Not suprised, Miyazaki’s art is deeply concerned with what it means to be human, and the beauty to be found there.
The art style is an superficial aesthetic of that beauty, not the heart of it.
And none of that heart is in ai generated images. They’re souless immitations that ape the substance of his works without having any. Like how hallmark pretends to depict “love” with paper thin characters and sanitizes it of any real substance or meaning
It’s striking isn’t it how the debate around generative AI is essentially drawn along the line that separates good taste from bad. To win the debate we’re going to need really good art.
It’s a fundamental issue understanding what art is for sure. People who could really draw well could already copy his style perfectly, but just because you can perfectly copy it doesn’t make it original, and thus have the same value. It’s not that it has no value, just considerably less value than his films.
It’s that total lack of originality with AI slavishly copying a style like this that shows its lack of creative value. It’s like pressing play on a keyboard programmed with 20 top tunes of the 80s and randomly pressing the high hat key.
Sure, it enables someone who can’t play the piano to “play” a song, but not really. It’s the same getting AI to copy by rote someone else’s style they developed, it requires no effort or application of originality.
I think you’re barking up the right tree, but the way I’d put it is this: it gives people the ability to imitate an aesthetic without ever engaging with the thinking that underlies that aesthetic. It’s almost inherently anti intellectual, in that way.
Ghibli’s art comes from a profound love for liveliness, wonder, nature, and beauty that also respects the pain endured by its subjects. People talk shit on Ghibli as “the Disney of anime” but it’s a backhanded compliment at worst because I think they’re obliquely referring to how well Miyazaki executes on those feelings.
