Ghibli images are not "cows", they're /an artists style/, and a particular shop that has expressly asked that you *not copy their work*, because it cheapens what humans do.

Maybe you already don't find cows beautiful and so didn't appreciate the metaphor. Here's another take: Driving the road to Hana on Maui, I think you drive by like 50 waterfalls. We were in awe for the first dozen, but by the 50th, it was just another waterfall. Or seeing nonstop bald eagles in Alaska, by the time you leave, they're like pigeons.

The point being made exactly that something beautiful has being cheapened.

The article is defining cows as something we see too much of. Copying Ghiblis work turns the images into cows, regardless of how the artist feels about it. Obviously it would be ideal if that wasn't happening.

why should this argument work, but not the same argument for using a combine harvester which also cheapens the work of a farmer?