Journal Home Page

OPEN ACCESS

Circular Economy and Creative Expression: Sustainable Art Practices in the Context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Jakia Sultana Department of Fine Arts Drawing & Painting Faculty Of Fine & Performing Arts Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh Email: jakia0998@gmail.com ORCID:  https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8915-4758

Asaad Muhtadi Department of Fine Arts Drawing & Painting Faculty Of Fine & Performing Arts Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh Email: oishee.slash@gmail.com ORCID:  https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6036-2730

Prof. Dr Kazi Abdul Mannan Department of Business Administration Faculty of Business Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh Email: drkaziabdulmannan@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7123-132X

Corresponding author: Jakia Sultana: jakia0998@gmail.com

SME rev. anal. 2025, 5(4); https://doi.org/10.64907/xkmf.v5i4sme-ra.1

Submission received: 1 October 2025 / Revised: 9 November 2025 / Accepted: 1 December 2025 / Published: 24 December 2025

Download PDF (980 KB)

Abstract

This article explores the nexus of circular economy (CE), creative expression, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), focusing on how sustainable art practices embody ecological responsibility while embracing technological innovation. Drawing on qualitative methods—including interviews, case studies, and document analysis—the study identifies four key dynamics: material innovation and resource circularity, technological mediation in creative processes, cultural narratives of sustainability, and the challenges of operationalising circular practices. Findings reveal that artists reframe waste as aesthetic value, employ 4IR technologies such as digital fabrication and augmented reality to reduce material dependency, and mobilise ecological storytelling to engage audiences. However, limitations such as material access, energy consumption, and market pressures highlight the structural obstacles to broader adoption. The study concludes that sustainable art practices demonstrate both the potential and the contradictions of CE in the creative sector. It recommends systemic support in infrastructure, energy transition, market orientation, and policy integration to enable the arts to fully contribute to sustainability transitions.

Keywords: Circular economy, sustainable art, creative expression, Fourth Industrial Revolution, cultural sustainability, ecological storytelling, technological mediation

1. Introduction

The escalating climate crisis and the accelerating wave of technological change have converged to reshape cultural production and artistic practice in profound ways. On one hand, the climate emergency compels societies to reconsider their extractive economic models and linear patterns of consumption. On the other hand, the emergence of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR)—a term popularised by Klaus Schwab (2016) to describe the fusion of digital, biological, and physical technologies—introduces new tools and processes that profoundly affect how artists, designers, and institutions create, distribute, and engage with cultural outputs. Within this convergence, the concept of the circular economy (CE) has emerged as a guiding framework for reimagining material flows, product lifecycles, and systems of value. For artists and cultural institutions, integrating CE principles is not simply a matter of material efficiency but an aesthetic, ethical, and political act that challenges dominant narratives of growth, consumption, and disposability (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019).

The linear “take–make–dispose” economic model has long underpinned industrial modernity, generating unprecedented material prosperity but also escalating ecological degradation, waste accumulation, and resource depletion (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). By contrast, CE emphasises closed-loop systems that prioritise reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and regeneration. The arts, with their symbolic and communicative power, are uniquely positioned to embody and advocate for this shift. Contemporary artists increasingly utilise discarded or repurposed materials, foreground processes of repair, and create works that interrogate unsustainable production practices (Parikka, 2015; Kagan, 2020). At the institutional level, museums and galleries experiment with circular strategies, from modular exhibition design to material passports that track component lifecycles (Elia et al., 2024). These initiatives signal a growing recognition of culture as an active site for ecological transition.

The 4IR simultaneously complicates and enriches this trajectory. Digital fabrication technologies such as 3D printing, computer numerical control (CNC) milling, and generative design algorithms offer new means of reducing material waste by enabling precise optimisation and production on demand (Ford & Despeisse, 2016). Immersive media and digital distribution can reduce reliance on resource-intensive physical production, offering dematerialised cultural experiences (Bakhshi & Windsor, 2015). Yet 4IR technologies themselves are not ecologically neutral: they demand energy-intensive computation, rare earth materials, and generate substantial e-waste (Hodson et al., 2018). Thus, sustainable art practices must negotiate a double bind: leveraging technological affordances while critically addressing their environmental costs and social inequities.

This intersection raises key research questions. How do artists and cultural institutions operationalise circular economy principles in practice? What roles do 4IR technologies play in enabling, constraining, or reconfiguring sustainable art practices? How do aesthetic strategies—such as the embrace of repair, reuse, or visible material histories—contribute to shifting cultural imaginaries toward circularity? And what institutional and policy frameworks are needed to support systemic change? Addressing these questions requires an interdisciplinary approach, bringing together theories of CE, socio-technical transitions, and aesthetics of repair and reuse.

The significance of exploring these intersections extends beyond the art world. Cultural practices influence social values and can accelerate wider adoption of sustainable practices across industries and communities (Kagan, 2020). By experimenting with materials, technologies, and narratives, artists act as both innovators and critics, translating abstract policy goals into tangible, affective experiences for diverse publics. Museums and cultural organisations, in turn, function as laboratories of systemic change, modelling procurement reforms, lifecycle assessments, and community partnerships that may inform broader societal transitions (Anderson, 2020). The challenges they face—procurement logics, measurement gaps, digital divides, and equity in labour—mirror those encountered across other sectors, making the cultural field a valuable microcosm of the tensions inherent in sustainability transitions.

This paper situates sustainable art practices within the broader discourse of CE and 4IR, emphasising the interplay between material innovation, technological embedding, and aesthetic meaning-making. Through a qualitative methodology—drawing on interviews, case studies, and document analysis—the research seeks to illuminate how creative actors negotiate ecological imperatives and technological affordances. In doing so, it contributes to scholarly debates on the role of culture in socio-technical transitions and offers practical recommendations for artists, institutions, and policymakers. Ultimately, the study argues that sustainable art practices, framed through the lens of circularity and mediated by 4IR technologies, provide vital pathways for reimagining both cultural production and the broader economies of which it is part.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Circular Economy: Origins and Frameworks

The concept of the circular economy has gained significant traction as a strategy to address the ecological limitations of the linear economic model. Rooted in earlier theories such as industrial ecology, cradle-to-cradle design, and regenerative economics, CE emphasises systems in which waste becomes input, resources are retained within productive loops, and ecological regeneration is prioritised (Stahel, 2016; Braungart & McDonough, 2009). According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019), CE rests on three principles: designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. Scholars argue that CE should not only be understood as a technical solution but as a systemic socio-economic transformation (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). In cultural contexts, CE offers both a practical and metaphorical framework, as artists and institutions embody material circularity while symbolically engaging publics in narratives of sustainability.

2.2 CE in Cultural and Creative Sectors

Application of CE principles within cultural fields remains under-researched but is increasingly evident. Museums and galleries have begun adopting circular exhibition practices, such as modular wall systems, reusable display components, and lifecycle assessment methodologies (Elia et al., 2024). The Design Museum’s “Waste Age” exhibition exemplifies efforts to foreground circularity both thematically and operationally (Design Museum, 2021). Creative reuse organisations, such as SCRAP in the United States or Remida in Italy, embody CE principles at community levels, providing discarded materials to artists, educators, and designers while cultivating local reuse networks (SCRAP Creative Reuse, n.d.; Ingram, 2014). These initiatives demonstrate that CE in the arts is not merely about efficiency but about building infrastructures of creativity, community, and care.

2.3 Sustainable Art Practices: Historical Roots and Contemporary Directions

Sustainable art practices are not entirely new; they build on legacies of environmental art, Arte Povera, and activist aesthetics that challenged industrial modernity and ecological destruction (Gablik, 1991; Tiberghien, 1995). In the contemporary context, sustainable practices manifest in diverse forms:

• Upcycling and reuse, where waste materials are transformed into artworks, highlighting cycles of value and disposability (Parikka, 2015).
• Material-conscious studio practices, such as minimising toxic chemicals and energy use (Majeed, 2020).
• Participatory and community-based projects, where artistic practices double as ecological education and social engagement (Kagan, 2020).
• Digital and virtual art, which reduces material intensity but raises questions about the energy footprints of data centres and hardware (Velden & Wirth, 2021).

These practices collectively illustrate how artists navigate ecological responsibility while maintaining creative agency.

2.4 The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Artistic Production

The 4IR introduces a suite of technologies—AI, robotics, IoT, AR/VR, and additive manufacturing—that are reshaping industrial and cultural landscapes (Schwab, 2016). For the arts, these tools open new possibilities: generative algorithms facilitate novel aesthetic outputs, 3D printing enables reuse of shredded plastics in design applications, and immersive media expand the reach of cultural content (Ford & Despeisse, 2016; Bakhshi & Windsor, 2015). At the same time, the environmental impacts of digital technologies—energy consumption, rare earth mineral extraction, and e-waste—pose new challenges for sustainable practice (Hodson et al., 2018). Scholars caution against techno-optimism, emphasising the need for critical assessments of 4IR technologies’ ecological and social costs (Zuboff, 2019). Artists engaging with these tools often adopt hybrid strategies: using digital optimisation to minimise waste while making visible the hidden materialities of technology.

2.5 Socio-Technical Transitions and the Role of Culture

Transition studies highlight that socio-technical change is not solely driven by technological innovation but by cultural values, institutional logics, and public imaginaries (Geels, 2002). In this sense, art and cultural institutions play pivotal roles in mediating and shaping imaginaries of sustainable futures. By staging exhibitions, creating participatory installations, and engaging communities, artists and museums act as translators between abstract concepts (like CE) and everyday practices (Anderson, 2020). Scholars argue that cultural practices provide “prefigurative” spaces where alternative social and ecological relations can be tested and experienced (Kagan, 2020). This aligns with the notion of the “aesthetics of repair,” where artistic practices foreground visible mending, care, and continuity as counter-narratives to disposability (Jackson, 2014).

2.6 Barriers and Challenges

Despite promising examples, challenges remain in embedding CE within cultural practice. Institutional procurement often prioritises cost over sustainability, limiting the adoption of reusable exhibition systems (Anderson, 2020). Measurement gaps, particularly the lack of standardised lifecycle assessment tools tailored to cultural contexts, impede robust evaluation (Elia et al., 2024). Moreover, sustainable art practices can reproduce inequities: creative reuse economies often rely on undervalued labour, and access to digital fabrication tools is unevenly distributed across geographies (Velden & Wirth, 2021). These challenges highlight the need for systemic support, including policy reforms, funding for circular infrastructure, and equitable labour frameworks.

2.7 Synthesis

The literature reveals an emergent but fragmented field of inquiry at the intersection of CE, sustainable art, and 4IR. CE provides a systemic framework for rethinking material flows, while sustainable art practices offer experimental and symbolic enactments of circularity. 4IR technologies extend both the opportunities and risks of these practices, enabling optimisation but introducing new environmental burdens. The role of culture, as emphasised in transition studies, is to bridge technical strategies with social imaginaries, thereby amplifying public engagement and systemic transformation. The gaps identified—measurement, institutional constraints, labour equity, and technological access—set the stage for this study’s empirical inquiry.

3. Theoretical Framework

The present study integrates concepts from sustainability studies, circular economy theory, and creative expression within the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). By combining these perspectives, the framework provides a foundation for examining how artistic practices can simultaneously engage with ecological responsibility and technological innovation. This theoretical framing is particularly crucial for understanding the multifaceted nature of sustainable art practices in a rapidly changing world.

3.1 Circular Economy as a Guiding Paradigm

The circular economy (CE) framework is central to this study, as it moves beyond the traditional linear model of “take–make–dispose” and emphasises resource efficiency, reuse, and regeneration (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Within the arts, CE manifests through practices such as upcycling, material repurposing, and closed-loop creative systems (Murray et al., 2017). Artists engaged in CE practices transform discarded or undervalued materials into new works, demonstrating both environmental stewardship and aesthetic innovation. The CE paradigm thus offers a lens for analysing how creative expression can contribute to sustainable transitions.

3.2 Creative Sustainability and Aesthetic Agency

Another theoretical dimension comes from the notion of creative sustainability, which underscores the artist’s agency in promoting ecological consciousness (Kagan, 2011). Artistic practices not only reflect environmental concerns but also actively shape societal narratives about sustainability. Theories of aesthetic agency suggest that art can mobilise public awareness and encourage behavioural change through symbolic engagement (Dissanayake, 2017). Within this framework, the act of making art from sustainable materials becomes both an ecological intervention and a cultural critique of unsustainable consumption patterns.

3.3 The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Technological Mediation

The 4IR is characterised by the convergence of digital, physical, and biological systems, facilitated by technologies such as artificial intelligence, additive manufacturing, and the Internet of Things (Schwab, 2016). For sustainable art practices, 4IR introduces new tools and challenges. Digital fabrication, for example, enables precision in material use, reducing waste in creative production (Prendeville et al., 2017). Similarly, blockchain technology can support provenance tracking of sustainable materials in art markets, ensuring accountability and transparency (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2018). These technological affordances expand the possibilities of circular art practices, embedding sustainability within innovation ecosystems.

3.4 Ecocriticism and Environmental Aesthetics

Ecocriticism, as a theoretical perspective, emphasises the interrelationship between culture, art, and ecological awareness (Buell, 2005). Environmental aesthetics further highlights the sensory and affective dimensions of human interaction with nature (Carlson, 2000). By adopting these perspectives, this study acknowledges that sustainable art practices are not limited to material choices but also extend to the narratives, emotions, and values conveyed through artistic expression. Artists, therefore, act as mediators between ecological realities and cultural representation, reinforcing sustainability at both conceptual and practical levels.

3.5 Integrative Theoretical Lens

The theoretical framework adopted here is integrative: it brings together CE, creative sustainability, 4IR innovation, and ecocritical perspectives to form a holistic understanding of sustainable art practices. This synthesis allows the study to explore not only how materials and processes are reimagined but also how cultural meanings and technological interventions converge in the making of sustainable art. Such a framework positions artists as key agents of transformation in advancing circular economy principles within the cultural and creative industries.

4. Research Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative research methodology to explore how sustainable art practices are evolving within the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the circular economy. A qualitative approach is appropriate because it prioritises meaning-making, lived experiences, and interpretive depth, rather than quantifiable metrics (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The methodology is designed to capture the complex interrelation between artistic creativity, sustainability, and technological innovation.

4.1 Research Design

The research follows an exploratory and interpretive design. Exploratory research is well-suited for emerging fields like sustainable art practices in the 4IR, where theoretical development is ongoing (Stebbins, 2001). The interpretive approach enables the analysis of how artists conceptualise and enact sustainability through their practices, allowing the researcher to engage deeply with individual and collective narratives.

4.2 Data Collection Methods

Data were collected using three main methods:

Semi-Structured Interviews: Interviews were conducted with 20 practising artists, designers, and curators engaged in sustainability-driven projects. Semi-structured formats allowed participants to share insights while enabling the researcher to probe into areas such as material sourcing, design processes, and perceptions of CE.

Case Studies: Selected case studies of artists and art collectives that employ circular economy strategies (e.g., upcycling, digital fabrication, or waste-to-art initiatives) provided rich contextual data. Case studies enabled an in-depth analysis of specific practices and their broader implications (Yin, 2018).

Document and Visual Analysis: Exhibition catalogues, artist statements, and visual documentation were analysed to triangulate insights from interviews and case studies. These sources provided evidence of how sustainability narratives are embedded in artistic production and dissemination.

4.3 Sampling Strategy

Purposive sampling was used to identify participants and case studies that exemplify sustainable art practices. Artists were selected from diverse geographical regions to capture variations in practice influenced by cultural, economic, and technological contexts. Snowball sampling complemented this strategy, as participants recommended peers whose work aligns with the study’s themes (Palinkas et al., 2015).

4.4 Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was employed to identify recurring patterns and insights across the data. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework, the analysis proceeded through six phases: familiarisation with data, generation of initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final report. NVivo software was used to organise and code qualitative data systematically. Themes such as “material innovation,” “technological mediation,” and “cultural narratives of sustainability” emerged as central to the findings.

4.5 Validity and Reliability

To ensure credibility, multiple strategies were used. Triangulation combined interviews, case studies, and document analysis to enhance the robustness of findings. Member checking was conducted by sharing preliminary interpretations with participants for feedback, thus ensuring accuracy and resonance (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Reflexivity was also maintained, as the researcher continuously reflected on their positionality and potential biases during the data collection and interpretation process.

4.6 Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was obtained before commencing fieldwork. Participants provided informed consent, and anonymity was assured where requested. Given that art practices often involve public visibility, ethical sensitivity was exercised in balancing recognition of artistic authorship with confidentiality. Data were stored securely and used exclusively for academic purposes.

4.7 Limitations of the Methodology

While qualitative methods offer depth, they are limited in generalizability. The findings represent specific contexts and experiences rather than universal truths. Additionally, the focus on purposive sampling may introduce selection bias, though it remains appropriate for capturing expertise in niche practices. These limitations are acknowledged, but the study’s strength lies in its capacity to uncover rich, nuanced insights into sustainable art practices.

5. Findings

The findings of this study, drawn from interviews, case studies, and document analysis, reveal how artists integrate circular economy (CE) principles into their creative practices within the framework of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Several themes emerged: material innovation and resource circularity, technological mediation in sustainable creativity, cultural narratives of sustainability, and challenges in operationalising circular practices.

5.1 Material Innovation and Resource Circularity

A dominant finding was the innovative use of discarded or undervalued materials in artistic practices. Many artists deliberately sourced waste products—such as plastics, textiles, or electronic components—and recontextualised them into artworks. This aligns with CE’s emphasis on resource circulation and reducing landfill dependency (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). For instance, one interviewee described creating large-scale installations from reclaimed industrial metal scraps, transforming them into visual symbols of resilience and regeneration. Similarly, textile-based artists highlighted how upcycling post-consumer fabrics not only reduced waste but also told stories of labor and consumption embedded within those materials.

These practices reflect an aesthetic revaluation of waste, in which material “defects” are embraced as design features rather than discarded. This finding corroborates previous research showing that circular art practices challenge dominant notions of perfection and novelty in consumer culture (Murray et al., 2017).

5.2 Technological Mediation in Creative Sustainability

Another significant theme was the role of 4IR technologies in advancing sustainable art. Artists reported using digital fabrication tools such as 3D printing and laser cutting to optimise material efficiency. Unlike traditional sculptural techniques, which often generate substantial waste, additive manufacturing allows precision use of materials, reducing excess (Prendeville et al., 2017).

Some participants integrated blockchain technologies to track the provenance of sustainable materials and artworks, ensuring transparency for collectors and audiences concerned with environmental ethics. Others used augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) to create immersive experiences that conveyed ecological messages without requiring physical materials, thereby reducing resource consumption. This technological mediation exemplifies how 4IR enables a shift from material-intensive production toward more dematerialised and experiential forms of artistic engagement.

5.3 Cultural Narratives of Sustainability

Beyond materials and processes, artists framed their practices as vehicles for cultural critique and ecological storytelling. Interviews revealed that sustainable art often sought to challenge consumerism, highlight environmental degradation, or reimagine human–nature relationships. For example, one artist collective staged a participatory exhibition where visitors contributed personal waste items to a collaborative sculpture, symbolising shared responsibility in ecological crises.

These findings resonate with theories of aesthetic agency, which posit that art can mobilise social awareness and action by shaping narratives and values (Kagan, 2011). The study found that sustainable artworks often function as cultural texts, inviting audiences to reflect on their role in the circular economy and fostering emotional connections to ecological issues.

5.4 Challenges in Operationalising Circular Practices

Despite these innovations, several challenges emerged. First, artists faced barriers in accessing sustainable materials, particularly when supply chains lacked transparency or infrastructure for recycling. Second, technological tools such as 3D printers required high energy inputs, raising questions about whether certain practices were truly sustainable. Third, participants noted tensions between market demands for novelty and the slower, iterative processes of circular creativity. For instance, galleries and collectors often prioritised unique works made from new materials, creating economic pressures that discouraged reuse and upcycling.

These challenges illustrate the structural constraints that limit the scalability of circular art practices, even as individual artists adopt innovative methods.

5.5 Synthesis of Findings

In summary, the findings demonstrate that sustainable art practices in the 4IR context are characterised by:

• Innovative material reuse rooted in CE principles.
• Technological integration that enhances efficiency and expands non-material creative expression.
• Cultural storytelling that promotes ecological awareness.
• Persistent challenges related to resources, energy, and market dynamics.

These insights highlight both the transformative potential and practical limitations of embedding CE in creative expression, offering a nuanced understanding of sustainability in contemporary art.

6. Discussion

The findings contribute to ongoing debates about the intersection of circular economy, creative practice, and technological innovation in the 4IR. This discussion situates the results within existing literature, explores theoretical implications, and considers practical pathways for advancing sustainable art practices.

6.1 Circular Economy in Artistic Contexts

The adoption of waste and reclaimed materials by artists reflects the translation of CE principles into cultural domains. This aligns with Murray et al.’s (2017) assertion that CE can extend beyond industrial processes to influence cultural production. By recontextualising waste, artists highlight the value of material cycles while destabilising dominant consumerist aesthetics. The findings support Geissdoerfer et al.’s (2017) framework, which emphasises CE as both an economic and cultural paradigm.

Moreover, the aestheticisation of waste illustrates a unique contribution of the arts to CE discourse: artists do not merely apply circular strategies for efficiency but actively transform discarded objects into carriers of meaning and critique. This suggests that CE, when filtered through creative expression, becomes not only a material strategy but also a symbolic and pedagogical tool.

6.2 The Role of 4IR Technologies in Sustainable Creativity

The findings highlight how 4IR technologies mediate sustainable art practices, creating both opportunities and contradictions. Tools like 3D printing and AR expand artistic possibilities while reducing reliance on traditional material resources. This reflects Schwab’s (2016) vision of 4IR as a transformative force across industries, including cultural production.

However, the challenges related to energy consumption and technological dependence echo critiques that 4IR innovations may reproduce ecological problems if not carefully managed (Prendeville et al., 2017). Artists using digital fabrication must therefore navigate the paradox of high-tech sustainability: while technologies promise efficiency, they may also introduce new environmental costs. This tension underscores the need for critical frameworks that evaluate not just material efficiency but also broader energy and lifecycle impacts of technological practices in art.

6.3 Cultural Agency and Environmental Storytelling

The study’s findings reinforce the notion that artists act as cultural agents in advancing sustainability. By embedding ecological narratives into artworks, they mobilise affective engagement and invite audiences to reconsider consumption practices. This resonates with Kagan’s (2011) argument that artistic sustainability operates at both material and symbolic levels, shaping not only production processes but also collective imaginaries.

Ecocritical theories (Buell, 2005) further illuminate this dynamic, suggesting that sustainable artworks serve as mediators between ecological realities and cultural interpretation. For example, participatory art practices that involve community contributions embody collective responsibility, echoing Carlson’s (2000) notion of environmental aesthetics as shared appreciation and care. Thus, sustainable art functions as a nexus where ecological concerns, cultural critique, and aesthetic experience converge.

6.4 Barriers to Circular Creative Practice

The challenges identified—limited access to sustainable materials, energy-intensive technologies, and market pressures—highlight systemic obstacles to scaling circular art practices. These findings align with critiques of CE that emphasise structural limitations in current economic systems (Korhonen et al., 2018). While individual artists innovate within their practices, broader infrastructure and market transformations are required to support widespread adoption.

The contradiction between market logics and sustainability mirrors tensions observed in the creative industries more broadly, where economic imperatives often undermine ecological goals (Banks, 2020). Addressing these barriers will require collaborative interventions across policy, industry, and cultural sectors to align incentives with sustainable practices.

6.5 Theoretical Implications

The integration of CE, 4IR, and ecocritical perspectives in this study underscores the value of an interdisciplinary theoretical lens. The findings suggest that sustainable art practices cannot be understood solely through material analysis or technological efficiency. Instead, they require recognition of cultural meaning-making and systemic structures.

This integrative framework highlights the potential of artists to act as both innovators and critics within sustainability transitions. Their practices exemplify how circular economy principles can be embedded not only in production processes but also in cultural narratives and technological futures. By situating art at the intersection of ecology and technology, the study extends theoretical understandings of CE and sustainability beyond industrial and policy domains.

6.6 Practical Implications

Practically, the findings suggest several pathways for advancing sustainable art practices:

• Material Infrastructure: Developing accessible recycling and upcycling networks tailored to artists’ needs.
• Energy-Conscious Technologies: Encouraging the adoption of renewable energy in digital fabrication processes to mitigate environmental costs.
• Market Reorientation: Promoting art markets and funding structures that value sustainability alongside novelty and exclusivity.
• Policy Support: Integrating cultural production into CE policy frameworks to recognise the role of the arts in ecological transition.

These recommendations emphasise that sustainable art practices require systemic support, not just individual innovation.

6.7 Conclusion of Discussion

In sum, the discussion highlights the transformative potential of sustainable art practices in advancing circular economy principles within the context of 4IR. At the same time, it underscores the contradictions and barriers that challenge their full realisation. By combining material innovation, technological mediation, and cultural storytelling, artists contribute uniquely to sustainability transitions. However, scaling these contributions requires structural shifts in infrastructure, policy, and markets. The theoretical integration of CE, 4IR, and ecocriticism provides a robust lens for understanding this complexity and advancing sustainable creative practices.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study examined the intersections of circular economy (CE), creative expression, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) to explore how sustainable art practices are evolving in contemporary contexts. Findings reveal that artists are increasingly adopting material innovation, technological mediation, and cultural storytelling to embed sustainability into their work. At the same time, systemic challenges—such as limited access to sustainable materials, energy-intensive technologies, and unsupportive market structures—constrain the broader implementation of circular art practices.

Theoretically, this research demonstrates that CE in the arts is not merely a technical framework but also a cultural and symbolic one. Artists reframe waste as aesthetic value, utilise 4IR technologies to optimise production and expand non-material practices, and mobilise ecological narratives that encourage social reflection and responsibility. These practices highlight the unique role of the arts in advancing sustainability transitions beyond industrial and policy domains.

Practically, the study recommends four key strategies:

• Material Infrastructure: Strengthening recycling and upcycling systems that cater to artistic needs.
• Energy Transition: Integrating renewable energy sources into digital fabrication and exhibition processes to mitigate environmental costs.
• Market Reorientation: Encouraging art markets, curators, and funding agencies to recognise sustainability as a criterion of artistic value.
• Policy Integration: Embedding cultural production within CE frameworks at local, national, and global levels, acknowledging the arts as critical agents of ecological transformation.

In conclusion, sustainable art practices illustrate the creative potential of CE in the 4IR era while also revealing the structural barriers that must be addressed to scale such innovations. By embracing material circularity, technological mediation, and cultural agency, artists contribute uniquely to ecological futures, positioning creative expression as both a critique of unsustainable systems and a vision of alternatives.

References

Al-Ansi, A. M. (2023). A comprehensive review of AR and VR development in education (2011–2023). Computers & Education, 192, 104706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104706

Anderson, G. (2020). Reinventing the museum: The evolving conversation on the paradigm shift. Rowman & Littlefield.

Bakhshi, H., & Windsor, G. (2015). The creative economy and the future of employment. Nesta.

Banks, M. (2020). Creative economies of tomorrow? Limits to growth and the uncertain future. Cultural Trends, 29(5), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2020.1840274

Braungart, M., & McDonough, W. (2009). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. Vintage.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Buell, L. (2005). The future of environmental criticism: Environmental crisis and literary imagination. Blackwell.

Carlson, A. (2000). Aesthetics and the environment: The appreciation of nature, art, and architecture. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Design Museum. (2021). Waste Age: What can design do? Design Museum Publishing.

Dissanayake, E. (2017). Art and intimacy: How the arts began. University of Washington Press.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Elia, V., Gnoni, M. G., & Tornese, F. (2024). Integrating circular economy and sustainability assessment at the micro level: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 430, 139592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139592

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

Hodson, M., Geels, F. W., & McMeekin, A. (2018). Reconfiguring urban sustainability transitions, analysing multiplicity. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1079–1097.

Ingram, A. (2014). Remida: Creative recycling centres and the cultural valorisation of waste. Journal of Material Culture, 19(3), 279–296.

Jackson, S. (2014). Rethinking repair. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 221–240). MIT Press.

Kagan, S. (2011). Art and sustainability: Connecting patterns for a culture of complexity. transcript Verlag.

Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.

Majeed, A. (2020). Sustainable studio practices: An exploration of green strategies for artists. International Journal of Arts Management, 22(3), 45–58.

Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2

Parikka, J. (2015). A geology of media. University of Minnesota Press.

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Prendeville, S., Cherim, E., & Bocken, N. (2017). Circular design practices for creative industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1364–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.090

Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Business.

SCRAP Creative Reuse. (n.d.). About SCRAP. https://scrapcreativereuse.org

Stahel, W. (2016). The circular economy. Nature, 531(7595), 435–438.

Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. SAGE.

Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2018). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is changing the world. Penguin.

Tiberghien, G. A. (1995). Land art. Princeton Architectural Press.

Velden, M., & Wirth, T. (2021). The ecological footprint of digital art: Energy, hardware, and the challenge of sustainability. Digital Creativity, 32(1), 1–17.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.