When animator, filmmaker, and Studio Ghibli co-founder Hayao Miyazaki criticised the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in 2016, he, perhaps had no idea that, just nine years later, the same technology would take over the internet—with the whole world generating images in the signature animation style of his own studio. This recent flush of Ghibli-style AI-generated images has animation students, artists, and fans alarmed—but divided. Some fear that AI could threaten jobs. For others, it is a tool to push creative boundaries. No one knows what the future holds. TMS speaks to those cheering on the trend and also to those raising red flags.
“I call it blatant plagiarism—and for a living artist, that's definitely unethical. Even if the artist is no longer alive, it still crosses a line,” says Naveen Verma, professor of UI-UX design at the World University of Design in Delhi NCR.
Kavita Gusain, communication expert and a fan of the Ghibli Studio films, believes the AI-generated images are nothing more than cheap replicas. “There is no emotional connection,” she says. “The AI models can’t feel the pain, laughter, or anger that an artist experiences—that’s what makes all the difference.” For marketing communication professional Saman Fatima Nomani, it is more of a fad than a trend. “Miyazaki and his team have spent decades hand-drawing each frame with precision and intention. No two characters feel the same.” Digital illustrator and architect Faizan Ahmed agrees with Nomani, saying: “People are just doing it for fun. Give it a week, and they’ll forget the whole Ghibli trend—some new art style will pop up and take over.”
Although many are mad at the ongoing craze, there are those who find the AI-generated images beautiful and nostalgic, like content writer Nitin Krishna. “I was just curious to see myself in a different form, digitally. If an anime character is relatable, you naturally try to put yourself in their shoes. That’s literally what happened—within a few clicks.”
Vibes over value
A common argument in favor of AI in art is its role in making it more accessible for anyone to generate and enjoy art. “People are doing this just to get a cute portrait of themselves—without having to go to an actual artist for a portrait,” says digital marketer turned artist, Ruchika. People who could never afford original artworks can now create something in the same style within seconds. But this too, raises concerns. “It opens the door for widespread mimicry without valuing the labour that takes to truly animate in that way. In the end, it reduces something rare and deeply personal into just another clickbait trend,” says Verma.
Self-taught artist and founder of the Delhi-based art community Freestrokes, Huda, also echoes this concern. “Making art accessible is one thing. Finding ways for people to own and appreciate artwork without having to pay an exorbitant price is also understandable, but there should still be value attached to it,” she says. Huda cites the example of painter Raja Ravi Varma, who used the oleograph technique to produce affordable prints of his original paintings.
Others who believe AI has made art more accessible also agree that boundaries are necessary. “It takes away the emotion and effort that comes with creating something from scratch. For me, it depends on how humans are using AI—is it supporting the creative process, or is it replacing it entirely?” asks PR professional, Tisha Ahuja.
Brush vs algorithm
For a long time, AI was breathing down the necks of coders and programmers; content writers and copywriters also feared layoffs due to AI. Now, it seems to have settled in the courts of artists and designers. But are there reasons enough to be worried?
Animation student, and a fan of Ghibli Studio films, Rohit Kumar Singh, says he will feel threatened if the use of AI in the field of animation becomes mainstream. “I make a lot of two-dimensional (2D) illustrations, and I know how much effort I need to put forward to make a design frame by frame. However, if AI does this at one click, where will we go?”
But Abhilash Retheesh, a desktop publisher at NCERT, is unfazed. He believes as long as one is evolving and adapting to the changing environment there is no need to be fearful. “A good designer or artist—someone proficient in tools like Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator —is still far more capable than AI art generators. Some might feel threatened and pressured to keep up, but that’s not bad, it pushes people to upgrade their skills instead of getting too comfortable.” he says.
Rajesh Krishnan, founder and principal designer at East Craft Design, has similar views. “When Adobe Photoshop came, many thought that it would end up taking the jobs of artists. But has that happened? I feel the same for AI. These images that people are using are made for personal usage and not for commercial gains.”
But with the trend picking up steam, people around the world have begun cashing in—offering Ghibli-style image generation services for a fee. Commissioned artist and small business owner Shubhangi Raj says: “When someone buys a painting from me, they’re not just buying an image—they’re buying the emotion I’ve poured into it. And if a client truly values that emotion, they’ll always come back, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.”
Founder and CEO of Studio 1947, Rabiul Islam, believes that present-day AI models are at a nascent stage and hence, it is difficult for them to trace the human journey behind every creation. “If you put 10 patterns of artworks of a certain artist, then the AI model can predict the 11th pattern. However, human thinking is not only about logical reasoning; it carries emotional wisdom, which the AI model can’t replicate properly,” says Islam. “AI is not culturally inclusive. It was evident in many Ghibli-fied works, where the AI models failed to replicate many pictures properly, as they did not have much idea about what they needed to do. Also, there is a question of ethics, which can be violated by the AI models if they create patterns without taking permission from the artist while generating the art patterns. We need to think of that as well,” he concludes.
At its core, this debate isn’t just about aesthetics or style—it’s about value, intent, and emotional labour. For some, these dreamy images are an escape, a way to see themselves in stories they once only watched. For others, they’re a theft—of style, soul, and years of craft. As the lines between art and algorithm blur, one thing is clear: this is not the final frame. The question isn't just whether AI will replace artists—but also if we’re ready to redefine what art even is, when anyone with a smartphone can be the muse, the model, and the maker.