One question, does this store just sell pictures of other peoples babys dressed up? Or do moms take their kids in and have a portrait done? I'm all for having kids, but dressing them up like vegetables is a bit strange to me.
an open-air type store? Isn't it enclosed right next to the geddes store?
Here are some raw pics that I took Wednesday:
the ICON / Oakley sunglass store
The Anne Geddes store:
Really, in my opinion, it's not as bad a place as some of you are making it out to be (again, in my opinion).
It's a nice addition to Downtown Disney. I like when you are arriving in on the tram and you see the soft colors that are painted around the entrance. I also like the classy "Anne Geddes" name above the door.
Many things that were popular back in the 90's are still around today and not mocked... remember GAP? Ben & Jerrys? Rainforest Cafe? ESPN Zone?
Just because it's not new and hot doesn't make it automatically passe. Sometimes things turn into classics. I'm not saying Anne Geddes is necessarily of 'classic' material (no pun intended) but she is in the transition stage and she shouldn't be faulted for trying to expand her brand and not become stale.
I really don't see all that much difference in pulling that slightly sarcastic or anti-social t-shirt over your shoulders thinking you're making a statement about yourself so that others will think your cool (or how about those C.O.W. avatars in your signature line?), and putting something that you think is cute and adorable on your child's body. In both cases, you're making a statement of who you are. Parents have been taking (what later turned out to be embarrasing to the baby) pictures of their babies almost since the invention of the deguerretype (a predecessor of the camera). How do you think the naked baby on the polar bear rug came to be such a stereotype in our society? I don't see how Anne Geddes' ART is all that much different.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the pictures, or dressing babies up like inanamate objects. I think its cute. Too cute. WAY to cute for my tastes. I just can't take it. But I know I'm in the minority in that.
But daddyb... art? Really? You think its ART? I dunno about that. I spent tens of thousands of dollars and years of my life studying art in college and I just can't see Anne Geddes' photography as art. Then again I can't bring myself to consider Thomas Kinkade's stuff real art either. I think I'm going to be in the minority on those two points too though!
Originally Posted by Senator David Wu (D-OR)
Don't let faux-klingons send real Americans to war!
Originally Posted by TheHousingBubbleBlog
Everyone says that the U.S. doesn’t make anything anymore, but that’s not exactly true. We’re the world leader in the manufacturing of bull****.
I spent tens of thousands of dollars and years of my life studying art in college and I just can't see Anne Geddes' photography as art. Then again I can't bring myself to consider Thomas Kinkade's stuff real art either.
Same, same, same. Stop being me already, haha. But I'm glad to not have to be the one to premiere these opinions.
It's a classy looking joint and there's nothing wrong with liking pictures of babies in cauliflowers, or babies on melons, or babies on pumpkins or any other fruit or vegetable. But honestly, the woman puts a nine month old baby in a bee costume and then has someone Photoshop it on top of a daffodil. And there hasn't been much variation in her work either. What on earth is the creative input here...? Why is this woman getting a chain of stores as opposed to say, the person who Photoshopped Bush's book upside down, haha.
To doubt her marketing skills would be foolish, but her artistic skills should be questioned at the least.