‘An insult to life itself’: Art vs AI

By Lola Milroy-Tompkins

Recently online, a clip of Hayao Miyazaki, creator and animator of Studio Ghibli, has gone viral everywhere. In the clip, Miyazaki watches a demonstration of an AI-created figure, potentially used for zombie-like movements in films or videogames, and calls it ‘an insult to life itself’.

This quote has become the slogan of a movement against AI’s presence in the arts and film, especially in animation. But what does AI have to do with Miyazaki, why are people so angry, and what could the future of use of AI in the arts look like?

AI has only recently become relevant to the conversation around art, and other creative disciplines such as animation, film, and photography. GPT-4o, which is an AI similar to ChatGPT, has been released with the ability to generate original art pieces and animations, or to transform an uploaded photos into an art style. In response, hashtags such as #noai, #supporthumanartists, #standwithanimation have become viral on social media and making major UK newspaper’s headlines. But why are people so enraged?

One main line of debate against AI’s presence in the arts is due to the methods used to train AI to output answers. In order to teach an AI how to “draw” or “write” or “compose”, thousands of examples of artwork and writing are scraped from the internet, without the consent of the creator, which infringes copyright. However, there are many holes within this argument. For example, don’t humans also copy other artists’ style in order to learn how to draw? Is art that is publicly available allowed to be used as learning material, and can AI actually learn?

In addition to this, AI can have real, negative implications for artists and producers. Being used to draw animated backgrounds, design characters, create marketing, and more, threatens the livelihoods of creative professionals across industries. At KQED news, it has been reported that arts students have reported being deterred from entering creative professions because of the employment instability that AI has created.

Here, a second argument has been gaining traction, one which centres the sanctity of the artist that Hayao Miyazaki represents. Miyazaki’s iconic animation style holds nostalgia for millions of people. His films are famous for utilising hand-drawn animation techniques to create the beautiful and detailed scenes of Studio Ghibli.

Howl's Moving Castle (2004), Studio Ghibli

This animation style has been adapted by GPT-4o into an AI art filter, allowing users to upload photos and have them transformed into a Ghibli style piece. But when ‘Ghiblified’ images began to spread on social media, Miyazaki’s own words were used to fight back.

At the core of Miyazaki's viral quote, ‘an insult to life itself’, is the belief that the core of art is the lives of humans, not the calculations of a machine. Where creators have spent lifetimes perfecting their craft, AI can only replicate its soulless corpse. The goal of the anti-AI movement is to centre the work of the human over their creation, in this case represented by Miyazaki’s commitment to traditional artistry in animation over Studio Ghibli’s superficial aesthetic. In the age where human efforts are quickly being replaced with technology, this calls into question, should the efficiency of a machine be prioritised over a person’s passion?

One of the most important discussions of the debate will be where we go from here. If the answer is to stop AI entirely then we’re already too late. In the film industry especially, AI has been utilised by some of the biggest projects to release these past few years. Multiple Marvel films, Deadpool and Wolverine (2024), The Brutalist (2024) are just a few examples of major film successes which have employed AI to create special effects, facial animation and even making alteration to actor’s voices. For The Brutalist, AI was intended to cut down the 18-month post-production process, releasing the film in time to be nominated for 10 Academy Awards in 2025. What’s more, actors warn that AI will only get better and spread further. Although some producers, especially in animation, are consciously steering away from AI, the chance to stop its reach into film has passed.

Furthermore, should we be stopping AI? Looking deeper into AI use in The Brutalist, the production team suggested that an ‘open discussion’ on what AI can offer would be beneficial, especially for producers on a tight time or budget scale. The visual effects of some iconic Marvel battle scenes and characters could not be achieved with traditional methods. However, the inclusion of AI is still very taboo in the film industry; Vanity Fair reported The Brutalist received significant backlash that endangered its Oscar nominations. But given the possibilities of AI, should this be the case?

The benefits of AI don’t necessarily mean that it should be welcomed freely. Filmmakers, especially animators, have found its contributions unoriginal and have acknowledged the value of artists in their work by deliberately steering away from AI use. Many simply take joy in the screenwriting or animating process rather than outsourcing this to a machine.

What most people agree on is the importance of balance in the use of AI. While it can obviously be amazing tool for to create new visuals, make the making and watching of film more accessible, it has the potential to cause catastrophic damage. Some have suggested the use of content filters, in which an AI can be programmed to refuse to create art or text in certain styles. Artist compensation schemes, similar to how musicians are compensated, is another way in which artists could receive credit for their work.

While Miyazaki’s words are extreme, so is the significance of the arts to humanity. If my opinion isn’t already clear, freedom given to AI should be controlled, if anything to protect the next generation of filmmakers, artists and creators with a passion for their craft.