Given the Theory of Aesthetic Hedonism, Grave of the Fireflies will not be considered as art. Hedonism for one is a belief that merely sets aside negative emotions. A hedonist subscribes to a life of least pain; sorrow for example will bring about pain. Grave of the Fireflies has such nature that is compelling and riveting, yet completely heartbreaking. Although, some might contest and have a valid reason for it. The film, in this principle gives a certain feeling of pleasure and satisfaction. If someone judges something to be an art simply because it is agreeable to himself then this theory will surely be a paradox. Since according to Hume, we humans are predetermined due to something in us, like something already wired in our system, we will agree on things because we are one species. Grave of the fireflies was embraced by the Japanese and even the westerners despite its tragic ending, therefore the question is: since there is an agreement that the film is indeed an art as a form of pleasure, how is the film considered pleasurable when it's a tragedy? Usually when you ask of people of what "pleasure" means to them, they would think of a satisfying story or a happy ending, but in the case of Grave of the Fireflies, even though the story is tragic, it gives a different form of pleasure. This pleasure is one that Hume talks about in his essay of Tragedy. He states that good does not necessarily mean pleasurable. According to him, the pleasure offered by a tragedy or melodrama depends on their capacity to trigger grief, fear and other unpleasant feelings. Based on this, a tragedy is considered true art only if it fulfils its purpose. For instance, the purpose of a horror movie is to deliver fear and anxiety; the purpose of a tragedy is to give sorrow and grief. This is what makes Grave of the Fireflies a for of "true art" in this principle. .
I would believe that Grave of the Fireflies is actually more disturbing than amusing.