Cultural Extractivism and the Banalization of Art

From the artistic and ethical perspectives, the risks of this technology are significant. Quelic Berga Carreras, professor at the UOC's Department of Computer Science, Multimedia, and Telecommunications and researcher at the DARTS group, believes that the "ghiblification" of the internet represents a flagrant case of appropriationism or cultural appropriation. "We are asking the machine to copy the style without prejudice or filters, thereby trivializing an art based on care, detail, and respect," reflects Berga.

The researcher warns that this phenomenon is not a simple aesthetic homage, but rather a cultural extractivism that trivializes deeply human references. In his opinion, AI technology, as it is being used, reproduces a form of colonialism over foreign cultures, extracting recognizable features and stripping them of their profound meaning for mass exploitation.

Three Major Risks to Artistic Creation

One of the main risks is the loss of creative self-esteem among artists. According to Berga, confronting a machine capable of spectacularly imitating styles but lacking soul can demotivate human creators and affect their confidence and motivation. Second, a progressive cultural blurring occurs: the indiscriminate crossover of styles, fostered by AI, generates an "extreme hybridization" that erases solid cultural references and turns creation into a superficial, rootless collage.

Finally, Berga warns of a growing trivialization of art: the more spectacular AI-generated images spread, the more they are emptied of profound content, replacing the social meaning of art with mere aesthetic appearance. Hayao Miyazaki himself, founder of Studio Ghibli, criticized the use of AI to replicate human movements in 2016, exclaiming: "You don't understand the meaning of human effort." A criticism that resonates more than ever today.

AI and Copyright: A Race Against Time

European regulations are attempting to adapt to the new scenario with measures such as the Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation 2024/1689), which requires providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models to respect copyright and detail the data used in training their models. However, Begoña González Otero warns that "there are ambiguities and gaps that may affect the effectiveness of these obligations."

In fact, the lack of effective harmonization between the Artificial Intelligence Act, Directive 2019/790, and national regulations creates a "perverse incentive": non-compliance is, for the time being, more profitable than compliance.

For their part, artists and creators are also seeking strategies to protect themselves. Projects such as Tracking, Detection, and Management of AI Infringement (TDMAI) emerge as technological initiatives driven by the authors themselves to monitor unauthorized use of their works.
Between Fascination and Risk

The fascination with the capabilities of artificial intelligence coexists with growing ethical and cultural concerns. Quelic Berga concludes that "the risk is not only losing control over creation, but also becoming accustomed to an aesthetic mediocrity that trivializes art and culture."

Meanwhile, the future of creativity and copyright in the AI era remains open, in a race in which regulation, cultural awareness, and collective action will be decisive in balancing innovation and respect for cultural identity, according to experts.
Source