When I think of things we ("we" being the collective western world) call visual art but are in reality anything but art, I immediately think Anne Geddes. This is a lady who has been working for years to destroy babies' self-images before toddlerhood.

Judging by Ms. Geddes' sales, many many people consider her work good. Some, including a friend whose opinions I respect, even think of it as adorable. Well I love ya' big guy but frankly people who find Anne Geddes' work adorable are the same people who hear the story of Noah and the Flood and cry because they start thinking about all the drowning puppies. And there really isn't a place for people like that in this survival of the fittest world.

Besides, should adorable really be a qualifier for art. What would this make Rodin's statues? Nothing more than an attempt at adorable that fell way short? Come on. Get with the program people! Art is more than "adorable", in fact it is more than being turned into calendars or being in coffee table books. I don't presume to be able to define art, but I do think I can give Webster's Dictionary a good start by saying, "Art is not Anne Geddes". Instead, Anne Geddes is a crime of inhumanity. Just look at what she is doing to our children!