I know I have mentioned this infant-pimp, but, my gentle readers, I have not yet ranted.
Anne Geddes produces child-pornography.
Let's discuss the uses of the word "pornography". Aside from facials, beaver-shots the display or silicone-enhanced mammary glands, Pornography is that use of a medium that values sensation over subtext.
www.rotten.com is an example of pornography. It titillates our gag reflexes, piques our reprehensible morbid curiosity. I value it and respect its right to exist, as I do all archives of human experience.
Ms. Geddes, however, produces pictures designed only to trigger brainstem maternal responses in females, much like erotica triggers brainstem responses in men.
These travesties of photography do not "capture" the human infant, as a photo-journalist would capture history, but rather the hapless larvae are squashed into a series of humiliating poses, symbolically decorated with symbols of consumable fecundity, dressed in ghastly costumes, objectifying and animalising the damned mites as much as any hardcore gangbang and subsequent splattery closeup objectifies and animalises a woman. The difference is that NONE of the infants gave their permission.
You know, I wonder, Anne, what it is about babies that you're trying to say?
I notice, that despite their nudity, they are always "decent". De-sexed. Sanitised. Heaven forfend that we should have our hyper-idealised, commodified image of the human spawnling utterly shattered by the notion that they, too, are entire human beings, possessed not only of chubby-wubby faces and legs, but also of puckered, stinking, squirting anuses and aesthetically-disappointing genitalia. No, they are reduced to pot-plants, insects, food.
Aren't they cute?
Fuck you, Geddes.