By September 30,2025, we had collected a total of 217 questionnaires in China, with the age distribution as follows.Overall, our survey population was dominated by young people aged 18-30. As the most active and influential segment in society, this group has artistic aesthetic orientations and acceptance levels that largely indicate the future direction of public aesthetic education, most accurately reflecting the current societal acceptance of innovative art forms and existing cognitive biases.

Figure 1: Age distribution of respondents (The answer to "age")
The distribution of social identities among our survey respondents is as follows: Overall, the majority of respondents were students, followed by teachers, with a small proportion being working professionals and other employed individuals. Among the teacher group, most taught academic subjects such as Chinese, English, chemistry, and biology, with only a few involved in art-related courses. Within the working professionals group, there were specialists in fields like biotechnology, art restoration, and art therapy, as well as practitioners from numerous other industries—ranging from cutting-edge technological innovation sectors like information technology to foundational service areas like healthcare, and even industries bridging technology and personal consumption, such as the beauty industry. This diversity ensures the comprehensiveness of the survey results.

Figure 2: Social identities of respondents (The answer to "identity")

Figure 3: Teaching disciplines of the faculty group (The answer to "subjects taught")

Figure 4: Career directions of Professionals (The answer to "Career Orientation")
After characterizing the demographic profiles of our survey respondents, we further analyzed their perspectives on art-related issues. Below are the definitions of art provided by the participants. Overall, painting and music received the highest recognition, reaching approximately 95%, followed by film, theater, sculpture, and dance, with recognition rates hovering around 88.5%. Lastly, cooking and gaming garnered recognition rates of about 69% and 64%, respectively. Additionally, some respondents supplemented their personal definitions of art, such as "any concept or entity that satisfies aesthetic needs", "things that originate from life yet transcend it—beauty defined differently by each Homo sapiens", and so on. This indicates that traditional aesthetic education has successfully popularized classical art, yet struggles to respond to the diversity of contemporary art. Therefore, establishing an inclusive aesthetic framework has become an urgent necessity, which also points the way for our project to promote innovation in aesthetic education.

Figure 5: Respondents' definition of art (The answer to "art definition judgment responses")
We subsequently investigated the frequency and forms of art participation among respondents, with the following findings. Overall, 34% of participants engage in art multiple times weekly or occasionally, followed by 23.5% who participate monthly, while those who rarely engage account for the smallest proportion. Regarding engagement formats, online art appreciation and offline exhibition/performing arts visits dominate, with participation rates reaching 78.8% and 66.36% respectively. Meanwhile, self-creation and art course participation rates remain below 50%. This indicates that current public engagement in art remains passive and superficial. Art education and aesthetic cultivation efforts should not merely provide richer artistic content for public consumption, but must transform the public from "spectators" to active "co-creators." This insight suggests that our project applications should adopt universal applicability and low barriers to entry, enabling broader public participation in artistic creation processes.

Figure 6: Frequency of artistic participation among respondents (The answer to "frequency of personal artistic participation")

Figure 7: Forms of artistic participation of respondents (The answer to "Forms of personal artistic participation")
We then analyzed the respondents’ views on art and aesthetic education, with specific results as follows. Respondents generally agreed that "aesthetic education can enhance people's life happiness", but were neutral or slightly opposed to the view that "community art museums are as important as hospitals". The statements "art education has limited help for scientific employment" and "school art classes are secondary to core subjects like mathematics and Chinese" received neutral or slightly supportive ratings. This indicates that the Chinese public has highly recognized the intrinsic value and personal significance of art ideologically, but demonstrates a highly cautious and pragmatic attitude when addressing practical issues such as resource allocation, utilitarian utility, and institutional integration. This also highlights the core challenge in promoting aesthetic education today: designing practical solutions that bridge spiritual artistic pursuits with real-world concerns, rather than merely discussing its importance.

Figure 8: Average agreement of respondents on views related to art (The answer to "Please choose the most appropriate item according to your actual situation: 1→5 indicates strong disapproval→strong approval")
To investigate the current state of aesthetic education marginalization, we surveyed respondents regarding their perceptions and observed phenomena related to this issue along with underlying causes.
Figure 9 illustrates the prevalence of marginalization-related phenomena. Approximately 3% of respondents answered "none" in the "other" category. Some mentioned specific instances such as the absence of art courses starting from high school, schools conducting art classes merely as formalities rather than fulfilling aesthetic education objectives, and universities treating artistic literacy as a comprehensive evaluation tool.
Figure 10 illustrates respondents’ agreement with the notion of "aesthetic education being marginalized", with specific results as follows: 76.98% of respondents endorsed this view. Regarding those who opposed it, our analysis of their arguments revealed differing interpretations of the question. Some respondents maintained that aesthetic education is crucial and should not be marginalized. Others noted that aesthetic education has gradually gained societal recognition, while some argued that "the scope of marginalization needs clarification and the current situation should be acknowledged within the exam-oriented education framework". Conversely, others expressed reservations, stating it might simply be "artists' self-perceived biases".
Figure 11 highlights primary causes of aesthetic education marginalization, with 85% attributing it to "social utilitarian values", establishing the macro-social context of this challenge. The institutional causes of aesthetic education marginalization are twofold: "The college entrance system does not assess art" and uneven distribution of educational resources. The 59.28% recognition rate of "parental cognitive biases" reflects utilitarian values at the family level. These findings clearly expose systemic challenges in implementing aesthetic education. Data consistently highlight a core contradiction: while the ideal value of aesthetic education enjoys widespread acceptance, its implementation within the current education framework often suffers from marginalization, utilitarian tendencies, and superficial formalism.

Figure 9: The existence of marginalization of aesthetic education (The answer to "Do you observe the following phenomenon in your life?")

Figure 10: Respondents’ agreement with the view that "aesthetic education is marginalized" (the answer to the question "Do you agree that aesthetic education is marginalized (which can be simply understood as aesthetic education is not valued)")

Figure 11: Main reasons respondents think aesthetic education is marginalized (The answer to "What do you think are the main reasons for aesthetic education being marginalized?")
To most intuitively probe the public's genuine social attitudes and underlying biases toward art education, we designed a scenario question about "first reactions when seeing neighbors' children learning painting or musical instruments". The majority of respondents endorsed "nurturing interests is beneficial", while a minority expressed concerns that neighbors might "intend to enroll in art-specialized programs" or "worry about academic performance". Only a small percentage considered it "a wasteful and useless investment". In the "other" category, respondents shared perspectives like "forced by parents", "I'd love to learn if I could", and "hope the children genuinely enjoy art rather than parents demanding hobbies". These findings reveal a paradoxical social mentality --- where widespread conceptual support coexists with practical utilitarian anxieties. The overall societal endorsement reflects multiple layers of criticism regarding educational alienation, aspirations for artistic purity, and personal sentiments.

Figure 12: Respondents 'first reaction when they saw their neighbor's child learning to draw or play an instrument (The answer to "When you see your child learning to draw/instrument, what's your first reaction?")
Our research exposes the persistent challenge in aesthetic education: while its value gain recognition, they remain marginalized. This is precisely why our project carries profound significance. By employing low-cost biological kits to challenge resource inequality, we spark creativity through life's natural inspiration rather than forced indoctrination, allowing aesthetic education to reconnect with genuine appreciation and passion. This endeavor transcends mere science—it can stand as a groundbreaking social experiment shaping the future of aesthetic education.