Satisfaction of AI for Ghibli-Style Art: A Study on Perception, Acceptance, and Ethical Concerns

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) advances quickly and its use in creative fields raises considerable excitement, and a certain amount of anxiety. One of the most interesting ways AI is being used today is in the generation of visual art resembling the specific creative aesthetic of Studio Ghibli - a renowned Japanese animation studio known for its emotional storylines, intricate and beautiful hand-drawn animation, and culturally grounded narratives. AI-generated Ghibli-style art is becoming popular, and has captured the imaginations and interests of a large number of individuals because of its technical accuracy and charming artistry; however, the use of AI-Ghibli art is also prompting substantial debates about authenticity, originality, and artistic intention. This research will seeks to dive into audience satisfaction and perception in these activities, with an essential focus on the nature of quality, emotion, and authenticity.By contrasting human-generated Ghibli art with AI-Ghibli style art, we are seeking to learn how impactive the appetite of the public will be for AI-Ghibli art as a legitimate creative force. For example, how does the audience\'s emotional response relate to AI/Ghibli style art versus, human initiated Ghibli style art, as well as the quality and connectedness to this type of artwork? Moreover, the ethical implications of these creative practices will be examined. Amongst these considerations are ideas concerning creative plagiarism, the devaluation of work produced by real artists, and the consideration that AI art, and particularly personal Ghibli style artwork, can be produced without respect to cultural appropriation and/or insensitivity.The results indicate a generational divide: younger individuals who have grown up using technology in their daily lives seem much more receptive to AI being used in a creative capacity, whereas older and traditionally trained artists responded with skepticism and concern. The study ends with a recommendation that the field must find ways to conduct AI activity transparently and ethically, and look for methods that ensure attribution. It stressed the importance of co-creating with technology and human endeavor to ensure that technology advances culture and the emotional quality of art, and does not distill it.

Introduction

This research explores the impact of AI-generated art, particularly in the style of Studio Ghibli, and its implications on audience perception, ethics, cultural sensitivity, and the role of human artists. Studio Ghibli’s iconic hand-drawn aesthetic, rich emotional storytelling, and deep cultural themes make it a compelling case to assess the emotional and creative legitimacy of AI-generated art.

Purpose and Objectives

The study aims to:

1. Compare AI-generated vs. human-created Ghibli-style art in terms of emotional impact, creativity, and originality.

2. Understand how age, cultural background, and tech exposure influence acceptance of AI art.

3. Explore ethical concerns like plagiarism, artist displacement, and cultural appropriation.

4. Recommend ethical frameworks and collaborative models where AI enhances rather than replaces human creativity.

Key Themes and Findings

1. Creativity and Authenticity

• AI can mimic and even innovate stylistically (e.g., through GANs or neural style transfer), but lacks the emotional depth, intentional storytelling, and self-expression of human art.

• Ghibli’s art, rich in cultural symbolism and emotional nuance, is particularly hard to replicate authentically by AI.

2. Audience Perception

• Younger audiences are more open to AI-generated art, valuing access, convenience, and innovation.

• Older and traditional artists often view AI art as emotionally shallow and a threat to human creativity.

• Emotional connection remains a major differentiator, especially for Ghibli-style work.

3. Ethical Issues

• Concerns include copyright violations, authorship ambiguity, and cultural misappropriation.

• Training datasets must be ethically sourced, and AI-generated art should be clearly labeled.

• The absence of legal frameworks complicates issues of ownership and originality.

4. Cultural Sensitivity

• Studio Ghibli’s style is deeply tied to Japanese culture and mythology.

• AI outputs, without context, can distort or strip meaning from cultural symbols.

• Cultural experts should guide dataset creation to ensure respectful representation.

5. Human Artists in the AI Age

• Artists face the risk of being replaced or devalued, but AI can also serve as a creative assistant.

• Hybrid creation models, where humans co-create with AI, offer new artistic possibilities.

• Education should adapt to teach ethical and creative AI collaboration.

Conclusion

The utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in the creative arts presents a unique cocktail of opportunities and difficulties. As AI technology continues to advance, one of the more remarkable uses for such technology is its ability to recreate artform styles with surprising accuracy. This is especially apparent in the application to recreate the overarching drawing style synonymous with Studio Ghibli - a style known for humanistic narratives, cultural relativity and hand-crafted visual beauty. AI models like Midjourney, DALL•E 2, and Stable Diffusion can generate images true to Ghibli\'s stylistic framework; however, while they can produce stylistic elements of Ghibli\'s drawing style (colours, character shapes, environmental details), they almost always lack the emotional layers and cultural relevance found in the original work. There is a discrepancy here that warrants consumer inquiry of authenticity and artistic worth stemming from AI-generated art styles synonymous with Studio Ghibli. Emotional synergy and cultural meaning-making are all elements central to traditional artforms, in particular Ghibli films, that are quite often humanistic and pedagogical. AI\'s ability to reproduce surface-level aesthetics without incorporating the emotional qualities or cultural context of the original art visualization raises an essential conflict about creation imposition and recognition. Further, the perception of AI-generated art is not consistent across populations. How individuals decode and contextualize AI-produced content are determined by factors such as generational exposure to technology, cultural background, artistic literacy, and personal values. For instance, younger generations may consider AI a tool that democratizes creativity, while older generations or traditionally trained artists may view it as an affront to authentic authorship or perception of art. For AI to responsibly integrate into the art-making landscape, the myriad of stake-holders (artists, developers, ethicists, and policy makers) must come together to agree on some clear legal definitions, ethical practices, and methods of developing AI that are transparent. To include, potentially drawing clear boundaries around copyright liability, clearly delineating credit (or lack of) by AI, and use of training data with consent. Instead of replacing human creation, AI should be utilized as a complementary force, an innovative and adaptive partner that expands the creative possibilities of humans. If we can establish human and AI-based practices, we can still celebrate the visceral, cultural, and narrative richness that is attributed to authentic artistic creation while assisting in sustaining the visual and dimensional area which makes the AI experience authentic and real.

References

[1] Cahill, C. (2020). Ethical dilemmas in AI art and copyright law. Law, Technology and Human Rights Journal, 2(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3680262 [2] Crawford, K., & Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature News, 538(7625), 311–313. https://www.nature.com/articles/538311a [3] Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative adversarial networks, generating “art” by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07068. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07068 [4] Gatys, L. A., Ecker, A. S., & Bethge, M. (2015). A neural algorithm of artistic style. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.06576. https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06576 [5] Liu, Z., Wang, X., & Chen, J. (2021). Emotional perception in AI-generated artworks. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 70, 1023–1051. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12183 [6] McCormack, J., Gifford, T., & Hutchings, P. (2019). Autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer generated art. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 196–203). https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.00718 [7] Yang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Gao, C. (2020). AI creativity in visual arts: Human evaluation and perception of machine-generated art. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 16(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386369

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Aniket Kumar, Dr. Naveen Kumar. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.