audience interaction and participation at Tate Modern. M.Sc. Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.    [Google Scholar]
  10. Han E (2023). Comparing the perception of in-person and digital monitor viewing of paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 41(2): 465–496.  https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374231158520    [Google Scholar]
  11. He Z, Wu L, and Li X (2018). When art meets tech: The role of augmented reality in enhancing museum experiences and purchase intentions. Tourism Management, 68: 127–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.003    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jung T, Tom Dieck MC, Lee H, and Chung N (2020). Relationships among beliefs, attitudes, time resources, subjective norms, and intentions to use wearable augmented reality in art galleries. Sustainability, 12(20): 8628.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208628    [Google Scholar]
  13. Krajancich B, Kellnhofer P, and Wetzstein G (2020). Optimizing depth perception in virtual and augmented reality through gaze-contingent stereo rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 39(6): 269.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3414685.3417820    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kühnapfel C, Fingerhut J, Brinkmann H, Ganster V, Tanaka T, Specker E, Mikuni J, Güldenpfennig F, Gartus A, Rosenberg R, and Pelowski M (2024). How do we move in front of art? How does this relate to art experience? Linking movement, eye-tracking, emotion, and evaluations in a gallery-like setting. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 42(1): 86–146.  https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374231160000    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee CH, Pan YJ, and Chen BY (2024). Participatory exhibition-viewing using augmented reality and analysis of visitor behavior. Applied Sciences, 14(9): 3579.  https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093579    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee H, Xu Y, and Porterfield A (2021). Consumers' adoption of AR-based virtual fitting rooms: From the perspective of theory of interactive media effects. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 25(1): 45–62.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-05-2019-0092    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lei DK and Daud WSAWM (2023). Innovating art with augmented reality: A new dimension in body painting. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 14(7): 791-801.  https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2023.0140787    [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu C, Ma S, Liu Y, Wang Y, and Song W (2024). Depth perception in optical see-through augmented reality: Investigating the impact of texture density, luminance contrast, and color contrast. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(11): 7266-7276.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456162    [Google Scholar] PMid:39255102
  19. Lugtenberg G, Pucihar KČ, Kljun M, Sawabe T, Fujimoto Y, Kanbara M, and Kato H (2024). Effects of eye vergence and accommodation on interactions with content on an AR magic-lens display and its surroundings. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 31(8): 4387-4399.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3403261    [Google Scholar] PMid:38771678
  20. Mansur SS and DeFelipe J (2024). Empathy and the art of Leonardo da Vinci. Frontiers in Psychology, 14: 1260814.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260814    [Google Scholar] PMid:38524739 PMCid:PMC10959457
  21. Markov A (2022). The concept of interaction and augmented reality in artworks. Cultural and Historical Heritage: Preservation, Presentation, Digitalization, 8(1): 237-245.  https://doi.org/10.55630/KINJ.2022.080120    [Google Scholar]
  22. McCallum K, Mitchell S, and Scott-Phillips T (2020). The art experience. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 11: 21–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-019-00443-y    [Google Scholar]
  23. Meng X and Li H (2023). Intelligent design and application of traditional cultural and creative products based on digital art elements. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1): 1-14.  https://doi.org/10.2478/amns.2023.2.01684    [Google Scholar]
  24. Nechita F and Rezeanu CI (2019). Augmenting museum communication services to create young audiences. Sustainability, 11(20): 5830.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205830    [Google Scholar]
  25. O'Dwyer N, Young GW, Johnson N, Zerman E, and Smolic A (2020). Mixed reality and volumetric video in cultural heritage: Expert opinions on augmented and virtual reality. In: Rauterberg M. (Ed.), Culture and computing. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12215: 195–214. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50267-6_16    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rahman MM (2023). Sample size determination for survey research and non-probability sampling techniques: A review and set of recommendations. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics, 11(1): 42–62.    [Google Scholar]
  27. Reymond G, Pelowski M, Opwis K, Takala T, and Mekler ED (2020). Aesthetic evaluation of digitally reproduced art images. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 615575.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.615575    [Google Scholar] PMid:33362676 PMCid:PMC7759521
  28. Rogala J, Bajno B, and Wróbel A (2020). A hidden message: Decoding artistic intent. PsyCh Journal, 9): 507–512.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.374    [Google Scholar] PMid:32662199 PMCid:PMC7497000
  29. Ronagh E, Mahdavinejad M, and Farhoodfar S (2023). Symphonic ornaments in parametric architecture through music. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VIII: Performing Arts, 16: 109-118.  https://doi.org/10.31926/but.pa.2023.16.65.2.12    [Google Scholar]
  30. Shrestha N (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1): 4–11.  https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-9-1-2    [Google Scholar]
  31. Song J, Kwak Y, and Kim C (2021). Familiarity and novelty in aesthetic preference: The effects of the properties of the artwork and the beholder. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 694927.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.694927    [Google Scholar] PMid:34367021 PMCid:PMC8345014
  32. Sovhyra T (2020). Implementation of augmented reality technologies in artwork creating process. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 9(4): 111-121.  https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i4.2788    [Google Scholar]
  33. Suhr HC (2018). The audience and artist interactivity in augmented reality art: The solo exhibition on the flame series. Critical Arts, 32(3): 111–125.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2018.1493054    [Google Scholar]
  34. Verbeeck M (2021). From prism to kaleidoscope: Effect versus intention in the conservation of contemporary art. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 60(2-3): 105–114.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01971360.2021.1968594    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wardropper CB, Dayer AA, Goebel MS, and Martin VY (2021). Conducting conservation social science surveys online. Conservation Biology, 35: 1650–1658.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13747    [Google Scholar] PMid:33887800 PMCid:PMC9292579
  36. Weaver JB III, Huck I, and Brosius HB (2009). Biasing public opinion: Computerized continuous response measurement displays impact viewers’ perceptions of media messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1): 50–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.004    [Google Scholar]
  37. Westermeier F, Brübach L, Wienrich C, and Latoschik ME (2024). Assessing depth perception in VR and video see-through AR: A comparison on distance judgment, performance, and preference. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(5): 2140–2150.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3372061    [Google Scholar] PMid:38437131
  38. Whang JB, Song JH, Choi B, and Lee JH (2021). The effect of augmented reality on purchase intention of beauty products: The roles of consumers’ control. Journal of Business Research, 133: 275–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.057    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wharton G (2015). Artist intention and the conservation of contemporary art. Objects Specialty Group Postprints, 22: 1–12.    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu SI, Chiu CH, and Chen YJ (2020). The influences of innovative technological introduction on interpretive experiences of exhibition: A discussion on the intention to use augmented reality. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(6): 662–677.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1752754    [Google Scholar]
  41. Xhignesse M (2020). Failures of intention and failed-art. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 50(7): 905–917.  https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.39    [Google Scholar]
  42. Xu L, Zhang L, Cui N, and Yang Z (2020). How and when AR technology affects product attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(6): 1226–1241.  https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0221    [Google Scholar]