Opinion Just as photography did not kill painting, Ghiblification is unlikely to kill art
The democratisation of art through AI does not erase art or the artist, it merely expands the sandbox
A still from Hayao Miyazaki’s Oscar-winning The Boy and the Heron (2023). (Image source: Studio Ghibli via AP) 
-
Share -
-
-
Somewhere, a butterfly fluttered its wings, and AI was unleashed into the world — like Pandora’s jar cracked open. Now that the genie is out, it is unlikely to be bottled again. Initially, it seemed to come for the writers, and now, if the outraged internet is to be believed, it has set its sights on artists. OpenAI’s latest image generation tool can produce stunning visuals in the style of Studio Ghibli— Japan’s legendary animation house — in the blink of an eye.
As netizens across borders, castes, colours, classes, and creeds enthusiastically jumped on the “Ghiblification” bandwagon, swift backlash followed. A clip of Studio Ghibli co-founder Hayao Miyazaki purportedly calling AI an “insult to life itself” began circulating, fuelling online debates on the environmental toll, copyright, and the death of true art and the artist.
Critics have long predicted the death of the artist — since the Industrial Revolution, in fact — yet art and artists remain very much alive and thriving. The advent of computers birthed graphic designers, illustrators, and web designers. Likewise, textile machines did not eliminate the craftsman. Consider the Kashmiri shawl, a handcrafted, intricately embroidered piece fetches a significantly higher price than its machine-made counterpart. While the handmade pieces require months of painstaking work, the market also accommodates mass-produced versions, allowing consumers to choose between exclusivity and affordability.
Similarly, AI serves as a great leveller, making art more accessible to those with vision but without the technical skill or financial means to bring their ideas to life. Connoisseurs will continue to seek out and support traditional artists, but AI will make art accessible to the masses. The democratisation of art through AI will not erase the artists, but merely expand the sandbox.
Art and copyright
Copyright concerns, however, should not be brushed under the rug with several artists, writers, publishers and newspapers going to court over unauthorised use of their work to teach AI-models. However, unless and until a global consensus is established, this will remain a legal grey area. But one must ask: Can an artistic style be copyrighted? Art, like most creative pursuits, does not exist in a vacuum. Miyazaki himself drew inspiration from classic Western animation and Japanese folklore. Animation fandoms thrive on imitation, reinterpretation, and pay homage through fan art and cosplay. AI does not erase Studio Ghibli’s legacy, rather, it amplifies it, introducing new audiences to the magic of Miyazaki, which AI, for all its power, cannot truly replicate.
Environmental cost of AI
A case, however, can be made out against the environmental impact of AI. A study conducted by The Washington Post in collaboration with the University of California, Riverside, found that every 100-word email generated by OpenAI’s GPT-4 language model consumes 519 millilitres of water for cooling. It would be a shame in the scheme of things to cause irreparable damage to a planet for the sake of a frivolous Instagram trend. However, AI is not alone in exacting a toll on the planet for the sake of frivolous desires, and global environmental regulations across industries are the need of the hour.
Just as photography did not kill painting, AI will not kill art. Thanks to AI, the world of art is expanding, making room for new tools, new voices, and new possibilities.
aishwarya.khosla@indianexpress.com
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
