So I'm going to refute them. For those of you who don't know who Tinkebell is: She is an 'artist' from holland who first became famous by strangling/necksnapping her own pet cat and making a purse from it as a work of 'art'. She then held workshops explaining people how to make purses from cats themselves and bragged about it on an internet board, she abused hamsters, used child pornography in art to protest child pornography (what's next?), she violates privacy laws by naming and shaming people in her book, ...and other disgusting crap. And now I see that she is being celebrated as some sort of deep thinker, by lunatics on internetboards, blogs,...
The world has gone nuts! My previous post about her - with more info - can be found here: Tinkebell: women kills cat for art
First things first...the german media simply didn't got it. I will prove it.
Take this article from the Suddeutsche Zeitung:
Handtaschen aus haustieren
translation of the title: handbag made from pet...
die niederländische Künstlerin Katinka Simonse, die sich "Tinkebell" nennt, Tausende anonyme Hass-Mails aus aller Welt bekommen, seit sie ihrem todkranken Kater Pinkeltje im Jahr 2004 den Hals umdrehte und eine Handtasche aus ihm machte.
Translation: In this quote they claim her cat was very sick and almost dying. And that this was the reason why she snapped its neck. Well, do your research!
Only recently - to my knowledge - has she been saying that the cat was sick. And the cat was supposedly 'depressed', not dying. So that's why she snuffed the life out of it, at least she claims. How can we trust her? How come this is something she just started saying since last year. How come, when she announced this on dutch television, she was laughing about it?
And I have my doubts that the animal's neck was broken (and even if: it isn't as painless as being put to sleep by a vet). And here is some proof of it:
This dutch blog has a quote of her mentioning the killing of her cat: telegravin
“Pinkeltje was depressief en daarom heb ik hem eigenhandig gewurgd om hem uit zijn lijden te verlossen.”
Translation: Pinkeltje (her cat) was depressed, so I strangled him with my bare hands to release him from its suffering.
Strangled to death people! And for what: depression? And nobody does anything but applaud her and laugh about it? And she just happened to have the idea to make an art project of dead cat? That was a coincidence? Idiots!
Ihr erklärtes Ziel ist die Entlarvung einer "doppelten Moral": Die Liebe zum Kuscheltier auf der einen und die Ignoranz gegenüber den Qualen industriell verwerteter Tiere auf der anderen Seite.
Total nonsense...as far as I am concerned, she couldn't care less about animal suffering. I've done some research and published it all on my dutch blog dierenbevrijding (the dutch counterpart of this blog).
I found internet forum discussions of her annoucing the deed and making some advertisements for her art. She also defended it on that board and even mentioned that it would be ok for her to import chinese cat and dog fur, because the animals had been bred for it anyway. When asked about the horrendous animal suffering in china (google is your friend!) her only reply is: what about the cows in holland?
Well, we don't skin cows alive in Holland. But anyway, it is clear that anything is ok according to her. She doesn't protest animal suffering at all. She isn't an animal activist. She even has a recipe for a meat dish (rabbit) on one of her blogs:
rabbit with red wine
So, for all of you who think she is some sort of 'animal activist': you are gullible idiots!
On to the next quote of insanity, made by Katinka Simonse:
2008 schritt die Polizei ein, als sie in einer Amsterdamer Galerie 100 Hamster in Tretmühlen zeigte. "Gegen einen Hamster im Tretrad sagt niemand etwas, aber gegen 100 plötzlich doch", konstatierte sie.
Translation: In 2008 the dutch police (actually, the animal protection service was involved, but whatever...) intervened because of an exposition where she put 100 hamsters in hamsterballs for an 'art exhibit'. She claims: One hamster in a hamsterball is no problem, but 100 is.
Well, again she misleads everybody. As far as I remember a hamster is not supposed to spend more then 20 minutes in a hamster ball. She put 100 stress sensitive hamsters in an 'art hall' in 100 hamster balls for five hours straight with no food, no water,... This is why these animals were confiscated. But again, this isn't mentioned at all in the article, or similar ones (Der Spiegel,...take your pick)
Anyone who takes her stuff at face value and didn't think it true: Idiots! She didn't make a point with this at all. She misused a product and abused hamsters to prove a point that is no point at all and to get attention for it. It worked off course...typical
On top of it, she 'creates' a debate, that in essence isn't a debate at all. But that doesn't stop some idiots of celebrating it as a good initiative. Yes, a very good idea to violate peoples privacy and essentialy take 'revenge' on those that oppose you. Good idea! Lets applaud it. again: Idiots!
If you don't know what I am talking about, read this article:
My dearest cat pinkeltje
The artists has collected the thousands of threatening emails she received between 2004 and 2008, and published them in a yellow pages-size book titled Dearest Tinkebell.
The book has already stirred a controversy of its own because Simonse doesn't just publish the emails - almost a thousand of them - but also the names, ages, addresses of the people who sent them. She also provides links to people's YouTube videos and MySpace profiles, and any embarrassing information, photos or videos she found there.
further it says:
"It was shocking to see how much personal information these people throw on the internet," Vogelaar says. "It's striking that these people are often very exhibitionist, they've posted hundreds of photos of themselves on the web.
Anybody who accepts this without thinking about it: congrats. the picture I posted suits you perfectly! Notice the way she is talking: 'these people'. As if it was a coherent group of people. Off course, they forget to mention that just about anyone has a myspace page or a facebook...with friends, conversations and pictures on it. Tinkebell has one herself! Coralie Vogelaar and Tinkebell seem to be branding their opponents into one category. A category they invented themselves...nice. Again: nobody in the media gets the idea to ask critical questions...nor do any bloggers or people discussing this on internet boards.
Both in the german and dutch newspapers, this is often reported without question:
Judging by the photos in the book, most of the hate mail was indeed sent by bored teenagers, mostly American girls.
"Teenagers who think in black and white and react very impulsively," Vogelaar says. "They click 'send' before giving it a second thought. Most emails were full of spelling errors and were sent in the middle of the night.
Nobody seems to question the validity of this crap. How can we really know this? In their latest interview Coralie Vogelaar and Katinke Simonse said they only used a portion of the hatemail received.
How did they really select it? Did they sample it, to give a clear picture of the population? Or did they just pick whoever they liked to make fun of (even fellow artists it would appear, I will blog about this in the near future).
Its just nonsense! She violated privacy laws by publishing a book with and she used people material and personal information without permission. She even published pictures of other peoples homes and details about their love life. The worst part is: even children weren't spared. And people applaud this insanity?
Anyway: I'll continue blogging about this in the days to come, while all this nonsense unfolds...