Pastel Plagiarism
Pastel plagiarism – The AI trend turning Ghibli’s magic into a hollow ghost
There’s a new “aesthetic” (yuck) washing over social media: AI-generated slop mimicking the lush, hand-crafted beauty of Studio Ghibli. It’s whimsical, dreamlike, and eerily accurate — too accurate. What looks like a loving tribute to one of the world’s most beloved animation houses, is far more sinister once the veneer of internet trendiness and cuteness is ripped away. It’s a soulless demon, discrediting and disrespecting the life’s work of some of planet earth’s finest creatives.
 |
| ©Studio Ghibli |
In recent weeks, a flood of AI-generated “Ghibli-style” landscapes and characters have gone viral. From villages bathed in golden light to fantastical creatures born from these algorithmic mashups. The images parade around in the skin of Ghibli without understanding the soul, time and emotion spent beneath it. And that's exactly the problem.
Studio Ghibli is more than a visual style. It's decades of painstaking artistry, emotional storytelling, and a philosophy rooted in humanity’s fragile relationship with nature and technology. Hayao Miyazaki, the studio’s legendary co-founder, has publicly criticized AI art as "an insult to life itself".
The controversy sparked by this trend isn’t just about blatant plagiarism or even theft. It’s about something deeper: the commodification of art’s emotional labour. AI doesn’t feel wonder or tingle when the perfect idea emerges into your consciousness. Nor does it dream or grieve. It collages data. And yet, it’s being used to simulate the very feelings that real artists spend their lives trying to express.
For human creatives, this isn’t innovation — it’s erasure. When platforms favour the speed and scale of AI over the messy, vulnerable process of making art by hand, they aren’t just shifting the tools. They’re shifting the value system. What happens when people can’t tell the difference between something that was felt and something that was farmed from pixels?
The Ghibli-style AI trend is a mirror held up to a future where creativity is no longer about connection but consumption. It’s a world of beautiful surfaces with nothing behind the eyes.
Art is a distinctly human act – nary has something else allowed you to live through the lens of something else, something greater, something wonderous. Whether it be a creator, painstakingly measuring every stroke, dot and line to achieve something close to perfection, or a viewer, watching, examining and looking on with intent, wonder, jubilation, sadness, fear, grief, anxiety, curiosity, amazement or even just a tinge of emotion. Art allows us to express, enjoy and most importantly feel. If you remove the human element, is it really art?
And for artists who pour their humanity into every brushstroke, that world is already starting to feel like a nightmare drawn by a machine.
The Ghost in the Frame: How AI-Generated Art Is Gutting Human Creativity
There’s a new aesthetic flooding timelines: dreamy, pastel-washed landscapes and fantastical creatures rendered in the unmistakable style of Studio Ghibli. But look closer, and something is off. These aren’t the works of devoted artists steeped in Miyazaki’s ethos — they’re machine-generated facsimiles. Art without breath.
The recent surge in Ghibli-style AI art — and the backlash it’s sparked — has once again spotlighted a growing cultural rift. To many, it’s just a new tool, another leap in creative technology. But for artists, especially those still clawing their way into the industry, it feels like the ground is disappearing beneath their feet.
“We’re being replaced before we’ve even arrived.”
That’s how illustrator Mayra Chen, a recent art school graduate, described it. “When I started, there was a sense that if you worked hard and developed your voice, there was a place for you. Now I’m seeing job listings for concept artists where they’re literally asking for someone to ‘prompt engineer’ Midjourney instead. That’s not art — that’s outsourcing imagination.”
The rise of generative AI tools — like DALL·E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion — has democratized image-making in one sense, but at what cost? For freelance illustrators, storyboard artists, and visual designers, the ripple effects are becoming tsunamis. Budgets once allocated to hiring real people are now being funnelled into prompt-driven pipelines. Concept art departments are shrinking. Junior artist roles — once a crucial entry point — are vanishing altogether.
Big brands, small shame
Worse still, major studios and corporations, often the very institutions that built their fortunes on human creativity, are leaning into the AI trend with a concerning lack of transparency or ethics. From fashion campaigns to advertising agencies, AI “art” is being used to churn out visuals faster, cheaper, and without credit to the thousands of artists whose work these models were trained on — often without consent.
Even Netflix stirred outrage when it admitted to using AI-generated backgrounds in an anime short last year, claiming it was due to “labour shortages.” This, while the anime industry is notorious for overworking and underpaying its artists. The irony isn’t just bitter — it’s insulting.
“Ghibli is a philosophy, not a filter.”
That’s what James Caldwell, a senior animator who
worked on indie features and television, had to say about the trend. “It’s not
about style. It’s about humanity — the imperfections, the quiet moments, the
hands that draw them. AI doesn’t understand that. It just imitates the surface.
And when companies parade that around as innovation, they’re selling a
hollowed-out version of what art is supposed to be.”
A cost we can’t afford — creatively or environmentally
Then there’s the hidden toll few are talking about: the environmental impact. Training and running large AI models consumes massive amounts of energy. A single image generated with certain tools can use as much power as charging your phone multiple times. At scale, the carbon footprint is staggering. All to generate images that look like someone else’s dream.
Art has always been a deeply human act — a way of saying, “I was here, and I felt this.” But with AI, the process becomes extractive, not expressive. It’s built on scraping the labor of real people, simulating their styles, and calling it progress.
If we keep heading down this path, we risk not only losing the opportunities for future creatives but also the meaning of art itself. We’ll be surrounded by beautiful images that say nothing, created by machines that feel nothing — ghosts in a gallery of stolen light.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Post a Comment