Is Artificial Intelligence the new assistant in the studio? Is it a helpful intern, or a colleague that comes at a high price? And, perhaps more importantly, are our cultural institutions ready for what comes next?

The answer, it seems, is already unfolding in Malta. Four out of five artists are using artificial intelligence in some capacity. While artists are busy experimenting with this new creative colleague, however, our institutions and policies appear to be struggling to keep pace.

A recent local study by Culture Venture, Artificial Intelligence and Artistic Practice in Malta: Trends, Impact and Future Directions, which I co-authored with Toni Attard and Graziella Vella, with the support of Arts Council Malta, provides the first comprehensive snapshot of how Malta's artists are navigating one of the most disruptive, albeit exciting, technological shifts of recent decades.

The findings reveal a rather interesting contradiction. Artists are not shying away from AI. They are embracing it, experimenting with it and incorporating it into their creative practices. Yet this enthusiasm is accompanied by growing concerns about copyright, artistic integrity, cultural identity and, ultimately, the sustainability of creative livelihoods.

I'm fascinated by this social transformation and its impact on the arts, not only in terms of the future shifts but also in its present tense. My curiosity and academic work led me to study this further in other recent published works examining the growing relationship between AI, the arts, audience development and cultural management. In Artificial Intelligence and Art: Functions and Frictions in the Contemporary Artworld, I explored AI's creative possibilities alongside concerns about authorship, ethics, authenticity and human creativity. Another co-authored article examined how AI is reshaping cultural management, bringing greater efficiency and predictability while also raising concerns about homogenisation and creativity. Together, this research looks at AI as a force already transforming artistic practice and the future of creative work.

Artists are adopting AI, but largely without training

Perhaps the Culture Venture report's most striking finding is not that artists are using AI, but how quickly they have adopted it without formal guidance. A total of 81% artists and cultural practitioners said they already use AI tools, despite 82% reporting they have never received any structured training in the technology. For most, learning has been driven by experimentation, online tutorials and self-directed exploration rather than educational programmes or institutional support. Acknowledging the use of AI is itself an interesting finding, as it points to ways in navigating the stigma surrounding its use. Some artists worry that disclosing their use of AI may lead others to question the authenticity, originality or value of their work.

It is noteworth to mention that artists stated they are primarily using AI as a practical assistant rather than a replacement for creativity. Generative AI tools are the most widely adopted, followed by automation tools that simplify repetitive tasks such as editing, project management and administrative work. Artists also use AI for predictive analysis, although more specialised applications remain relatively uncommon.

In practice, AI is being integrated into the early stages of creative work. Respondents most frequently cited research, brainstorming and concept generation as their principal uses, alongside writing, scripting, design visualisation and content development. Rather than allowing AI to produce finished artistic works, many practitioners are employing it to stimulate ideas, overcome creative blocks and streamline time-consuming tasks before applying their own artistic judgement.

There is an interesting generational difference in AI adoption across the sector. Younger practitioners, particularly those aged between 25 and 34, are significantly more likely to integrate AI into their professional practice, while adoption is lower among older age groups. Even among regular users, AI has yet to become fully embedded in everyday artistic production.

Artists overwhelmingly associated AI with greater efficiency. Nearly 90% said it improves the speed of their work, while 80% reported benefits in administration and organisation. Two-thirds also believed AI enhances creativity, idea generation, innovation and overall productivity, demonstrating that many see the technology as a collaborator that frees them from repetitive tasks rather than replacing artistic decision-making.

Yet this rapid adoption has exposed a significant skills gap. Without formal education, many artists remain uncertain about AI's legal, ethical and technical implications, including copyright, intellectual property, consent, transparency and responsible use. The report notes that many respondents selected "unsure" or "neither agree nor disagree" when asked about several aspects of AI, suggesting that uncertainty remains widespread even among active users.

Malta's cultural sector has reached a pivotal moment. While artists have shown remarkable willingness to embrace emerging technologies, they have largely done so without the structured support needed to use AI confidently and responsibly. This is why one of the report's central recommendations is the creation of an artist-centred AI literacy programme that goes beyond technical skills to include ethics, copyright, licensing, prompt design, environmental sustainability and the responsible integration of AI into creative practice. Without such investment, the report warns, Malta risks leaving artists to steer one of the most significant technological transformations of their careers largely on their own.

The Special Eurobarometer 562: Europeans' Attitudes towards Culture, published by the European Commission in May 2025, indicates that AI is already having a visible impact on cultural participation across Europe, with Malta often recording higher levels of engagement than the EU average. While a majority of Europeans (81%) expressed a preference for human-created cultural content, this preference was even stronger in Malta (84%). At the same time, concern about the impact of generative AI on artists' employment and earnings was also more pronounced, with 76% of Maltese respondents expressing concern compared with 73% across the European Union.

Innovation meets anxiety

While artists recognise AI's creative potential, enthusiasm is tempered by growing unease. More than three-quarters of respondents expressed concerns about the ethical use of AI, while 81 per cent believe stronger regulation is urgently needed to protect creators.

Intellectual property emerged as one of the most pressing issues. Nearly four in ten artists said they are highly concerned that their work could be used without consent to train commercial AI systems, even though many have not yet identified specific cases involving their own work. Interestingly, this perceived anxiety persists despite the fact that a majority (55%) stated they had not yet personally encountered a verifiable violation of their work. Furthermore, 64% of respondents indicated that they do not consider AI-generated outputs to hold the same authorship value as human-created work. This underlines continuous skepticism regarding the authenticity, originality, and artistic legitimacy of machine-driven content.

Fear of cultural homogenisation

Beyond economic concerns, many participants fear AI could weaken Malta's cultural identity. Almost two-thirds believe AI risks homogenising cultural expression, while over half worry that local artistic traditions and the Maltese language could gradually become marginalised within global AI systems trained predominantly on English-language and international datasets. Safeguarding Malta's cultural diversity will require investment in Maltese-language AI resources and stronger representation of local heritage within future digital technologies.

Human creativity remains irreplaceable

Although many artists acknowledge AI's growing capabilities, few believe it can replace the essence of artistic creation. Participants identified administrative work, research and technical tasks as the areas most vulnerable to automation. Creative judgement, emotional expression, collaboration and artistic interpretation were consistently viewed as distinctly human strengths that AI cannot replicate.

The report therefore rejects simplistic narratives portraying AI either as a miracle solution or an existential threat. Instead, it argues that the future of artistic practice will depend on how technology is governed rather than on the technology itself.

Ten recommendations for Malta

So what should be done? Not blindly embrace AI, nor try to keep it out of the arts. Instead, Malta has an opportunity to develop an artist-centred approach that welcomes innovation while protecting creativity, cultural identity and fair working conditions.

The Arts Council Malta Strategy 2030 places important emphasis on AI and the arts, providing a strong starting point. Yet the report calls for a National AI and Culture Strategy, recognising that AI is no longer simply a technological issue, but a cultural, economic and social one. Artists also need practical AI literacy, not only in how to use these technologies, but in understanding copyright, consent, ethics and their environmental implications.

Copyright and fair remuneration are particularly pressing. Artists need clearer rules about AI-assisted and AI-generated work, transparency, and whether creators whose work is used to train AI systems should be recognised and compensated.

For Malta, language and cultural identity are equally important. Investment in Maltese-language AI and the digitisation of cultural collections could help prevent our language and heritage from disappearing in an increasingly AI-driven digital landscape.

The report also recommends monitoring how AI is changing artists' jobs and introducing greater transparency when AI is used in publicly funded artistic projects. At the same time, dedicated grants could encourage responsible experimentation with AI in areas such as heritage, accessibility, language and audience engagement. But perhaps most importantly, artists must retain the right not to use AI. Choosing to work without the technology should not become a disadvantage.

Ultimately, the challenge is not simply to keep up with AI, but to decide what kind of cultural future we want it to create, one driven purely by technology and commercial interests, or one that keeps artists, cultural diversity and the public interest at its centre.

You can read more about this report by accessing the Culture Venture website:  https://cultureventure.org/2026/07/17/artistic-practice-artificial-intelligence-new-research-from-culture-venture/