Seriously, why is there a headless kid clutching a teddy bear and stuck in a planter? Are you trying to grow next season's crop of children to behead? Do you realize your display is just one step away from a pastel graveyard scene? Ugh.
If I had a child and saw this window, I would clutch it and run like I'm in "Children of Men." I would probably not look as impossibly handsome as Clive Owen, but I'd save my kid from The Gap.
]]>Why does he farm cubes? What does he do with these cubes? Does he draw smiley faces on them and sell them to the owners of headless-mannequins?
]]>I should proofread.
]]>An employee at a shop once startled the bejesus out of my by proceeding to remove the arms of a mannequin off of which I had requested a shirt.
In retrospect, it makes sense that the arms come off -- this makes them easier to dress and reduces stretching on the clothes.
Point being, mannequins often don't have heads for the same reason. Makes 'em easier to dress and you don't have to worry about stretching collars.
]]>I'm a visual merchandising student.. the reason most children and toddler mannequins have no heads is because while adult mannequins look normal, child mannequins look terrifying to parents because of the "uncanny valley" effect. Seeing a molded child's face gives adults a feeling of unease for some reason, and therefore they unknowingly begin to avoid the store.
I honestly see nothing wrong with this display at all, I think it's cute. Then again, I work in a small room in my school's basement with over 50 naked mannequins staring at me..
@silver-bolt: See Gap is just trying to become more economical. Who needs a head when you're trying to sell clothes. Heads don't wear clothes.
]]>@Papercutninja: I was watching How It's Made on discovery and they showed these. It's a pretty involved process, I thought it was just a plastic mold, but it's all this fancy stuff done by hand.
]]>@William Gu: Sure they will... every year seems like they inch closer and closer after they get blasted for having lame clothing lineups. Not to mention they can't retain a CEO to save their lives. And the CEOs they take in just make things worse...
]]>@William Gu: I think I know what you are talking about. Those types scared me when i was a kid.
]]>It looks like they are growing their own child labor.
]]>@William Gu: They're headless kids, put in cute poses. just something not right about that.
]]>Well, Gap will be bankrupt soon enough unfortunately... maybe they're trying to save money by not using heads? maybe facial features are expensive to reproduce...
]]>Sometimes I come to this site just to chuckle at how you guys make a big deal out of everything. Something's always offensive or gross or misleading or insensitive or whatever. I saw that display the other day and thought it was cute. Personally I find the mannequins with heads creepy, but whatever.
]]>IOW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Anyone who believes there is lives a little too far on the pc, sensitive side if you ask me
]]>The retail mannequin chain:
Banana Republic gets the Full mannequin.
Gap get the headless models.
Old Navy gets torsos with legs, no feet.
I understand the attitude some San Franciscans have towards children and breeders, but this is TOO FAR!
]]>As long as they don't come to life after dark, Gap can continue to spread the seeds of the headless children.
]]>I know they're pots and not pipes, but something about this reminds me of Super Mario Brothers.
]]>I support the headless children.
Except their heads.
]]>