By Simpson Global Media News Desk
Nigeria’s arts and culture community is confronting a new challenge brought by the rapid spread of artificial intelligence, with artists and cultural stakeholders calling for responsible use of the technology while warning that African creators must retain control over their stories, identities and artistic heritage.
The call was made at the third edition of the Arts Expo and Exhibition organised by the Ogun State branch of the Society of Nigerian Artists at the Cultural Centre, Kuto, Abeokuta.
The exhibition, held under the theme “Echoes of Creative Expression,” brought together artists and other creative-sector stakeholders for discussions about the future of artistic practice in an increasingly technology-driven environment.
While participants acknowledged that artificial intelligence is already transforming how artists create, communicate and distribute their work, they stressed that technology should remain a tool in the hands of human creators rather than become a substitute for human imagination.
The discussion went beyond the familiar question of whether AI will replace artists.
Participants focused on a deeper cultural concern: what happens to African history and identity when increasingly powerful technologies are trained on cultural information that has not been properly documented, preserved or controlled by the communities from which it originated?
That question is becoming increasingly important as generative AI systems are used to create images, music, written material, video and other forms of cultural expression.
For African artists, the opportunities are substantial.
But so are the risks.
Keeping Africans at the Centre of Their Own Stories
Representing the Olowu of Owu Kingdom, His Royal Majesty Oba Saka Adelola Matemilola, Otileta VII, the Orunto of Owu Kingdom, Dr Abiodun Lasile, said Africa must urgently document and preserve its cultural heritage as the world moves deeper into the artificial-intelligence era.
He identified African languages, histories, oral traditions, proverbs, festivals, artistic expressions and indigenous knowledge as areas requiring greater documentation.
The concern is straightforward.
Artificial intelligence systems depend heavily on data.
If African cultural material is poorly documented, unavailable in digital formats or represented mainly through the interpretations of people outside the communities concerned, future AI systems may learn incomplete versions of African history and culture.
That could have consequences far beyond technology.
The information contained in digital systems increasingly shapes how people search for knowledge, produce educational material, create entertainment and understand different societies.
If African narratives are absent or inadequately represented, the continent could find itself consuming versions of its own history that were assembled elsewhere.
Lasile therefore urged African creators to treat cultural documentation as an urgent responsibility.
He argued that technology should help carry African heritage into the future rather than erase distinctive cultural identities.
His warning reflects a growing international debate about who controls cultural data and how artificial intelligence represents communities whose languages, traditions and histories have historically been underrepresented in global information systems.
AI Is Here to Stay
The cultural stakeholders did not call for artists to reject artificial intelligence.
Instead, they urged creators to understand the technology and use it deliberately.
Lasile described AI as a technology that had come to stay, while insisting that human beings should remain at the centre of the creative process.
The distinction is important.
Artists are already using AI tools for brainstorming, image generation, editing, research, writing assistance, music experimentation, animation and other activities.
For many creators, the technology can reduce the amount of time required to complete certain tasks.
It can also allow artists with limited technical resources to experiment with ideas that might previously have required expensive equipment or specialist teams.
But increased efficiency does not necessarily mean better art.
Creative work involves experience, emotion, cultural understanding, judgement and personal perspective.
Those qualities cannot simply be reduced to automated generation.
The challenge for artists is therefore to determine where technology can assist the creative process and where human judgement must remain decisive.
Human Imagination and Machine Assistance
Dr Ellis Adeyemo Oyekola, one of the contributors to the discussion, acknowledged the growing importance of AI across artistic disciplines but urged creators to adopt the technology responsibly.
He argued that AI could help artists create, communicate and share ideas more efficiently while maintaining their individual artistic identity.
The objective, he suggested, should not be to replace human activity with artificial intelligence.
Instead, artists should combine human imagination with the speed and capabilities of technology.
That approach treats AI as an instrument.
A painter may use a digital tool to explore compositions.
A filmmaker may use AI-assisted software during pre-production.
A musician may experiment with technology during arrangement or sound design.
A writer may use AI to generate ideas or organise research.
In each case, the artist remains responsible for deciding what the work means and what ultimately reaches the audience.
That distinction is particularly important when the subject matter involves cultural heritage.
An algorithm can generate an image of a traditional festival, but it does not automatically understand the historical significance of the festival.
It can reproduce patterns associated with African clothing, but it does not necessarily understand the social meanings embedded in those designs.
It can produce a story containing Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa or other Nigerian cultural references, but that does not guarantee that the references are accurate.
Human cultural knowledge remains essential.
The Problem of Incomplete Digital Histories
One of the most important warnings from the exhibition concerned the consequences of incomplete documentation.
Africa possesses enormous cultural knowledge.
Much of it has traditionally been transmitted orally.
Stories are passed from parents to children.
Histories are preserved through praise poetry, proverbs, songs and ceremonies.
Craft techniques are taught through apprenticeship.
Traditional knowledge is often embedded in everyday practices rather than formal archives.
These methods have allowed cultures to survive for generations.
But the digital age is changing how knowledge is preserved and accessed.
When cultural information is not documented, digitised or made accessible in responsible ways, it becomes more difficult for future generations to find it.
This creates an opportunity for AI systems and other digital platforms to fill gaps using whatever information is available.
The danger is that the available information may be incomplete.
It may also be written by outsiders who lack the cultural context needed to interpret it properly.
An AI system can reproduce that information at enormous speed.
If the original material contains errors, those errors can potentially be repeated across thousands of outputs.
The problem is therefore not simply technological.
It is a question of cultural ownership, historical accuracy and representation.
Preserving African Languages
Language was among the areas identified as requiring urgent documentation.
Nigeria alone is home to hundreds of languages and numerous dialects.
Each language carries more than vocabulary.
Languages contain histories, concepts, humour, oral traditions, systems of classification and ways of understanding the world.
When a language becomes poorly represented in digital systems, its speakers may find themselves increasingly dependent on technologies designed primarily around other languages.
This has implications for AI.
Many generative systems perform better in languages with large quantities of digitised training material.
Major global languages have enormous digital archives.
Smaller African languages often do not.
As AI becomes integrated into education, communication, translation and information services, the gap could become more consequential.
The cultural stakeholders' call for documentation therefore has a technological dimension.
Preserving languages is no longer only about books and archives.
It is also about ensuring that future digital systems can recognise and represent those languages accurately.
Oral Traditions in a Digital Age
The same principle applies to oral traditions.
Nigeria's cultural history contains a vast body of knowledge that exists primarily through storytelling.
Traditional rulers, elders, historians, performers and community custodians often hold knowledge that may not exist in formal written archives.
As older generations pass away, some of that knowledge can disappear unless it is documented.
Digital recording provides an opportunity to preserve such material.
Audio recordings, video interviews, photographs, transcripts and digital archives can help future generations access information that might otherwise be lost.
But documentation itself must be done responsibly.
Communities should have a say in how sacred, private or sensitive cultural material is recorded and distributed.
Not every traditional practice should automatically be placed online.
Cultural preservation must therefore be accompanied by cultural consent.
That is another area where human judgement remains essential.
Protecting Originality
Participants also highlighted originality as a central issue.
Artificial intelligence can generate new-looking material by drawing on patterns contained in existing information.
This raises difficult questions for artists.
Who owns an AI-generated work?
What happens when an AI system produces an image that closely resembles the style of an existing artist?
How should creators be compensated when their work contributes to training systems?
What constitutes genuine originality in an age when machines can rapidly reproduce artistic styles?
These questions are being debated around the world, but they have particular significance for African artists.
Many Nigerian artists already operate in an environment where intellectual-property protection can be difficult.
Unauthorised copying, reproduction and commercial use can reduce the income available to creators.
Generative AI introduces another layer of complexity.
If artists do not understand their rights or if legal frameworks fail to keep pace with technology, creators could find themselves increasingly exposed.
AI and the Creative Economy
Nigeria's creative sector has become an increasingly important part of the country's economic ambitions.
Music, film, fashion, visual art, publishing, design and digital content have created new opportunities for young Nigerians.
The government has also increasingly framed the creative industries as part of the wider creative economy.
Artificial intelligence could accelerate some of that growth.
A small creative company can potentially use AI-assisted tools to produce prototypes, explore ideas, develop marketing materials or streamline parts of production.
Artists can reach global audiences through digital platforms.
Creators can experiment with forms that might previously have been too expensive or technically demanding.
But technology can also disrupt established creative jobs.
If businesses begin replacing artists with automated systems simply because those systems are cheaper, the result could be reduced opportunities for human creators.
That is why the question is not whether AI should be used.
It is how it should be used.
From Consumption to Production
Dr Kehinde Shobukola, Head of the Fine Arts Department at Mountain Top University, called for stronger collaboration between artists and production engineers.
His argument connected artistic creativity with manufacturing and economic development.
Artists generate concepts and ideas.
Engineers and production specialists can help translate those concepts into tangible products.
That relationship could create opportunities to move creative work beyond galleries and exhibitions into commercial production.
For Nigeria, such a shift could be economically significant.
The country has a large population of creative young people but still imports many products that could potentially be designed and produced locally.
Combining artistic ideas with engineering and manufacturing skills could create new industries around furniture, fashion, decorative products, cultural merchandise, digital fabrication and other creative goods.
AI could assist in that process by helping designers prototype concepts more quickly.
But again, technology would be most valuable when combined with human skill.
Rethinking Art Education
The discussion also highlighted the need to rethink how artists are trained.
Traditional art education remains important.
Drawing, painting, sculpture, composition, colour theory, art history and craftsmanship provide foundations that cannot simply be replaced by software.
At the same time, modern artists need to understand digital tools.
The next generation of Nigerian creators may work across physical and digital environments.
A visual artist could combine traditional painting with digital projection.
A sculptor could use three-dimensional modelling before producing a physical object.
A filmmaker could combine practical production with AI-assisted post-production.
A fashion designer could use digital tools to explore patterns before creating physical garments.
Education therefore needs to prepare students for both worlds.
The goal should not be to turn every artist into a computer programmer.
It should be to ensure that creators understand enough about emerging technologies to use them intelligently.
The Need for Ethical Intelligence
Participants at the exhibition emphasised ethics alongside technological capability.
That is an important distinction.
It is possible to become highly skilled at using AI while still using it irresponsibly.
A creator may generate convincing misinformation.
An artist may reproduce another person's work without permission.
A filmmaker may manipulate a person's likeness.
A cultural organisation may publish inaccurate historical material.
A company may use AI to reduce labour costs without considering the effect on creative workers.
These are not merely technical questions.
They involve values.
The cultural stakeholders therefore called for ethical intelligence alongside artificial intelligence.
Artists need to understand not only what technology can do but also what they should do with it.
That principle is likely to become increasingly important as AI tools become easier to access.
Cultural Identity in a Global Digital Environment
Nigeria's cultural identity has always developed through interaction.
The country's music, fashion, literature, film, food and visual arts have been influenced by different traditions.
Globalisation has accelerated those exchanges.
Digital technology has made them almost instantaneous.
Nigerian creators can now collaborate with artists anywhere in the world.
A musician in Lagos can work with a producer in London.
A designer in Abeokuta can sell to customers in New York.
A filmmaker in Abuja can distribute content to audiences across Africa and the diaspora.
That connectivity creates enormous opportunity.
But global visibility also creates pressure to adapt cultural expression to international expectations.
AI could intensify that pressure if algorithms reward certain visual styles or narratives more than others.
Artists must therefore be able to use global technology without losing the distinctiveness of their own perspectives.
Who Tells the African Story?
The question of representation lies at the heart of the debate.
Africa has often been represented internationally through narratives created outside the continent.
Those narratives have sometimes overlooked local perspectives or reduced complex societies to simplified images.
Digital technology can either reinforce that problem or help correct it.
If African creators produce high-quality digital archives, images, music, literature and other cultural material, they can provide richer sources of information for future technologies.
If they do not, others will continue to fill the gap.
That is why documentation is not a secondary cultural activity.
It is becoming part of the struggle over representation in the digital age.
The creators who document their communities today may influence how those communities are represented by technologies decades from now.
The Opportunity for Nigerian Artists
Despite the concerns expressed at the exhibition, the message was not one of fear.
Artists were encouraged to embrace AI.
Refusing to engage with technology could leave creators behind as the industry evolves.
The more useful approach is to understand the technology while maintaining creative control.
For Nigerian artists, this could mean learning how generative tools work, experimenting with them, understanding copyright and licensing issues, and developing personal methods for integrating technology into their practice.
It could also mean creating Nigerian datasets.
Artists, historians, universities, museums and cultural institutions could collaborate to digitise archives and document cultural material.
Such initiatives would benefit researchers as well as future AI systems.
Museums and Cultural Institutions
Museums have a particularly important role to play.
Nigeria possesses collections of artworks, artefacts, photographs, documents and historical records.
Some are held by museums and galleries.
Others are in private collections or community institutions.
Digitising those materials could help preserve them against physical deterioration and make them accessible to researchers.
Digital catalogues could also improve provenance and authentication.
The exhibition participants stressed the importance of preserving artworks and documenting their origins.
That is particularly relevant in an environment where digital reproduction makes it increasingly easy for images to circulate without context.
A strong digital record can help establish who created a work, when it was created, what materials were used and how it fits into an artist's wider practice.
Protecting Provenance
Artists at the exhibition also raised the issue of documenting the creative process.
Keeping sketches, drafts, photographs and other records can establish the history of an artwork.
This can become important when disputes arise over ownership or authenticity.
For artists entering digital markets, provenance can also support the value of their work.
Collectors and institutions increasingly want to know where an artwork came from and how it was produced.
AI makes that documentation even more important.
When technology can generate thousands of images within a short period, the evidence of human authorship and creative development may become a valuable part of an artist's record.
Artists therefore have a practical reason to preserve their creative processes.
The Importance of Collaboration
The exhibition also highlighted the need for collaboration among different professions.
Artists cannot address the technological transition alone.
They need lawyers who understand intellectual property.
They need engineers who understand production.
They need historians who understand cultural documentation.
They need archivists who know how to preserve information.
They need technology specialists who can help build digital platforms.
They need policymakers who can create rules that protect creators without preventing innovation.
Universities can provide research.
Museums can provide collections.
Private companies can provide investment and technology.
Traditional institutions can provide cultural knowledge.
The challenge is to connect these groups.
Building African Cultural Data
One of the most significant long-term opportunities is the development of African cultural datasets.
Such datasets could include properly documented languages, oral histories, music, visual art, architecture, traditional practices, literature and historical records.
They could help researchers study African culture.
They could support educational technology.
They could improve translation tools.
They could also make AI systems more capable of representing African realities accurately.
But building such datasets requires careful governance.
Communities should be involved in decisions about what is collected and how it is used.
Creators should be credited.
Sensitive information should receive appropriate protection.
And commercial uses should be governed by clear agreements.
The objective should not be to put everything online without controls.
It should be to create responsible systems through which African cultural knowledge can be preserved and used appropriately.
The Nigerian Opportunity
Nigeria is well positioned to play a leading role in this process.
The country has a large creative sector, major universities, technology companies, museums, traditional institutions and a substantial diaspora.
It also has an enormous body of cultural material.
What is missing in many cases is coordination.
Individual artists and researchers may be documenting important material, but their work is often scattered.
A national or regional effort could connect those projects.
Digital archives could be linked.
Museums could collaborate with universities.
Traditional rulers could work with historians.
Artists could contribute creative interpretations.
Technology companies could provide infrastructure.
Such an ecosystem could make Nigeria an important centre for African cultural digitisation.
Young Creators at the Centre
Young Nigerians are likely to experience the greatest impact of AI in the creative industries.
Many are already comfortable with digital platforms.
They create videos, music, illustrations, fashion concepts, games and other content using smartphones and inexpensive software.
AI tools can dramatically increase what an individual creator can produce.
A young artist who previously needed a team of specialists may be able to develop a prototype independently.
That democratisation of creative tools could be positive.
But it also means young creators need guidance.
They must understand copyright.
They need to recognise manipulated information.
They need to know how to protect their own work.
And they need to understand the difference between inspiration and unauthorised copying.
Art schools and universities therefore have an important role in preparing students for the new environment.
Creativity Must Remain Human
The central message from the Ogun exhibition was ultimately about balance.
AI should be embraced.
But it should not be allowed to displace the human purpose of art.
Art is not valuable merely because it is technically impressive.
It is valuable because it communicates something.
It reflects experience.
It provokes emotion.
It records history.
It challenges society.
It expresses identity.
Technology can help artists achieve those objectives.
It cannot decide what those objectives should be.
That remains a human responsibility.
The Economic Case for Ethical AI
Responsible AI use is not only a cultural issue.
It is also an economic one.
Nigeria's creative economy depends on people being able to earn from their ideas.
If technological systems make it easier to copy creative work without compensation, the economic foundation of the sector could weaken.
If, on the other hand, AI is used to reduce production costs while artists retain ownership and receive fair compensation, the technology could expand opportunities.
That could lead to more films, music, artworks, designs and other creative products reaching international markets.
The economic question is therefore closely linked to the ethical question.
A healthy creative economy needs innovation and protection at the same time.
The Global Dimension
Nigeria is not facing the AI challenge alone.
Artists around the world are debating similar questions.
Internationally, creators are asking how AI systems are trained, how copyrighted material is used, who owns generated works and whether artists should be compensated when their work contributes to technological development.
Nigeria's circumstances add another dimension because cultural representation is also at stake.
African creators are not simply asking how AI affects their jobs.
They are asking how it will affect the way African societies are represented in the future.
That makes the debate especially important for cultural institutions.
A Race Against Time
The call for documentation also carries a sense of urgency.
Cultural knowledge can disappear gradually.
An elderly storyteller dies.
A traditional language loses speakers.
A craft technique is no longer taught.
An old photograph is damaged.
A family archive is discarded.
A community festival changes without records being kept.
Each loss may appear small.
Together, however, they can create significant gaps in the historical record.
Digital technology provides an opportunity to preserve some of that information.
But preservation requires action before material is lost.
The AI debate has therefore exposed a broader cultural challenge: Nigeria needs to document its heritage at a much greater scale.
From Exhibition to Policy
The discussion at the Arts Expo could also inform public policy.
Nigeria's cultural institutions are increasingly dealing with digital technology.
Government agencies responsible for arts, culture and the creative economy will need policies that address copyright, digital archives, AI-generated content, cultural data and creator protection.
The objective should be to encourage innovation without allowing technology to undermine cultural ownership.
Such policies will require consultation with artists.
They will also need input from technology companies, lawyers, academics, museums and traditional institutions.
The rules governing creative AI should not be developed without the people whose livelihoods and identities are affected by them.
The Role of the Society of Nigerian Artists
The Society of Nigerian Artists can play an important role in that conversation.
Professional associations can help artists understand new technologies and emerging legal issues.
They can organise training.
They can develop ethical guidelines.
They can advocate for creator rights.
They can also provide a forum where artists share experiences.
The Ogun State exhibition demonstrates the value of such spaces.
The event was not merely a display of artworks.
It became a platform for discussing the future of creative expression.
That kind of dialogue will become increasingly necessary.
A New Definition of the Artist
Artificial intelligence may ultimately change how society defines artistic labour.
In the past, the artist's value was often associated with the ability to produce something manually.
Digital technology has already changed that.
Photographers no longer work in the same way they did in the film era.
Graphic designers use software.
Musicians rely on digital production tools.
Filmmakers use computer-generated effects.
AI is the next stage of that evolution.
The artist of the future may be someone who combines cultural knowledge, imagination, technology and critical judgement.
The ability to direct technology may become as important as the ability to operate it.
Preserving the Human Signature
That does not make traditional skills irrelevant.
In fact, human craftsmanship could become more valuable precisely because automated production is becoming easier.
A hand-painted work may stand out in a world filled with generated images.
A live musical performance may have greater emotional value when audiences can access unlimited synthetic music.
A traditional craft may become more distinctive as mass-produced digital designs become common.
The future may therefore involve both advanced technology and renewed appreciation for human craftsmanship.
The two do not necessarily have to compete.
They can coexist.
What Comes Next
For Nigerian artists, the immediate task is learning.
Creators need to understand what AI can do, where it can help and where it introduces risks.
They need to protect their intellectual property.
They need to preserve records of their creative processes.
They need to document the cultural references embedded in their work.
And they need to participate in conversations about how AI is developed and regulated.
For cultural institutions, the priority should be documentation and preservation.
For policymakers, the challenge is to build rules that encourage innovation while protecting creators and communities.
For technology companies, the responsibility is to engage African creators rather than treating African culture simply as raw material.
A Cultural Choice for Nigeria
The spread of artificial intelligence presents Nigeria with a choice.
The country can simply consume technologies developed elsewhere and allow external systems to determine how its culture is represented.
Or it can become an active producer of cultural data, creative technology and digital narratives.
The second option requires investment.
It requires archives.
It requires research.
It requires training.
It requires stronger intellectual-property protection.
And it requires collaboration.
But the potential reward is substantial.
Nigeria could help shape how African culture is represented in the digital future rather than merely reacting to representations created elsewhere.
Conclusion
The warning from Nigerian arts stakeholders is ultimately a call for cultural agency.
Artificial intelligence is transforming the creative world, and Nigerian artists are unlikely to remain outside that transformation.
The technology can make creative work faster, cheaper and more accessible.
It can open new forms of experimentation.
It can help young artists reach audiences that were previously difficult to access.
But the benefits will depend on how the technology is used.
At the Arts Expo and Exhibition in Abeokuta, stakeholders stressed that African creators must preserve originality, cultural identity and ethical responsibility while embracing new technological tools.
The warning about incomplete cultural narratives is particularly significant.
If African histories, languages, traditions and artistic expressions are not properly documented, future generations may increasingly encounter those subjects through incomplete digital records.
Artificial intelligence could reproduce those gaps at unprecedented speed.
The answer, however, is not to reject AI.
It is to participate in shaping it.
Nigeria has the artists, historians, cultural institutions, traditional custodians, universities and technology professionals needed to build a stronger digital record of its heritage.
The task is to bring those resources together.
African creators must document their own stories.
Artists must protect their originality.
Cultural institutions must preserve their collections.
Universities must research and digitise knowledge.
Traditional institutions must help safeguard oral histories.
Technology companies must engage with communities responsibly.
And policymakers must develop frameworks that allow innovation while protecting cultural and intellectual property.
The future of Nigerian culture will not be determined by artificial intelligence alone.
It will be determined by the people who decide what information enters the digital record, whose voices are represented, which traditions are preserved and how technology is used to carry those traditions into the future.
The challenge is therefore larger than whether AI will replace artists.
The more important question is whether Nigerian artists will use AI on their own terms.
If they do, technology can become another instrument of cultural expression.
If they do not, the risk is that Nigeria could increasingly see its own history reflected through narratives created elsewhere.
The choice is still open.
And the cultural sector has begun the conversation.
END
Comments
Post a Comment