Evil has a face. A vile, flowery face.

Good and evil are terms we use quite often, but they are surprisingly hard to define.

A lot of people have very differing opinions when it comes to morality. Differences in culture and upbringing, as well as underlying ideological leanings, can cause much disagreement when it comes to defining right and wrong.

Some people think that since beliefs and values vary so much, there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong.

These people, though perhaps convincing, are wrong.

There are some things in this world so vile and contemptible that they transcend the boundaries between cultures and individuals in their absolute evil.

One of these things is Anne Geddes.

In case you don’t know who Anne Geddes is, she is the photographer who takes all those pictures of babies dressed like stuff other than babies; stuff like flowers and vegetables and woodland creatures.

If you’ve ever been to a thrift store or my friend’s creepy mom’s place, then you’ve seen Geddes’ work.

Do not be fooled by the soft pastel colours that compose her photographs or the fact that they are always full of babies. Anne Geddes is absolute evil incarnate.

Were Anne Geddes to take pictures of grown adults dressed up like teddy bears and houseplants, I would have no moral objection – only a strong aesthetic one.

Some of you may be thinking to yourselves: “Anne Geddes isn’t evil, she’s just really creepy.”

Well, you’re wrong and I’ll tell you why (I should note first though that if you don’t think Anne Geddes is creepy for taking all those pictures of nothing but babies dressed up like stuff then you are creepy too).

Were Anne Geddes to take pictures of grown adults dressed up like teddy bears and houseplants, I would have no moral objection – only a strong aesthetic one.

However, to photograph these babies in these compromising costumes is wrong because these babies are too young to give their consent for something so obviously potentially damaging.

The babies don’t even have the required sense of “self” to be able to grasp the concept of embarrassment, nor for that matter, how much of it they will one day feel because of these photographs.

I cannot believe that this woman is even legally allowed to do what she does.

Why is the government not stepping in to intervene? Oh sure, you hit a kid with a sweat sock full of batteries and it’s called abuse, but you dress a bunch of babies up like food or lame little farm animals and now it’s somehow artistic?

Some people probably even call that art, but the question is: At what cost?

I’m not generally a violent person (I think fighting is better left to stupid drunk people in parking lots) but if I ever found out that someone had taken Geddes-style pictures of me as a helpless infant, I would track that person down, no matter how long it took, and I would punch him or her square in the mouth.

J. Williamez will still accept your donations of Anne Geddes’ art to cover the cracks in the wall of his apartment.

Published in Volume 65, Number 22 of The Uniter (March 10, 2011)

We love comments and appreciate the time that our readers take to share ideas and give feedback. The Uniter reserves the right to remove any comments from the site. Please leave comments that are repectful and useful.

You Might Also Want To Read