Once, in Japan, there lived a dreamer named Hayao Miyazaki. With a sketchbook in hand and many stories in his mind, he longed to create something that felt alive, something that could capture the magic hidden in everyday moments, tender emotions, and visually rich landscapes. Together with his friend Isao Takahata, Miyazaki founded Studio Ghibli.
Instead of the loud, flashy visuals that were popular in animation at that time, they created scenes with hand-drawn frames painted with soothing colours and minute details. Even a five-second animation can take around 100 artists an entire week to complete.
Movies made this way at the studio — like My Neighbor Totoro, Spirited Away, Kiki's Delivery Service, Porco Rosso, Howl's Moving Castle, and The Wind Rises — didn’t take long to gain popularity, creating worlds that everyone wished to be part of.
Decades after its founding in 1985, Studio Ghibli has suddenly become a buzzword on social media. From Instagram to X, users are flooding timelines with Ghibli-style portraits, transforming their favourite memories into whimsical, hand-drawn scenes. The art style holds a special place in people’s hearts, especially those who grew up watching Japanese animation aired on DD, like The Jungle Book: Adventures of Mowgli, etc.
This surge in popularity follows OpenAI’s recent update to ChatGPT, introducing advanced image-generation capabilities that mimic the Ghibli aesthetic. While many admire it as a cute trend, others criticise the implications of AI-generated art and its impact on human creativity, sparking discussions about the intersection of technology and art.
In The Wind Rises, a single four-second hand-animated scene took one year and three months to complete. But now, with AI, anyone can recreate it with just a click.
"Miyazaki took a stand against AI years ago, and using the art of someone like him without acknowledgement feels like exploitation. As an artist, AI feels threatening to me. I used to work as a freelance artist for a company, but now they have switched to AI-generated work. It lacks the life and soul that human hands bring, but they see it as more feasible and profitable. I can’t say if it’s entirely good or bad, but everyone should approach these tools responsibly. Maybe debates should focus more on how we use AI rather than blaming the technology," says Jazila Lulu, a second-year BFA painting student from the Fine Arts College, Thiruvananthapuram.
According to Seby Sam, a teacher at an AI institute, multinational corporations are pushing for the right to use copyrighted content for AI training. “If these rights are granted, art and other copyrighted materials will lose their value. Again, it is an issue of capitalism. While it’s okay to use AI to create something new, copying someone’s work is unjust. Any content generated by copying should come with fair compensation to the original artists. Otherwise, it will be like destroying a person’s life and dreams that took years to build,” Seby asserts.
Even in the early days of AI, its influence on art and human expression sparked debates. But the bigger question remains: Can technology really kill art, or is it just changing how we create and experience it?
"Art has always been manipulated and recreated in different ways; it’s not something new,” says veteran artist Tensing Joseph. “From ancient cave art to classical paintings like the Mona Lisa, artists have continually adopted compositions, materials, and colour schemes from older works. Recreating art with new tools doesn’t mean art is dead; it’s just part of the ongoing evolution of art history. When photography first emerged, people said the painting was dead. But photography became just another medium in the vast landscape of art. It’s the same with AI today. Technologies are just tools; they can’t replace human emotion, imagination, philosophical thought, or psychological expression. It’s the human that conceives and creates art.”
Murali Cheeroth, Chairperson of the Kerala Lalithakala Akademi, believes that when an artist has imagination and a strong concept, technology can be a powerful tool. However, he warns that celebrating mediocrity could be a real concern.
“A real artist always invents, innovates, explores, and experiments. If our education system encourages critical thinking and imagination, we don’t need to fear any tool. A tool is just a means of expression; it doesn’t control us — we control it. Good art and genuine creativity will never be destroyed. In many advanced countries, education is thoughtfully designed to teach technology responsibly. Instead of fearing AI, we should focus on how to use it creatively and meaningfully in art education,” he says.
Narayanankutty K, principal at the College of Fine Arts Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, shares a similar opinion about incorporating AI into art education.
He says, "Every tool we use in art has evolved over time. We cannot turn away from this. Instead, we must learn to use these tools in a way that makes them our own. A person without talent and creativity cannot do anything, even with the most advanced tools. They must know how to use them to improve the quality of their work because that’s what the industry demands."
He further points out that the new generation must learn these tools effectively. “Students who study art in traditional ways may have to compete globally with others who have mastered advanced technologies. Our art education syllabus does not yet include AI tools, but discussions are underway to revise it through the Kerala State Higher Education Council. A workshop planned for April will provide more clarity on this.”
While AI-generated art continues to spark debate, one major issue that remains overlooked is data privacy. “People are uploading personal photos onto AI platforms without realising that their data might be used for training purposes. If the person’s intent is malicious, it could harm them,” warns Seby.
"When computers were introduced, people feared job loss. But in India, they actually created more jobs. Jobs are lost only when people are unwilling or unprepared to adopt new technology. AI will not take away jobs; rather, a person who knows how to use AI will replace someone who refuses to adapt. That’s how every technological shift has worked,” says G Vijayaraghavan, founder and former CEO of Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram.
“In art and creativity, there may be concerns about intellectual property. But many paintings are inspired by things the artist has seen; it's not a direct copy but a reflection of their imagination. Similarly, AI can create art, but people may not appreciate it as much as human-made art. Take filmmaking, for example. AI can generate scenes, but the human touch makes a movie unique. The same applies to the medical field. Robotic surgery is possible, but people still seek the best doctors because skilled professionals know how to use advanced tools effectively. There’s no need to worry about AI replacing art as long as we adapt to change,” he adds.
As the conversation around AI and art evolves, one thing is clear: Technology is not the enemy. How we choose to use it will define the future of creativity.