Well, on this anime board, there seems to be some Disney bashing. One anime fan wrote that Ghibli is art because Ghibli movies have messages , beautiful done and people take pride in it. The person also wrote that since Disney is entertainment only, it can not be considered art.
So what do you think? Is art only meaning beautiful works with a deep meanings hidden inside them? Or does it just men works that are aesthetically pleasing?
Abstract art, like Jackson Pollock, is simply meant to be visually pleasing.
Though really, outside of Mononoke Hime, Ghibli hasn’t generally put any messages in their works any greater than you’d get out of Disney.
True, they did make Grave of the Fireflies, but that was a one-off that wasn’t Miyazaki in direction. Watch Porco Rosso and you’ll find it far below anything Disney ever did.
I see no difference. Disney movies are as much art as any other film, entertainment, graphic design, story, or creative endeavour.
It’s a bogus distinction. Nothing prevents great entertainment from being great art. Look at “Singin’ in the Rain,” a movie that’s been in critics’ top 25 for years.
It primarily snobbery, and most people who create films – even the most arty of them – would never denigrate a film that works as entertainment.
My favorite Miyazaki movie is Spirited Away, which doesn’t have any “hidden meanings” as far as I can tell. For me Disney movies have more hidden meaings than any of Ghibli’s, and I don’t mean in a good way. There’s always some kind of implied moral in their stories (and imho they are more insidious than being simply “entertainment”). I don’t get that with most of Ghibli’s movies, and that’s why I like them. (I like Disney movies too, but if I’m going to make a value judgement in terms of art, I’d say Spirited Away is better than most Disney movies.)