Monday, October 11, 2010

Mannequin Creepiness Index

Mannequins are creepy.  This is hardly an original thought, but one that popped in my head recently as I waited for my girlfriend to finish checking out in the State Street Old Navy store.  I snapped this shot during my wait:

I for one welcome our creepy mannequin overlords
Nikon D90 with 35mm lens, 1/500sec at f1.8, ISO400 - Copyright 2010

I just don't understand why someone, somewhere, in some marketing department, thinks it's a good idea to put these "figures" in the front of a store.  Nevermind that I watch too much science fiction-- and mannequins coming to life stories (generally to subjugate the human race) are quite popular in that genre-- there's just something odd about seeing the human form clad in plastic, perpetually trying too hard to smile.

This got me thinking-- on a scale of creepiness, how do the various mannequins rate?  Are the Old Navy mannequins better or worse than others?  Here's what I came up with, with #1 being the most creepy:

5) Headless mannequins (creepy in the right setting but generally the least offensive):

leader of the pack
Nikon D90 w/ 16-85mm lens, 1/160sec at f8, ISO200 - Copyright 2010

4) Mannequins with heads and smiling faces (as in the Old Navy photo)

3) Mannequins with heads but no faces or partial faces:

Scary Mannequins
Canon A510, 1/40sec at f2.6, ISO Data Missing - Copyright 2005

2) Mannequins of children

1) Mannequins of children without faces:

a faceless childhood
Nikon D90 w/ 16-85mm lens, 1/160sec at f4.8, ISO400 - Copyright 2010

Have I missed any?

I should mention that much of this, from a photographic standpoint, is Eugène Atget's fault.  Atget was really the master of the creepy mannequin photo:

Eugène Atget, Avenue de Gobelins, 1926


phule said...

So, what you're saying is that you are not a fan of ? :)

Andy said...

Ha! I knew someone would link to that. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen that movie.