Without some sense of how to classify objects or performances as Artworks, galleries and museums would struggle to know what to collect (Carroll, 2002), or which artists to fund. If it is identified as Art, then it is Art and will guide the viewer to respond to it that way. However, all the concepts of Art that the analytic philosopher examines are flawed, as categorization is often determined by the viewer relying on their emotive, reactive, interpretive and appreciative responses to the experience. Such responses are subject to the trends and fashions of the time (Berger, ibid) with current perspectives pointing to art as an aesthetic experience, with little acknowledgement of any moral, cognitive or educational influence. But, the direction of new developments is not solely driven by the audience, with the commercial opportunities that Art as a commodity can bring.

The experience economy has been described as an essential element of areas such as retail, tourism and hospitality (Pine and Gilmore, 2011) and is described as a natural progression from our production of commodities through our development of a service economy towards experiences being the predominant offer of commercial enterprises. New experiences are packaged as social events with Art as a prop to enhance the sensory menu on offer. A study by Mehmetoglu and Engen (2011) suggests that understanding Pine and Gilmore’s four dimensions of feeling, learning, being and doing is an appropriate tool can lead to the best outcomes. The term has also emerged as a point of reference to critique experiential art installations such as Carsten Holler’s installation of giant slides (2007) or Olafur Eliasson’s Weather Project (2003), both at Tate Modern, calling them populist and sensationalistic. Major museums are embracing such Artworks in attempts to attract larger audiences. Such installations can be contrasted with groups like Fluxus, who tried to use a more subversive type of audience participation in the 1960s (Rugoff, n.d.).

Many would see the rise of Immersive Art experiences as an opportunity for the viewer to make the shift from being a passive observer, directed by the expert on how to look at art, towards being an active participant, who engages all their senses to both appreciate, and be entertained by, the encounter with an artist’s work.  For others it raises questions about the quality and rigour of the art and the art experience. The battle of High and Low Art, High and Low Culture is not a new thing. An exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, New York (MOMA 1990),“High and Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture”, attempted to confront this by exploring the ideas exchanged between artists and popular/commercial culture, citing a back-and-forth process where “high” art borrows from “low” with a reciprocal process of commercialism taking what it wants from the Artworld. It is interesting that their exhibition focussed on artists’ uses of popular cultural influences to develop art, thus perpetuating the “high” art, elitist hierarchy often present in the traditional institutional gallery setting.

Museums are having to reorientate themselves to see visitors as cultural “customers” and think about their marketing strategies to reflect this. By adopting approaches that encompass sensory stimuli, and viewing the sensory experience as integral to the exhibition programme galleries will increase satisfaction and drive cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses in a positive trajectory for the visitor (Luo et al. 2025).