## 5 Implementation and Results
### Study 1. A New Framework of Art Experience  
In museum-based art, aesthetic experience has garnered a great deal of attention. Several models portraying the viewer's involvement with art can be found in the literature [33], but they do not account for the use of social media prior to, during, and after a visit to an art exhibition. However, other perspectives failed to recognize the emotional connection as an intrinsic component of the art experience. Moreover, since Instagram's release in 2010, a reasonable amount of research has been conducted on its use in general, but less in a museum or gallery setting. This has prompted authors such as [PERSON] [108] to give a comparable perspective through the paradigm of \"Art Gallery Visitor Instagramming\". [PERSON] divided a museum visit into three stages based on physical presence: pre-visit, during visit, and post-visit. The first stage includes triggers such as Instagram posts from other museumgeors that inspire an individual to visit a museum. They are encouraged to take pictures, provide feedback, and share them on social media during or after their visit. The third stage is a circular process that focuses on the visit's impacts, such as uploading, commenting on, and sharing photographic content. As previously noted, psychological models do not include the concept of social media. Similarly, [PERSON]'s approach does not include the emotional aspect in any obvious sense. To bridge this gap, we present a new framework regarding the individual's prior exposure to art and the popularity of the art. We divided the procedure into three stages, as depicted in Figure 2 To be completely impartial, we took terms from various models describing the aesthetic experience. Due to the dissimilarity of our scenarios, we did not study the same aspects. We explain our concept in detail below. In summary, we clarify the inadequacies of the models at the outset of this subsection, either in terms of the cognitive dimension of aesthetic experience or the use of social media during museum visits. [PERSON] paradigm inspired the stage names (pre-visit stage, during visit stage, and post-visit stage) as well as the sub-stages applicable to the viewer's social media activity. We also borrowed aesthetic experience aspec  
Figure 2: A new perspective of aesthetic experience and popularity of art. emotions in the viewer, such as space, artwork qualities, and personality (these factors are discussed in depth in Section 2.1). Regarding popularity, none of the preceding models are included. Sociometric popularity is related with emotions that individuals may share with others, according to the research. [PERSON] [70] illustrated this using the term \"emotional judgments.\" In contrast to perceived popularity, which is based on evaluations and is hence widely shared with others, the conclusion of the model of [PERSON] et al. [22] of aesthetic experience is \"aesthetic judgments\" and \"aesthetic emotions\". Although the relationship is vague, because [PERSON] et al. [22] employed two unique notions as an outcome of the model, we might claim that popularity is a byproduct of aesthetic experience. This is the argument that Figure 1 intends to present. Our goal was to illustrate the aesthetic experience of the individual and the popularity of the artworks in three stages, comprising pre-visit, during visit, and post-visit, as follows:  
* Stage 1: Pre-visit stage First, the person is exposed to external triggers before the visit. Digital artworks, artist social media posts, and museum posts are external stimuli. According to studies, smart device use has mediated visual and social experiences [109]. Art is also affected. Instagram's audience includes \"exploration\" users who search the home page and peruse algorithm-suggested content. The \"associated\" audience uses the app to maintain contacts. The \"thematic\" audience receives hashtags about certain people, items, places, emotions, or phrases. Moreover, \"chatterbox\" viewers may like commenting [85].