A Narrative Review of the Ecological Turn in Digital Art Curation

Digital art exhibitions increasingly behave like ecosystems. Research on their curation, however, remains scattered across single technologies and single cases, so the long-term evolution of curatorial logic is poorly explained. This article reviews research literature and verifiable practice materials on digital art curation published between 2005 and 2025. The method is a theory-driven integrative narrative review. The review follows six recurring questions, which concern artwork form, media and infrastructure, curatorial workflow, communication and governance, authorship and roles, and preservation and maintenance. Four successive and overlapping phases emerge from the comparison. During Technological Accommodation, curators dealt mainly with display conditions and technical dependency, and preservation became a curatorial concern in its own right. During Platformed Participation, platform communication and participatory culture turned exhibitions from single events into relational fields that run continuously. During Immersive Systematization, exhibition spaces were organized as controlled system environments that demand constant operation and teamwork across disciplines. During Ecological Governance, hybrid operation and artificial intelligence raised governance and lifecycle management to core curatorial competences. The article then distills these findings into a Curatorial Ecology Framework. The framework groups the six questions into three layers of technological systems, social networks, and audience participation. Each layer can be traced back to the evidence assembled in the review. The framework offers a historical reference for comparison across phases, a checklist that helps practitioners locate failures of experience, collaboration, or maintenance, and a structure that future case studies can test. The article closes with limitations and directions for research on generative artificial intelligence in museums.

digital art curation, narrative review, curatorial ecology, governance, preservation

1. Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lampis, A. (2020). Italian state museums during the COVID-19 crisis: From onsite closure to online openness. Museum Management and Curatorship, 35(4), 362–372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Albrezzi, F. (2024). Expanding understandings of curatorial practice through virtual exhibition building. Arts, 13(5), 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts13050162 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aristidou, M., & Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2024). VR/AR artworks in the museum: Redefining preservation through collaboration. Convergence, 30(5), 1575–1595. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241261995 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Arrigoni, G., Kane, N., McConnachie, S., & McKim, J. (2022). Preserving and sharing born-digital and hybrid objects from and across the National Collection (Project report). Towards a National Collection / Victoria and Albert Museum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311–320. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Boiano, S., Borda, A., & Gaia, G. (2024). Ethical AI and museums: Challenges and new directions. In Proceedings of EVA London 2024. BCS. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2024.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Couldry, N. (2008). Actor network theory and media: Do they connect and on what terms? In A. Hepp, F. Krotz, S. Moores, & C. Winter (Eds.), Connectivity, networks and flows: Conceptualizing contemporary communications (pp. 93–110). Hampton Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cramer, F. (2015). What is "post-digital"? In D. M. Berry & M. Dieter (Eds.), Postdigital aesthetics: Art, computation and design (pp. 12–26). Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Egger, M., Zellweger-Zähner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C., Lengeler, C., & Antes, G. (1997). Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. The Lancet, 350(9074), 326–329. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fan, D., & Zhang, G. (Eds.). (2008). Synthetic times: Media art China 2008. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gaskill, K. (2011). Curatorial cultures: Considering dynamic curatorial practice. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA2011), Istanbul, Turkey. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gere, C. (2008). Digital culture (2nd ed.). Reaktion Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ghidini, M. (2019). Curating on the web: The evolution of platforms as spaces for producing and disseminating web-based art. Arts, 8(3), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8030078 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Giannini, T., & Bowen, J. P. (2016). Curating digital life and culture: Art and information. In Proceedings of EVA London 2016 (pp. 237–244). BCS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Giannini, T., & Bowen, J. P. (2018). Of museums and digital culture: A landscape view. In Proceedings of EVA London 2018 (pp. 172–179). BCS. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2018.34 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Giannini, T., & Bowen, J. P. (2022). Museums and digital culture: From reality to digitality in the age of COVID-19. Heritage, 5(1), 192–214. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5010011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1, Article 28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Graham, B., & Cook, S. (2010). Rethinking curating: Art after new media. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Grau, O. (Ed.). (2007). MediaArtHistories. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Grba, D. (2024). Art notions in the age of (mis)anthropic AI. Arts, 13(5), 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts13050137 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Guattari, F. (2000). The three ecologies (I. Pindar & P. Sutton, Trans.). Athlone Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society: A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 102–131. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. International Council of Museums. (2020). Museums, museum professionals and COVID-19: Survey report. ICOM. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Iervolino, S., & Milne, A. (2025). Curating AI-driven art: Actors, institutional strategies and organisational change. Museum Management and Curatorship, 41(1), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2025.2562854 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Juste, C. (2023). From the white cube to the black box and back: Lighting design for new media art exhibitions. Déméter, 10. https://doi.org/10.54563/demeter.1346 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Krysa, J., & Impett, L. (2021). The next biennial should be curated by a machine: A research proposition. Stages: The Liverpool Biennial Journal, 9. https://archive.biennial.com/journal/issue-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kukka, H., Ylipulli, J., Gonçalves, J., Ojala, T., Kukka, M., & Syrjälä, M. (2017). Creator-centric study of digital art exhibitions on interactive public displays. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM 2017) (pp. 37–48). ACM. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Larkin, B. (2013). The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 327–343. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Li, J., Zheng, X., Watanabe, I., & Ochiai, Y. (2024). A systematic review of digital transformation technologies in museum exhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 161, 108407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Maksimova, A. (2024). Negotiation of dominant AI narratives in museum exhibitions. AI & Society, 40(5), 3813–3826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02140-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mezei, P., & Lapatoura, I. (2024). All roads lead to tokens: The impact of NFTs on galleries and museums. In E. Bonadio & C. Sganga (Eds.), NFTs, creativity and the law: Within and beyond copyright. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Michelsen, M., & Mukherjee, P. (2026). Making art accessible: How prompted AI use for simplifying art descriptions enhances museum visit satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 89, Article 104600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104600 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Nikolaou, P. (2024). Museums and the post-digital: Revisiting challenges in the digital transformation of museums. Heritage, 7(3), 1784–1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7030084 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Noehrer, L., Gilmore, A., Jay, C., & Yehudi, Y. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on digital data practices in museums and art galleries in the UK and the US. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, Article 236. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. O'Neill, P. (2012). The culture of curating and the curating of culture(s). MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Parikka, J. (2012). What is media archaeology? Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Paul, C. (Ed.). (2008). New media in the white cube and beyond: Curatorial models for digital art. University of California Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Paul, C. (Ed.). (2016). A companion to digital art. Wiley Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Post, C. (2021). The art of digital curation: Co-operative stewardship of net-based art. Archivaria, 92, 6–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Proctor, N. (2010). Digital: Museum as platform, curator as champion, in the age of social media. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(1), 35–43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Rinehart, R., & Ippolito, J. (2014). Re-collection: Art, new media, and social memory. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Russo, A., Watkins, J., Kelly, L., & Chan, S. (2008). Participatory communication with social media. Curator: The Museum Journal, 51(1), 21–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Schaerf, L., Ballesteros Zapata, P., Bernasconi, V., Neri, I., & Negueruela del Castillo, D. (2026). AI art curation: Re-imagining the city of Helsinki in occasion of its Biennial. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 85(1), Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-026-21219-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Shanken, E. A. (2009). Art and electronic media. Phaidon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Museum 2.0. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Szubielska, M., & Imbir, K. (2021). The aesthetic experience of critical art: The effects of the context of an art gallery and the way of providing curatorial information. PLOS ONE, 16(5), e0250924. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. teamLab. (2018). teamLab Borderless: MORI Building Digital Art Museum, Tokyo [Museum website]. https://www.teamlab.art/e/tokyo/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. UNESCO. (2020). Museums around the world in the face of COVID-19. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. UNESCO. (2025). Report of the Independent Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence and Culture. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. van den Akker, C., & Legêne, S. (Eds.). (2016). Museums in a digital culture: How art and heritage become meaningful. Amsterdam University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Weil, S. E. (2002). Making museums matter. Smithsonian Institution Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Whitney Museum of American Art. (2021). UBERMORGEN, Leonardo Impett, Joasia Krysa: The Next Biennial Should Be Curated by a Machine [Online exhibition]. https://whitney.org/exhibitions/the-next-biennial [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Yeğinsü, İ. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence on the “curator-as-artist”: Revisiting Ventzislavov’s concept in two cases of AI-based curating. AI & Society, 41(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02462-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Zardini Lacedelli, S., Turrini, D., & Partinico, S. (2023). From “exhibition” to “laboratory”: Rethinking curatorial practices through a digital experimental project—The case study of #DolomitesMuseum–Laboratory of Stories. Herança, 6(1), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.52152/heranca.v6i1.680 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Zhou, M. (2025). A review of the development and application of generative technology in digital museums. npj Heritage Science, 13, Article 589. https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-02164-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Heritage Lens: Empowering Malaysia's Tourism Industry through Photographic Synesthesia and Visual Influence
• AI Investment and Cultural Design Innovation: A Conceptual Framework for the Future of Batik in the Digital Economy
• Algorithmic Aura and Spiritual Alienation: A Critical Framework for AI-Generated Art Through Benjamin and Manovich
• Visualising Disease Through Lens: Camera Shot as Visual Storytelling in Transforming Reality to Art Cinematic in Disease Film
• Strategies for Integrating Gamification Mechanisms into the Digital Dissemination of Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of Stone Carvings in Southern Dynasties Mausoleums