By Kiera Wong, TFGI Insights Contributor
At a glance
- The Paradigm Shift: Unlike previous digital tools that changed how art is distributed or consumed, Generative AI (GenAI) disrupts the first stage of the UNESCO cultural cycle: original content creation.
- The Core Tension: The commercial pressure to prioritise rapid, low-cost “products” threatens the time-consuming human “process” that serves as a vital vessel for Southeast Asia’s cultural memory.
- The Way Forward: To prevent cultural dilution, SEA nations must implement robust Intellectual Property (IP) frameworks that protect human authorship, mobilise targeted funding, and foster a critical mindset shift that values the journey of creation over mere algorithmic output.
Share this insight
AI as the current (but not new) tech disruptor to the Arts
The rapid arrival of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has widely and rapidly impacted industries globally. While driving enhanced efficiency and innovation, AI disruption is also reshaping the future demand for professional skills, bringing into question the value of human input in an increasingly automated world.
In the creative industries, Generative AI (GenAI) triggers familiar anxieties about technological redundancies. Today, the average person can bypass skilled artists or creative professionals to create highly customised, visually aesthetic images. The anxiety of creatives’ redundancy is also paired with new ethical concerns of appropriating creative ideas and styles, as observed with the lawsuit over the trend of using ChatGPT to reproduce images in Studio Ghibli’s style which calls into question the importance of the human touch in creating art.
However, history has witnessed that the advancement of technology radically transforms the purpose, execution, and technique of the arts, rather than replacing them. From photography liberating the need for painting to computer graphics challenging traditional sketching, revolutionary technologies do not necessarily make industries redundant; they simply—and often painfully—restructure and re-evaluate the need for their existence.
In “Arts and Technologies in ASEAN: Interconnected Parts,” a qualitative study conducted by the British Council, SEA artists have long been adopting technology to produce works with meaningful human reflection—something that cannot be mimicked by automation alone. Beyond social media and GenAI, SEA artists have used, adapted, and advanced lighting, immersive technology, 3D technology, sensors, and sound production in order to push their narratives and expand their creative vocabularies.
How GenAI alters the Cultural Cycle
Yet, the disruption with GenAI is distinct and rightfully revolutionary. Referencing UNESCO’s Cultural Cycle as an analytical framework, the British Council outlines how tools like digital platforms and immersive technologies previously disrupted stages 02 to 05—that is, from production, to distribution, to delivery/transmission, to consumption/participation.
GenAI, however, is revolutionising innovations primarily at Stage 1: Content Creation—the very first step of the creative making process. Rather than simply assisting creative workflows or expanding distribution channels, GenAI is capable of generating original text, images, music or video, fundamentally redefining and challenging authorship and the role of human creator as we used to know. Artists from ASEAN have also begun adapting AI into other stages of the Cultural Cycle such as 05 Consumption/Participation.
Stage in the Cultural Cycle | How it has been disrupted by technology |
01 Content Creation: The generation of ideas and content, where artists and designers use tools to develop initial concepts. | While digital creative software improved/augmented artists’ workflows, content creation was still a keenly human process before GenAI. Original ideation, artistic judgement and technical skill was still irreplaceable by technologies. Now, GenAI enables collaborative ideation, and artists in ASEAN have been integrating AI-generated ideas with cultural motifs (pg 37). For example, Mahkota Designs from Brunei Darussalam are able to use GenAI tools such as Midjourney and NewArc.ai to ideate for intricate and culturally inspired designs that reach a greater audience (pg 41). |
02 Production: The realisation of creative ideas into tangible or digital products | Technologies and digital tools such as 3D modelling, digital fabrication and automation allow for precise design and rapid experimentation. Animation software like Adobe Animate and Dragonflame (a claymation tool), 3D modelling tools like Blender and digital audio workstations (DAWs) like Ableton Live have all been employed by artists in Cambodia, Laos and Malaysia (pg 27). |
03 Distribution: The method in which creative products are made available to audiences | Digital platforms now dominate the distribution of creative products, with data analytics and e-commerce integration increasingly playing a role in informing distribution strategies. It can also enhance artists’ earning potential; Indonesian digital artist Livi Zheng sold her NFT artwork for 12 ETH (approximately USD 36,000) on OpenSea (pg 42). |
04 Delivery/ Transmission: The way by which creative content reaches the audience | Immersive technologies such as VR, AR, interactive installations and digital platforms have created personalised, immersive and hybrid physical-digital experiences of art. An example would be Singapore’s ArtScience Museum’s “Into the Wild” exhibition, which transforms the museum into a virtual rainforest through the use of AR-enabled devices that allow visitors to interact with digital animals (pg 41). Moving forward, AI could enable adaptive and interactive cultural experiences, such as real-time translation, conversational interfaces, and AI-responsive storytelling. |
05 Consumption/ The manner in which consumers or audiences interact with and experience creative products. | With VR/AR installations and social media real-time feedback, audiences transform from passive consumers to active participants that can interact with cultural products rather than simply observe them. The report shows how in Myanmar, artists like Ko Latt are using VR and the metaverse to create immersive experiences that allow viewers to experience the harsh realities faced by the Burmese under military rule (pg 44). GenAI further transforms participation by enabling artworks to respond dynamically to audience input. For example, Voice Gems (Vietnam) analyses participants’ voices using AI to generate personalized digital gemstones in real time, shifting audiences from passive viewers to active co-creators of the cultural experience (pg 47). |
If thoughtlessly integrated into creative processes, AI could limit innovation at this foundational stage, simply regurgitating old ideas from data points that were fed into machine learning. On the other hand, with careful use as a tool in other stages of the Cultural Cycle, AI can enhance design processes and displace repetitive roles.
The tension between Process vs Product in SEA
This framework highlights a growing tension between Process and Product. Much of the current discourse surrounding GenAI prioritises efficiency and output—how to create more, faster, and for less. In an environment where speed and scalability are the primary metrics, the “messy,” time-consuming nature of human creative processes can be difficult to justify against tools capable of reproducing complex visual effects instantly.
If the measure of success becomes solely about the final product rather than the journey of making it, we risk under-investing in the very human-centric R&D that creates new artistic paradigms. As independent curator Ignatia Nilu (pg 47) notes:
“You could say that with AI, everyone can become makers… But not everyone becomes a creative maker. That’s the challenge. Not everyone becomes creative.”
The corporate gatekeepers of innovation
This struggle to protect the human process is further complicated by the asymmetric power dynamics of the global digital ecosystem. Despite the empowering rhetoric surrounding technology, the market power of global big tech companies dictates regional accessibility and affordability (pg 7).
A clear example of this occurred when Adobe raised its subscription prices, justifying the hike by pointing to the “value” of its new built-in AI features. For independent creators and smaller grassroots studios across Southeast Asia, such moves create steep financial dependencies. High fees and restrictive licensing models raise substantial barriers, forcing local creators to operate on tech giants’ terms rather than innovating freely on their own.
The risk of cultural dilution in SEA
This combined pressure—to prioritise an efficient global “product” while being financially squeezed by proprietary tech platforms—hits Southeast Asia uniquely hard. In this region, the artistic process is rarely just about commercial labour; it functions as a vital vessel for collective memory and historical documentation.
We see this deeply human value in works like Vuth Lyno’s “Light Voice” in Cambodia which transformed an abandoned staircase in the historic White Building into a sound-activated installation to preserve the memory of a community displaced by modernisation. Similarly, in Indonesia, Bagus Pandega’s “Yesteryears” to recreate drawings of lost homes from the Sidoarjo mudflow disaster, merging local narratives with kinetic technology to honour the resilience of affected communities.
These projects highlight that meaningful regional art is deeply anchored in localised history and community resilience—nuances that require deliberate human reflection. When expression is reduced strictly to algorithmic efficiency, the threat is not merely the economic displacement of artists, but systemic cultural dilution. If SEA surrenders its creative authorship to the demand for fast, homogenised content, it risks trading these distinct cultural nuances for hallucinatory, algorithmic approximations—effectively erasing the authentic “human touch” that holds its diverse heritage together.
How to safeguard Southeast Asian creativity and human authorship
Leaving the regional creative ecosystem to be shaped entirely by market forces and proprietary global monopolies guarantees a future of cultural erasure. To prevent this, Southeast Asia cannot afford to be a passive consumer of AI technology. Instead, the region requires a deliberate, structured intervention—one that legally safeguards human ingenuity, provides independent financial lifelines, and shifts the collective mindset to value the journey of creation as much as the final output.
This requires a coordinated approach across three strategic policy pillars.
A. IP Policy Analysis
IP is critical for creative technologies because it protects breakthroughs, encourages investment, and ensures artists receive monetary compensation for their original ideas. While some SEA countries already have stronger IP frameworks and are rewarded with more developed creative sectors, AI-related IP frameworks can further encourage human-led creativity.
For example, the Human Authorship Requirement (affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court) establishes that purely AI-generated works cannot hold a copyright, while AI-assisted creative works with sufficient human control can be copyrighted. Similar IP laws in SEA can ensure that local creators remain the driving force of the region’s cultural economy while leveraging technology as an amplifier for human ingenuity.
B. Funding Support for Arts and Technologies
The report highlights a lack of financial support as another key hurdle creative professionals face. Activating targeted funding mechanisms can make a significant impact on the further development of creative technology in the region:
Funding Mechanism | Strategic Focus for Creative Technology |
Government grants and subsidies | Governments can invest in AI literacy, digital infrastructure and creative technology competencies, providing artist access to artistic tools such as AI/VR/3D modelling software (e.g. MakeIT by Singapore’s National Library Board). Government grants and subsidies can also fund specific projects that seek to preserve cultural heritage where market incentives are insufficient. |
Private sector investment | Private investors and venture capital firms can provide seed funding or accelerator programmes for creative-tech startups seeking to develop tools for artists, interactive media, gaming, animation or more. |
International organisations | International organisations can create opportunities for collaboration through regional residencies, R&D projects or knowledge-sharing programmes. By connecting artist-technologists across borders, these initiatives can also provide international platforms for their work, increasing visibility and access to new networks, resources and opportunities that can further drive experimentation and innovation. |
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and foundations | NGOs can support socially valuable projects that may not attract commercial investment. Foundations such as the ASEAN Foundation can provide grants for creative projects employing technology that fosters cultural preservation, community storytelling, environmental art or to advocate for certain social causes. This is especially relevant where the project’s social/cultural value exceeds its commercial potential. |
Corporate sponsorships and partnerships | With corporations regularly seeking sponsorship and collaboration opportunities for social relevance, corporate sponsorships can provide resources and technology for larger-scale creative experimentation. For example, Google Arts & Culture and Jacquard’s artist residency brought artists together with Google engineers to develop interactive installations using Jacquard technology, demonstrating how corporate partnerships can provide artists with access to technological expertise and resources that enable new forms of creative expression. |
C. Fostering an Ecosystem Mindset Shift
Beyond legal frameworks and funding, the region requires a fundamental shift in how it defines value. Stakeholders—including educational institutions, industry bodies, and tech developers—must consciously move away from metrics that solely reward commercial speed, scalability, and raw output. By re-centring the ecosystem around the value of human-centric R&D, creative experimentation, and the artistic journey itself, the region can cultivate “creative makers” rather than just passive users of automated tools.
Conclusion: Protecting the journey to creativity
As the conflict between Process and Product intensifies, we must be clear: the technology itself is not the devil. Time has proven that the creative sector will not be trodden out by technological advancements, and AI is simply a tool with an undeniable capacity for innovation.
The true threat lies in the blatant, rampant use of AI at the content creation stage—where it threatens to bypass the messy, vital work of human thought and replace genuine ingenuity with algorithmic efficiency.
It is natural for markets and startups to prize efficiency, but if we surrender our creative authorship to automation, we risk losing the very nuance that defines us. Stakeholders—from governments and educators to civil society—must step in to consciously protect and fund the human process. By building a resilient ecosystem that values the journey of creation as much as the final output, Southeast Asia can ensure its digital economy remains not just efficient, but deeply creative and culturally distinct.
Standard Disclaimer: The views and recommendations expressed in this article published are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and position of the Tech for Good Institute.
