To put it into some perspective...
It's not like she waited for her "beloved" cat to die of natural causes. She wrung its neck with her own hands once she decided to make a handbag out of it.
The Dutch "artist" who in 2004 turned her pussy into a handbag under the performance art title "My dearest cat Pinkeltje (2004)" has published personal details of those who emailed her expressing their disgust. Tinkebell's My dearest cat Katinka Simonse, aka Tinkebell, copped a veritable shitstorm of e-abuse for the feline …
it's just because we "like" cats isn't it? as far as I can see, there are 2 likely scenario's here
1) her cat died and she decided to make the skin/fur into a handbag.
so what? how is this different from a leather handbag made of cow skin.
2) she killed her cat to make the skin/fur into a handbag.
so what? how is this different from a leather handbag made of cow skin.
is it just that many people own and therefore like cats, but those people rarely come into contact with actual cows therefore don't give them as much "humanity"?
is it just that cats are cuter than cows?
what's the problem?
Hahahahaha "Ohh I am protected by my monitor sitting in my trailer dissing anyone I want
this has made my morning"
While I may not be a fan of this kind of "art" there is never a need to spout hate at someone thinking your safe from comebacks.
Or at least use a fake webmail account/proxy/made up name *cough* or so I understand ;)
The cat was dying, and normally would've gone to the vet to die. Now she killed it herself. Not that much of a difference, and as for the handbag, it's just using what's available. Some would see it as a proper way to use what the cat made (it's own fur).
I'm not sure I support this, but it does seem good to show people that they're not as anonymous as they think.
Fair point, but anonymous notes saying "I will personally stop you. You will regret this" is somewhat disturbing as well.
What we need is a plague on both their houses. I dunno, something with no physical violence but leaving both sides feeling right royally done over. Hmmm. Tricky one. How about lawyers?
While I find her "art" very tasteless, I must say that I find the way the tables have turned on the abusive anonymous keyboard warriors very funny. My personal take is that if you're ashamed to put your name to your comments, you shouldn't be allowed on-line in the first place.
Much as wringing your own poor moggy's neck barehanded is unpleasant, the 'haters' are usually a pretty special breed of psych subprofile themselves, often leaning toward the sociopathic I suspect.
My cats are so damned big I think they'd skin my arms before I got a decent neck-wringing purchase on them, as soon as they suspected foul play, plus the other two would gang up on me as I could only do one at a time...
You are correct of course, but if you look at the Saatchi Gallery link, you can see a lot of the reasoning behind her "art". While the purse was more a case of her wanting her cat with her at all times (which is bizarre), the other articles of art made a statement about how we treat our pets.
For people to get bent out of shape over her turning her cat into a handbag, yet ignoring her real message is hypocritical.
How said animals died would have been investigated and any wrong doing prosecuted. Spouting unsupported 'truths' like Andrew Moore (above) is the reason why she later published 'Dear Tinkerbell'. If she did strangle it and there is proof, then she will get what she deserves - probably a fine.
If you were going to kill a cat breaking it's neck would be the most humane approach - you'll also receive a lot less scratches and bite marks!
I would happily bet a pint of beer that it was put down at a vets and then cured professionally.
Author: wheres the NSFW tag for the boobs and penis shots at the bottom of that link? :]
While I neither condone nor condemn her 'art', I guess it must've been legal to perform, or she would've been arrested for it or banned from doing it.
From her thinly veiled threat about reporting her critics for their original correspondence I guess that is illegal.
Either way I understand her wanting to hit back, but can't help feel she's asking for trouble!
Not an artist.
Just someone who likes to shock.
They add some bullshit angle to their works to make them sound arty.
Ummm... that, by modern standards, is practically the definition of an artist... have you not seen the Turner prize entrants in the last oooh 15 years or so?
Think people like Damien Hurst, Tracy Emin or Chris Ofili.
What invasion? As far as I can tell from the story, all the information was taken from the public domain (social networking etc) so I can't see any invasion.
If you don't want your personal details spweed to the world - don't put them down the intertubes then!
As for her art - it's base, tasteless and utterly without talent. Bit like Damien Hirst and his ilk really.
In civilized countries, cruelty to animals is a criminal offence.
In general, so is sending someone hate mail, but when it's someone who deserves it, disclosing personal details of people without authorization is also a criminal offence.
The Dutch should shut down her web site, and put her in jail. It's as simple as that.
Not sure about Dutch law, but in the UK it is not illegal to kill/euthanise your pet. Anyone such as the RSPCA that chooses to prosecute have to show you didn't have reasonable grounds for the act. Seeing as I expect European laws to be roughly similar nowadays I can't see her getting into any legal trouble for the kitty killing. Whilst the woman is probably not going to make any sane person's Chrimbo list, she can say she acted in mercy if the cat was diseased as long as she did not refuse a vet's offer of a professional service. If she did refuse the vet's service and then wrung the kitty's neck then she could be found guilty of cruelty to an animal. Of course, after the critter is dead there is no legal comeback for post-mortem use, as long as the animal isn't on the CITES list. Oherwise you wouldn't be allowed to stuff animals or make coats out of them (and yes, I think anyone that wants to stuff an animal and put it on their shelf at home is a few buns short of a bakery anyway).
As regards the naming and shaming of those that sent her threats, they are stupid people and deserve to be at least embarassed if not prosecuted. If you said half those threats in the street in the UK then you'd be risking arrest for threatening behaviour. Making the same threats by email is no different.
While I may think that kitty bag is a quite tasteless, probably because I could never do something like that to my pet (albeit as Sarah said above, the bag is quite stylish), she's done nothing wrong in the eyes of law. All these environMENTALists need to get a life. Sometimes I think they would rather kill people but not animals - where's the logic there? Something in their head is messed up.
While perhaps some things I consider tasteless, amoral, sick, whatever, one cannot (and should not) legislate morality. Otherwise, we are back in the dark ages. And this vigilantism )or wannabe vigilantism) ought to be punished severely.
Huntingdon Life Sciences springs to memory somehow.
I find myself agreeing with David. If you wear leather shoes. Have a leather sofa. Eat lamb, pork, duck, or whatever the hell they make sausages out of (you can't convince me it's pork). Then you really can't complain here.
If the cat was on it's way out anyway even less so as most animals we eat are in their prime.
I wear leather shoes and eat meat. If I was to be anti this then I would be the worst kind of hypocrite as you can'y pick one animal over another like that.
Cats are (or were?) classed as vermin anyway, there's no problem with killing it provided it's done humanely.
Looking at this a bit closer, it seems the cat was terminally ill and needed shooting anyway, everything after that is just details.
Not art? If you define art as any peice of creative work that evokes emotion, negative or positive, in the viewer then you have to include this.
Who really feels comfortable, positive even, looking at Edvard Munch's "The Scream"?
Ok so I'm not comparing one of the greatest peices of the last century to some daft cow and her DIY handbag, but often its the uneasy feeling a peice gives you that really makes it what it is.
Bit tasteless though, and frankly the rest of her work in the same vein yet even less inspiring. (Threatening to shred 61 chicks unless the crowd adopted them for example)
Theres a few cat lovers on here arent there?
Now I respect cat owners rights to keep a pet far, far, more than they respect my right to a catshit free garden, so I wouldnt personally hurt one. However I absolutely salute this artist for her work. The more of these non-indiginous, dangerous, disgusting, dirty threat to native species, hateful little fu%^ers are turned into useful handbags the better.
Just to get some balance into the discussion.
...and I have to confess that I'm no lover of cats myself, although I would probably stop short of killing the little bastards that dig up my vegetables and shit on them.
However, sending threatening email to people is illegal. The artist in question chose to 'name and shame'* those who has threatened her. These were people whe were not only stupid enough to threaten someone but doubly stupid by not doing it in a particularly anonymous fashion. This woman would be, AFAIK, quite within her rights to make a complaint to the police about these people in their respective countries of origin. She chose the arguably more humane option of turning it into 'art'.
*I hate this Daily Mail-esque phrase and am truly sorry and ashamed for using it
Oh for fucksakes it's more complicated than that, don't just go 'if you eat one animal then you shouldn't complain about any others being killed under any circumstances ever cos otherwise you're the worst kind of hypocrite'. Engage your brain. Unless you'd rather not in which case, welcome, you're among friends here.
Still, this is the 4975967th time this kind of argument has played out here so I should just learn some kind of meditation technique, or something. Or maybe go and get a job in an abbatoir. Or a petting zoo. I see no conflict there, etc etc etc.
How people send offensive messages through the internet when their details are so easily searchable on the world wide web. Hopefully this will be a lesson to self-obsessed keyboard warriors to be a little more considered about when they send and what they post about themselves.
@andy gibson: Some of us who are proud of our views still feel that our employers, potential employers, or just random nutcases may take exception to them at some point in the next 20 years or so -- tying comments to your real name forever and publishing them to the world in searchable form is not always a wise course of action.
"it's not like she waited for her "beloved" cat to die of natural causes. She wrung its neck with her own hands once she decided to make a handbag out of it"
let's rephrase this :
"it's not like she waited for her "beloved" chicken to die of natural causes. She wrung its neck with her own hands once she decided to make a meal out of it"
"it's not like she waited for her "beloved" beef to die of natural causes. She wrung its neck with her own hands once she decided to make a steak out of it"
please guys, let's not be hypocrits...
paris, 'cos she knows how to wrang her kitty
I'm willing to bet that all the commenters whinging about disclosure of "private"(read public domain) information have all abused someone online "anonymously" and are now really worried that their fondness for spanking or whatever is going to be revealed to their Mum. What she's doing should happen a lot more.
I agree...very nice bag .Not sure about the brick to the head though... (prefer the twist -and-pull method myself) . Kind of funny reading the response to this article though...(irony, we've heard of it)
Nice twist (sorry) on how she turned the tables on her detractors.Revenge best served cold (gazpacho)
Just goes to show there's more than one way to skin a ...
.. mines the one with the ermine collar
Artists tend to seek publicity and need approbation. There's no doubt she's just managed some more publicity based on the original act. And I can't really blame her for fighting back against hate mail.
I believe the strongest condemnation of her original act would have been to ignore it. Just like the worst job reference you can get from a former employer is a blank sheet of paper.
"her most notorious project to date was 'My dearest cat Pinkeltje' in 2004: Tinkebell personally twisted her pet's neck and skinned it with her own hands to make it into a purse. "
As for where I stand on this whole debate- I think that the artist and those who are sending her hate mail are all arseholes.
Repeat after me:
A newspaper article is not a primary source.
It may well be that she killed the animal with her own hands. Her own website says she killed it because 'it was depressed'.
Agreed, it is a little distasteful but you have to remember that many countries outside of the UK do not have our near fanatical devotion to 'animal rights'.
For example, the RSPCA (the UK animal protection charity) was founded in 1824 and gained royal approval in 1840. The NSPCC (The UK child protection charity) was founded in 1884, a full sixty years later and has yet to gain royal status. This pretty much reflects the case that for some reason many British folk seem to think that animals outshine their human counterparts. I've heard the argument that 'animals can't defend themselves so we have to' . Put a cat and a human infant in a sack together and tell me which one comes off the better*.
I also fail to understand why we ascribe some soprt of special status to cats over other animals. These are vicious predators we are talking about. They are a non-native invasive species. I suspect that it is only because they are 'cute and fluffy' that people care. If someone had killed a rat and made a bag out of it I doubt the nutjobs would have come out of the woodwork to the same degree.
Anyway, my message to cat people is this: grow up, get some objectivity and every time you think about how much you love your cute fluffy cat, imagine what it would look like it it didn't have all that fur to cover its teeth and claws. Imagine it sat in a tree with a baby songbird in its mouth, or digging up some innocent neighbour's garden to take a dump.
*This is a thought experiment. No need to try it.
Whoa - the link in the story that goes to her page shows more than content that's NSFW: The series of pictures she's headed "Amost 18+" is quite possibly highly illegal (at least in the UK).
She describes them as being legal because although they "depict girls aged 13-15", they're posed by models over the age of 18. In the UK, pictures that depict children are illegal and classed as kiddie porn, even if the "actresses" are aged over 18. Way to make all your readers criminals, El Reg!
Thank you for your impressive over reaction to my devils advocate post. Perhaps you could explain to me, seeing as how my brain is disengaged, why killing a cat to make a handbag is different to killing a cow to make the same?
One is cute and fluffy the other is big and daft looking, but that alone isn't a good argument is it?
Is the reason said argument comes up so often, 4975967 times (or is it 4975968 now?), that there is some merit to it?
There are some interesting moral arguments to be had here. Although they have all been fought before, with no end in sight. Who ultimately says what is right or wrong? We have given that power to our law makers for better or worse. And as this woman is not in prison for what she has done we all have to stand by that.
Back to the original topic though. I don't know that I agree with her approach to dealing with the hate mail (naming and shaming). But the net getting the occasional kick up it's collective butt, that you are responsible for your actions from behind a keyboard as you are in person is no bad thing.
> In general, so is sending someone hate mail, but when it's someone who deserves it, > disclosing personal details of people without authorization is also a criminal offence.
So who defines who "deserves it" Mr Savant? You? I sincerely hope not.
IF the dutch feel she has commited a crime then fine, they will deal with her. If they decide she hasn't, STFU please. It is not for you to impose your poxy-assed morals on them.
> The Dutch should shut down her web site, and put her in jail. It's as simple as that.
Nope, you're simple, this is a wee bit more complex than "A is for Apple".
Frankly whilst I consider the "artistic" quality of turning a moggy into a bag to be a tad dubious, I wholly applaud her method of dealing with the lowlifes who feel it's fine to abuse and threaten because "hey, it's for the animals". This is the same Pro Animal/Anti human self indulgence that we're having issues here in the UK regarding "Animal Rights" people threatening, desecrating graves etc. Why on earth should they receive ANY protection?
Humans are Humans, Animals are Animals... get over it. You think a tiger gets into an agony of morals if it eats a human?
You obviously never had a cat living in your house. Cats have individuality and personality and when you have one as a pet you will eventually and inevitably attach and relate to it as a person.
People who kill cats in such circumstances (this probably probably applies to many other pet animals as well) clearly do it because they want to hurt a person close to them, kill it and see how it feels but don't want to kill a human for fear of legal consequences.
This "artist" is obviously a psychotic individual, perhaps a drug addict, and the reason behind her killing her cat unlikely had anything to do with any "art" but was just a deranged act of cruelty in order to get the kick out of it.
She will live with the guilt till the end of her days, whatever brave face she may try to put on now. In this regard I almost pity her...
'if you eat one animal then you shouldn't complain about any others being killed under any circumstances ever cos otherwise you're the worst kind of hypocrite'
That's not what he said and you know it - in fact we all know it as we can see what he wrote on this very page.
He's saying that if you are prepared to kill one type of animal for food/clothing, it's hypocritical to complain when someone does the exact same thing to another animal just because you consider one to be a pet and the other to be food. You're making that out to be "if you wear leather shoes, you might as well stamp on a spaniel". Can you see the difference?
Unless you just don't like the way she killed it - what's your preferred method for dispatching a cat?
Being what I like to think of as liberal and pro freedoms this presents me with a problem. I don't think people should have a right to kill their pets, its not as if they're bought for consumption. Maybe she needs to look up pet in a dictionary and see happy families who aren't thinking 'Huh, this creatures skin would look good on me.'
I always say stuff like fight for your right to speak even if I disagree with you but this woman's actions are so distasteful I'd be more than a little tempted to give her a piece of my mind anyway.
Just sounds like a callous, fame-hungry sicko. I hope she has as many friends as she deserves.
@John Savard "In civilized countries, cruelty to animals is a criminal offence."
there seems to be a big assumption that killing a cat is cruelty. surely it depends how she did it. if she tortured ti to death then there would be a case for prosecution under aforementioned animal cruelty laws, but it was her pet. one would imagine that she had at least a modicum of feeling for the thing. Just because she killed it with her own hands does not mean it was a cruel death. it may have been but I would think that it probably wasn't.
So then what's the differecen between getting the vet to do it, and doing it yourself?
and once the animal is dead, where is the issue making it into a handbag? some people may find it tasteless but that's not illegal, nor should it be.
@Sarah Bee "Oh for fucksakes it's more complicated than that"
is it? I can't say I particularly liked the handbag (but then I'm hardly a fashionista, my ownership of a mac aside) but as long as she wasn't cruel in her termination of the mog, I don't see that she has actually done anything wrong.
animals get killed all the time, either for our own benefit (leather, meat etc), for our convenience (eek, we've got mice, get the poison/mousetraps) or just because they are surplus (has that cat had kittens again? fetch the bucket!).
most people don't get confronted with this stuff day to day (neither do I thankfully) but it still happens and while I don't advocate anyone being cruel, I also appreciate some of the practicalities of life.
if her cat was already dieing and should have been quietly put out of it's misery, what does it matter if she took it to a vet or did it herself? once it was dead, why does it matter whether she buried it or made a handbag?
people might not like it but lots of things happen that I don't like, I don't send out hate mail.
PS. I guess I ought to say I'm more a dog person than a cat person, but I would have the same opinion if she'd done it to a dog. of course, with a dog, she'd have scope for a much bigger bag!
PPS. did she use the cat's arsehole as a handy headphone cable port?
"She kills her cat for profit, then releases the private information of people who criticise her, for profit.
How is she not in jail exactly?"
Because she's an artist.
In other news, Bush and Cheney claim Iraq war was 'Performance Art' and submit it for the Turner....
One down one hundred to go...
Maybe better warn Dutch pet suppliers that she may be looking for more raw material. On the other hand, it's a cat for Christ's sake, it's a fur covered flee bag with four legs that goes meow, there are millions of them, anybody would think she'd killed Garfield.
A question for all the cat lovers. If your cat chose to live elsewhere, say with a neighbour, would you be happy for your cat or try to get it back?
I went to her website and - @ To Those who equate cats with cattle - I don't she can't be that guilty because it was hardly the only living animal killed to become a fashion accessory or toy...
What really bugs me is that the grotesque cuddly toys made with real fur look... well... appealing!
*Begins looking at my cats in a whole new way*
It's almost certain that the authors are breaching copyright by publishing the pictures found on the Internet. I'd be very interested to know how that applies to the hate mail itself - is it considered a copyrightable work that belongs to the author?
"They want to show it all, and think that everybody is interested in everything they do". I would like to call to other the case of Miss Pot vs the Kettles. If Tinkebell wants to comment on society, how about debating how shock has replaced all other qualities as the primary value of an artwork and that such blunt and unimaginative creations as hers overshadow anything the least bit clever, insightful or interesting.
As the oldest man in Springfield once said:
You see some men hunt for sport,
Others hunt for food.
The only thing I'm hunting for
Is an outfit that looks good.
See my vest, see my vest,
Made from real gorilla chest.
Feel this sweater, there's no better
Than authentic Irish Setter.
See this hat, 'twas my cat.
My evening wear, vampire bat.
These white slippers are albino
African endangered rhino.
Grizzly bear underwear,
Turtle necks I've got my share.
Beret of poodle on my noodle it shall rest
Try my red robin suit,
It comes one breast or two...
See my vest, See my vest.
Like my loafers, former gophers,
It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
But a greyhound fur tuxedo would be best...
So let's prepare these dogs,
Kill two for matching clogs!
See my vest!
See me vest!
Oh, please, won't you see my vessssst!
The key quote is "She became so depressed that I decided to kill her and made her into a purse". the cat was dying, it merely starved of attention and kept in inappropriate conditions by someone unfit to own any animal.
In the photo, the artist looks pretty depressed to me. My ex is an Amsterdam artist who'll know where to find her, maybe I should go cure her depression, accessorise and exhibit?
Oh yeah, feel free to pass her my email address.
"You obviously never had a cat living in your house. Cats have individuality and personality and when you have one as a pet you will eventually and inevitably attach and relate to it as a person."
I relate my wife's cat to a mass murderer, in that all small furry things that go "squeak" or feathery things that go "cheep" MUST DIE
Cats are the most spiteful creatures it is possible to invite into your home. I swear to God that the wife's cat is able to vomit at will if I "look at it funny", It can teleport into the conservatory, I know for a fact that when I locked up last night it wasnt in there yet when I come down this morning there it is, sat next to a steaming turd with that look on it's face (you know the one, I know I shit where you didnt want me to but it was your fault so you cant shout at me!)
Did she really strangle her own cat or was it a stunt to publicise her works, I dont know. Were any of Damien hurst's animals humanley killed or did tthey suffer, I dont know. I do know it isn't my kind of "art" though (i ilke my paintings of things to look like the things they are paintings of)
My wife has another cat which cost us over £1800 to fix after it had its tail lopped off in an unfortunate accident (I'll just sit on the pavement next to the road and stick my tail into the road see what happens) When he is walking away from you you could see a new design for a novelty pen holder :-)
Some people just get their kicks playing mind games... let's press here and see what happens.
It's more of a sociopathy than anything else ... wanting to be in the center of attention, being talked about, proof one exists. Huzar !!
And then think this does the world a favour, changes it , ... for the better ?!
But at best it briefly puts a mirror in front of us makes us refect upon ourselves (great excuse) but let it be clear that the lesson I've learned here is that I can and will from now on start wearing fur coats again and eat puppy-liver. Especially dutch puppy liver.
Can't stand cats, they are a menace to the local wildlife population and should be treated as an introduced vermin species on par with the grey squirrel, if they come on my land I should be allowed to shoot the stone dead. The only use for a cat is for people who have a personality disorder that prevents them from connecting with people properly QED the cat handbag woman.
It was cat. It's now art.
I wonder if there is a legal issue if you take information that's freely available, collate it by person and publish it. I don't think people would be happy if someone took their details from the telephone directory and published it along with a photograph of their house. It's technology that makes this so much easier than before and, as usual, I suspect the law is a little way behind.
How can you quote wikipedia if you can't read? (to think of it - how could you type your post when you obiously can't read?)
I never mentioned the word "people", I said "person", which does not necessarily refer to humans but to an object with certain legal or moral characteristics. Schmuck.
"AC, because I have no intention of getting into a flame war with a psychotic."
It was AC because you are an anonymous coward.
Just wait till you get children: -fur +way more expensive...
Why is it more complicated than that? I have no issues with eating cat (no that's not a euphemism). If you can kill and eat a cow why not a cat, rat, raccoon, badger or goldfish? It seems pretty simple to me. Maybe that's why you have no basis to moderate this repeated discussion because the logic and morality is pretty binary.
Ask the Chinese and the French - they'll eat anything - and make handbags out of anything for that matter.
On the art front I think this does a brilliant job of holding a mirror up to the fashion industry, consumerism, exploitation of animals and inconsistent morals. It's quite brilliant.
I actually hope that she ate the cat after making the handbag out of respect.
"I don't think people should have a right to kill their pets". Should I take my goldfish to a vet when it gets old and sickly? Wake up, by taking a pet you are responsible for causing the death of an animal. Since its death is inevitable, who better to do the last rites than the human that cared and provided for it?
Just because it's a pet and you project human qualities and emotions on it, does not mean it has any more intrinsic worth than the lamb or chicken you had for dinner. The farmer who reared that lamb was probably emotionally attached to it. It probably had a name, for Pete's sake.
How far removed are we from the realities of life? Our grandparents' generation slaughtered their livestock themselves, most people in the world still do. I myself had to do some soul searching when I felt upset about killing and eating a fish I caught. It got me thinking and I hope I have a better attitude towards animals and food for it.
For the record I love my cats and dog, and will be shattered when their time comes. However, making use of their fur coats once they have passed away would only be a tribute to those faithful companions.
well I have to say, although I wouldn't do it the way she has, I do agree with her point about pets being treated as childrens toys. you only have to watch a 5 year old with a hamster (youtube) to understand the point. at what age do children develop awareness of others (&pets) feelings?
And it is true that we do think of pets as being different to farm animals when in reality they are not.
As for publishing those who threatened and abused well they are worse than the person they abuse. They act on gut instinct without understanding, and mistreat a human which is worse than an animal, they deserve to be shamed, abuse and threats are wrong, there are proper ways to protest, people will always disagree.
so you disagree with me? I understand. thats ok. but dont abuse me for it.
I've kept both cats and steers (I grew up on a farm) and neither one had any more personality than the other. Cats are full of the hate and anger and general pissedness-at-the-world. I'd rather have anything else for a pet. And speaking as someone that recently had to put down his dog (prostate cancer) - I really don't find anything wrong with what she did.
And I must applaud her for turning the tables on Anon.
Of course naming two of my steers "Lunch" and "Dinner" was probably a little tasteless, but I did like being able to say "look, here comes Lunch!" -hahaha!
Has nobody out there seen any of Gunther van Hagen's work? - do a search and look at his horse for example. His work is quite controversial but the stink seems to have died down. Taxidermy is not an offence unless the victim is still alive. Hmm, now what should we do with the vociferous complainers? Maybe some nice leather suitcases perhaps, or big bags at least.
These people who still wear animal fur are cave people.
EVen wearing leather shoes is stretching but at least Nikes do not have cat fur on it.
I would not date any cave woman who walks around with bunny fur or cat fur or dog fur or bear or mink fur. It has nothing to do with animal rights for me.
For me it is so ... so like a tradition held over from over 4,000 years ago.
I don't see a problem with it - I have a leather sofa, leather shoes etc. etc. so I can't really argue. I also don't really care if she killed it herself or not (I can't find anything saying either way).
Read about the same artist's 'Chicks Through A Shredder' experiment, where she was going to put 51 chicks through a shredder, until she was stopped and arrested. Terrible, you may think. How dare she.
But what about the 150,000 male chicks gassed or crushed to death every week? Who gives a shit about them? Ok, she's pretentious. She's probably a bit of a prick. But at least she's making people think.
She can't even troll the internet right. You see, darling, what you do is fly to each and every one of your antagonists' houses, beat the shit out of them on film, then upload it to youtube or tack it on to the end of your movie.
At any rate, if the cat was ill, maybe she just didn't want to hop off to Sorrento and come back to a dead cat? That'd be so anticlimactic.
OK, let's imagine - she had a dog and one day she decides the dog looks a bit depressed and kills it.
Did you feel nothing when you were putting your dog down? Would you have killed your dog just for a bit of fun, to see how it feels to squeeze the life out of a living thing or because you thought that it would better fit your living room furniture stuffed?
The issue here is not whether it was a cat or a dog or a castrated ox - it was a pet, and she killed it just for kicks. She is sick and what she has done will come back to hunt her.
P.S. As for cats & dogs, well, you obviously prefer dogs, whereas for me dogs are too boring and lack the free will. I know people are split into two camps and neither you can persuade me nor I could ever convince you of the relative merits of one species versus the other.
....is all the folks who claim this is "disgusting" yet pay no attention whatsoever to the hundreds of thousands of stray and unwanted cats that die every year all around us. Where's the shock and horror for them?
The issue here, seems to me, is that people hear about a pet being made into a handbag and emotionally respond as though their *own* pets were going to be killed. A cat can starve a slow, lingering death in the alleyway ten meters away from them, and the folks crying foul won't blink; I find that very interesting indeed.
"But what about the 150,000 male chicks gassed or crushed to death every week? Who gives a shit about them? Ok, she's pretentious. She's probably a bit of a prick. But at least she's making people think."
There was a Russian woman, Antonina Makarova, nicknamed Tonka-the-Machine-Gunner. She shot 1500 people, suspected partisans and their family members, in a Belorussian town when it was occupied by Germans during the WWII. She was recognised, arrested and tried in the 70's.
What's the big deal, 1500 people, when over 60 million were killed in WWII, right? So, she has done nothing wrong? It was OK wasn't it? Well, no it wasn't.
It's OK for combatants to kill each other at war. It's not OK to execute non-combatants without due process. In the former case the reason for the killing is to achieve a military objective, in the latter - to terrorise and collectively punish the occupied population.
Equally, it's OK to behead 150,000 chicks daily for food but it's not OK to shred 51 of them once but for some sort of perverted sexual gratification. There is no hypocrisy here.
P.S. According to the archives, Tonka was extremely surprised when she heard the judge sentencing her to death. She, apparently, expected to get 3 years on probation...
Vladimir, how much one-to-one experience have you had with cows? Other than seeing it in the meat aisle? Unlikely as it may seem, I've managed to nurse a cow back to health after it had a particularly harrowing birth - so bad that she lost the use of her back legs for eight weeks. So, having experience of cats and cows, I can assure you, that anyone that has spent a great deal of time doing something like this can testify that cows have as much personality as cats and are a lot more useful, you just wouldn't want it curled up at the end of your bed.
How many of you lot out there hating on this girl could actually kill an animal with your own bare hands?? yet i'm sure there is a good percentage of you who eat meat/use animal based products and quite happily pass off the killing to someone else and don't think twice about it.
However just because suddenly someone killed a cat your all up in arms, get over it, it's just a cat.
I'm not saying we should all be out killing cats, but i am saying if you can't/won't kill/gut/skin an animal, you should not be allowed to use they're products.
Good on her, she's got more balls than 75% of the men i know.
Yes, i have killed animals for food purposes.. (not cats)
I'd never get a chance to do that - our cats tend to just not come back one day, presumably ending up as roadkill or just expiring due to illness (feline cardiomyopathy, an apparently healthy cat can just drop dead) under a bush somewhere. The only one that got taken to the vet was 21 and didn't have a bag-worthy pelt at that point anyway.
Cats are vicious creatures though - nice and cute and furry when controlling their humans, but lethal to mice and birds. There's probably at least a dozen little carcasses in our garden - I now leave them for whatever scavenger comes and takes them every few days.
As for publishing details - if she found them on-line via websites or whois information then technically the details were already in the public domain.
Got to agree with @JCL. Growing up on a farm, we were never allowed to name our animals for obvious reasons. But still, if you work on keeping a sick animal alive for a few days and then it dies, it's does get you down. Just because an animal tends to end up in a basket by your bedroom door rather than on your plate doesn't make them have any more of a personality. Tasty yes, but not special. I wouldn't be able to eat my pet retriever, but I'd try dog in a different country. It's just for some people that line isn't as well defined as it is for me (and most people).
As for killing a pet dog, my great uncle had an spaniel that was on it's last legs, he took the gun out and it thought it was going shooting. When it managed to get ahead of him, he shot it. Of course those were the days before everyone took the pet to the vet, and I doubt I could be so certain that I could do it properly so the creature wouldn't feel anything.
I'm not bothered about how an animal is killed, as long as it's done properly. I can't believe anyone who's owned a pet wouldn't make the death as painless as possible. I'm able to shoot fowl & pests (about 15 grey squirrels so far), but I loath running anything over in my car because I know that it's quite possible it's still half alive in the hedge.
So, "Tinkebell" and her artist mate suddenly turned into experts in hunting down "keyboard warriors", and decided to use their new-found skills to name-and-shame ?
What if they got their facts wrong, and some innocent person's details were published by mistake ? OK, the alleged "haters" shouldn't have put up all that personal information in the first place, but it could be an interesting libel case if that happened.
Also, how do we know these "haters" are real ? How do we know that "Tinkebell" didn't just create all these profiles and write the book as a bit of self-serving PR ? While everyone's in a tizzy about her "Goodbye Kitty" purse, the timer on her 15 minutes of fame gets continually reset...
They had a huge pile of complete cowskins, in the rug section, complete with brandmarks as well, not to mention a large basket FULL of sheepskins.
Couldn't help wondering what it would be like if they had a pile of dog and cat pelts as well.
On the other hand, what did she do with the rest of her cat's corpse after it was skinned? Surely a waste to kill and skin an animal and then not eat the meat. Would have made a lovely stew.
Whatever..... another shock-artist making a statement..... and then making another one.
The comments here are a fun read though.
The commenter writing about the starving strays gets my serious vote.
The commenter that came up with "Goodbye Kitty" hand-bag - funniest shit ive read today.
Everyone has a right to their own moral outlook in my book.
By my own code, I dont consider "depressed" (obviously she's an animal psychologist as well as an artist?) a terminal illness requiring euthanasia.
Strangulation is not comfortable or painless or quick - I have it on first hand account from someone who survived this process after going limp enough to seem dead - so I would call it a harsh way to put something down.
For something the size of a cat i would suggest a shovel.
I have personally killed, prepared and eaten animals (once i was even hungry!) and have for my own self-respect done my utmost to ensure it was quick and as painless as possible.
To the guy who worries about the half-dead road-kill: I am the guy driving behind you who stops, gets out, finds the dying creature and finishes the job.
Now to the message the artist has, or rather what I get from it:
Examine your preconceived notions about what is cruel, what is a Pet, what is sufficient justification for taking another life and..... not yet mentioned it seems.......
consider that if you are sick and depressed enough to jump through the hoops, we can have you killed too.
The cat could not, of course sign a consent form.
Why is this in the Register again? (except for the obvious Trollbaiting)
Oh yeh, cos she published some details about her detractors.
A previous commenter rightly mentioned that modern means make collation and mass-publication of public-domain personal information child's play and legal issues need to be sharpened up. Pertinent questions: has the personal safety actually been compromised for any of these art-critics? Have her detractors made threats at a level that ought to be considered by the authorities? By not pushing the threats through the proper channels is she in fact short-circuiting her proffered option of reporting them later?
So so sooooooo many more questions and lines of enquiry on this little topic......
Just once again highlights how anonymity is not a given, and of course anything you write on SpyMace can be put into anyone else's To-Flame or To-Publish Folder.
AC because I don't need a name to back up my comments, if my words do not speak for themselves then you have wasted your time reading them..... suckers
PS just as some background I have owned most domestic animal types as pets and have had to put them down on occasion myself (usually financial reasons, sometimes urgency) and it hurts but watching them suffer hurts even more.
Oh, and my mother-in-law has it in her will that she wants her hide tanned and displayed in the family home when she is gone (to save her tattoos!)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019