If you haven't seem this, then go to Flickr, and look at the 'Explore' page. There you'll find several examples of what I can only term a 'photographic oddity'.
There is a brand of Danish toy, known to most kids in the western world, and no doubt beyond - Lego. And Lego is great, unless you're the unfortunate dad, having to construct 1001 different things for your young children (been there, done that, no T-shirt though). But Lego (and the cheaper imitation brands) creations as a subject of serious photography, and then posted on the internet? This does not compute in my brain.
Then there's dolls, of various sorts. Straightforward shots, modelled lighting, dolls in naturalistic settings, all sorts of dolls. Why? Again, this just does not compute.
Yes, I've seen numerous attempts at making sexy/glamourous nude/semi-nude photographs, which fail abysmally because the photographer/model/both haven't a bloody clue, and their failure to see their failure, is in itself an oddity. But that's just bad photography. The Lego & the dolls are often technically beyond reproach. They're just weird. Odd. Or am I missing something?