February 17, 2008: Art?
 

Cellerite Kirk Israel, once said, "Art is whatever you can get away with".
Katinka Simonse, who works under the name of Tinkebell, has been rattling the art world for awhile, most notably when she made a purse out of her dead cat.

Her latest, dog/cat doll, at an art fair opening in Rotterdam today, has been stirring up a storm of response in the Dutch media.

http://cellar.org/2008/popple.jpg
I believe its made from a dead dog and a dead cat.
Is it art?

no its GROSS !!!

I think it's a handbag. The reason it's gross is because we consider dogs and cats pets.

There's no difference between a dog pelt purse and a fox pelt purse for example. It's just that one is more acceptable.

I don't think it's art though.

Pardon my French.

But that shit is messed up.

Well, mostly I don't believe there is such a thing as an 'official' art-label.

Personaly I consider calling those hypo-allergenic cats "lifestyle pets" quite offensive as well.

It's a Popple!

Funny - I ready pardon my fresh.....

There might be a difference -the cat and dog probably weren't killed specifically for that project. Which imo would make it more acceptable than the fox purse.

Is it art? Not to me. It might have been if the artist had simply made the product and started using it, but putting an object on display and stating "THIS IS ART" is more likely to have the opposite effect, in my opinion. If you have to tell people it's art, it probably isn't.

Sort of the reverse effect of comments that start with "no offence, but....."

It's a creative way to stuff a dog into a cat, and i do admit there is a lot of effort going into it, but art? I don't think so. A memorial to two pets maybe, but not art.

While I own several purses made of animal hide (cow) I have never owned a bag that had a head still attached. Or legs, or tails... I would think it was a little gross and a lot creepy no matter what kind of animal it was made from.

The fact that it is reversible, while usually an attractive feature, just makes it double, no, triple creepy.

It's not a handbag.

Leaving the head on the fox fur stole was considered the height of fashion at one time. I think it's a matter of perspective. I'm with you though, I don't think I'd be interested in it.

Yes Bruce, I know it's not a handbag as such, but it's some kind of bag in my opinion because she's carrying one thing in another.

No, it's not a bag. The zipper allows her to turn it inside out, to make the transformation from dog to cat. The only thing on the inside is the other side of the doll.

whatever you say. I was simply giving my impression of the item that's all. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. Just what I think of it.

Bruce!!!! Dont call it a *doll*

From the newspaper;
From Tinkebell;

perhaps "Art" is the name of one of the former animals, but i don't think it is art. calling it so would be the same as calling Jeffrey Dahmer a chef.

Now we know what happened to Paris Hilton's pets.

I think of it more of an action figure, myself.

Trans-fur-mer?

Bizarre is the only word I can come up with. How anyone can come up with these ideas is beyond me. I'll pass.

Maybe it's just the mood I'm in this morning, but I thought it was kind of funny, actually. It also made me think of Popples, Clod, thanks for posting that.
Cool taxidermy project? Sure.
Art? Nah.

She was going to make a 'doggie bag' to bring home leftovers from a restaurant, but all she had handy was the cat.

IT'S NOT A BAG! (ask bruce) ;)

It IS a bag. A marble bag. It's empty 'cause 'Tinkebell' has lost her marbles. All of 'em.

If someone did that to my beloved Slick (Bombay cat), bodily harm would DEFINITELY be the order of the day!!:eek: :( :headshake

my kids used to love that show when they were little.

why the hell didn't I think of that? ha ha ha it's catdog

It's definitely art. From what I can tell, it's quality craftsmanship, and the materials are interesting...but, without the medium's shock value, it's just a somewhat nifty 2-purses-in-1...thing.
Plenty of crap art gets attention because it's "shocking;" that's just the way it goes. Stupid fucking monkeys and their love of hearing their own yowls in the night.

But art is art whether it's good or shitty. There's an art to everything you do, including living, but I'm not going to fart out my mouth about that, since the farts wouldn't even be my own, and I may as well just type "ttttttpppppt"

Is it art? Of course it is, if someone says it is and someone else feels the need to disagree, it's not just art, it's engaging art. Whether it's fun, clever or beautiful is strictly subjective. Whether it's good or successful also depends on arbitrary marks, though a majority might agree. But then, art is hardly democratic. Personally, I favour "it's art if anyone says it is". Saying something is art provokes the audience to take another look and look at something with a different outlook.

Besides, as far as the argument goes that "putting something on display and saying it is art making it less likely it actually is art": that doesn't work too well with an average Rembrandt or van Gogh, unless everyone in your area agrees none of that is actually art and, in fact, they have one hanging in their tool shed.

In this case, the artist merely wanted to point something out and succeeded very well, as it was in all the newspapers over here. The only reason we feel disgusted when we see this is because we view our pets as fundamentally different from foxes, minks, etc. Even though we breed both ourselves, raise them in captivity, feed them processed food and enjoy stroking their furs.

The fact that we can feel so strongly different about things so close gives pause and -that's- what makes this into a very successful piece of art if you ask me. (I think it's ugly as hell though)

Greetings,
Grismar.