I’m a fan of art. Not all art though. I have a very specific taste. I don’t really like Picasso or Van Gogn’s art. Ultimately, I appreciate art that is pretty and creative. Here is one such example by Tony Ariawan from Indonesia…
That makes sense to me. It’s cool. It’s unique. It’s visionary. It’s his own style. It makes you want to look at it some more. It reminds us of the beauty in women. Lovely.
If you or your dog is easily offended, please stop reading now.
Katinka Simonse’s art (aka Tinkebell) on the other hand, makes me want to vomit and this topic makes me sick as I write about it. But I do it for the meaning of the art.
She killed and converted her own cat into handbags because she “loves fashion” and provides a “how-to” manual (no, there is no typo in that sentence). She flaunts her love for under age internet porn. She owns 60 hamsters in balls and remote controlled guineas pigs. She puts day old male chicks through paper shredders. She writes numbers on the snails in her garden to keep count of them. There have been investigations into her behaviour: The Dutch Animal Protection Organization is aware of the situation (she claims her animals are not killed for artwork to them) and the DAPO says that killing for art demonstrates a lack of respect for the animals. They have spoken with her and feel that it is clear to them that she doesn’t want to cause animal suffering but make a shocking statement. Animal protection thinks that dead animals must always be respected and as such art is being respectful. “Dead animals can be used in art as long as the situation depicted is characteristic to the animal” they say. So she breaks 1 law and no repercussions.
Amongst all this chaos, she has a point. The focuses on the grotesque to draw attention to the truth of our behaviour. What’s the difference if it a snake being killed for leather boots, or a cow being killed, gutted and then eaten, or male chicks (who were going to be killed anyways in a slaughter house by gassing or other means) get put through a shredder. You can find her ‘Chicks With Dicks’ interview here. What the difference if you give your child a pet rabbit or just give them a real dead, stuffed rabbit? What’s the point of getting a hamster if you are going to interact with them through a plastic ball or cage?
Her statement: Animals are objects.
Her actions are no worse than meat slaughter houses, than research labs, pet breeding mills (who are purchased and sold by PetSmart) or by humans over breeding and caging animals for a sale. She is calling our bluff and it’s working!! Here’s a good summary of her:
TINKEBELL. is Katinka Simonse’s alter-ego, a ‘designer of discussions’. She researches the issues of contemporary populist movements, including animal rights activism, and their strategies. Hypocrisy within these movements and discourses is the main focus point of her work. (from Empathy-Research.com)
The openness about child porn? The point is so obvious now I don’t need to say anything further.
P.S. She has some stuff on Youtube, but I couldn’t bring myself to search for it.
46 responses so far ↓
1 Jona Slaats // May 2, 2008 at 8:29 am
this so called ‘artist’ is going to exhibit soon again, I’m sickened by her work and I’m going to email her gallery to tell them so!
Their email can be found on http://www.galeriemasters.nl
2 WolfGirl // May 2, 2008 at 11:28 am
Thank you for bringing this to our attention Jona and providing this link. I just sent them an email myself (my second one to a gallery showing her work) telling them my not so nice thoughts on the subject.
3 Dragana // Nov 11, 2008 at 8:11 am
I found her work while searching for this guy de Guillermo Habacuc Vargas, who was petitoned on the web to be excluded from Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008, and they did it.
I think there is much hypocrisy when people deal with this sorts of art stuff. This guy has been called a monster by numerous groups and blogs on the Internet, and wished to be dead by many. If they only haven’t been seduced by media and hate propaganda! We think the masses and media thoughts. Very rare we think with our own mind. Art is not always pleasant. You should think about this, again. If art is here to make a change, then she’s just too radical for you. Do you know artists used eggs while painting for centuries? And, I am vegetarian for 12 years now. I like your blog, really.
4 Some Guy // May 16, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I’m extremely allergic to cats. I can’t stand them. They are obnoxious creatures that should never have been even domesticated in the first place.
Speaking as a cat-hater, I must say that someone like Simonse is even more repulsive.
5 effe // May 26, 2009 at 10:53 am
wow, it’s always surprising how ignorant, stupid, and badly educated you US guys/gals are, remarkably.
6 Jon // May 28, 2009 at 5:03 am
Hmmm….
I have yet to find a statement anywhere that says she actually killed her cat. If the cat died of natural causes, then I dont see anything at all wrong with the piece, honestly.
Remember its the mistreatment of animals while alive that causes suffering, and the demand for animal based products that causes them to be bred uncomfortably.
I dont believe that this particular cat-bag piece encourages either problem. If anything it makes a bold ironic statement re the insanity of animal based bag products.
These statements are all, of course dependent on whether the cat died naturally. If she did have it put down for the piece then that is a little bit sick.
Then again I buy small chickens, rather than a large chicken and share it with my neighbour. This is convenience factor, but for the convenience, I and my neighbour take two chicken’s lives instead of one.
This artist at least, is making a statement.
7 SCMcG // May 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm
It seems to me, you just didn’t get what Tinkebell’s “art” is all about.
Katinka Simonse’s work is not unimportant for animal rights. She is seeking public provocation by doeing EXACTLY what is considered normal in our society. Millions of male chicken are shredded just after they’ve hatched, because they are useless for the breeding-industry. All over the world, millions of pet-hamsters run around in stupid plastic bowls, because it’s just so damn cute. And also, millions of cows get turned into handbags, shoes, sofas, jackets and whatnot every year, because apart from eating them thats what they are supposedly there for.
Every omnivore, who thinks it is disgusting what she does, is in fact a disgusting hypocrite himself. That’s what she is pointing out. And this encourages public debates about what kind of treatment of animals our society considers normal.
Even without her being vegan, in some way this makes her an animal rights activist, because she provokes awareness of everybody’s general hypocricy that cats are cute pets, but cows are bred to be killed and eaten.
I am an animal rights activist myself, and I find it very unreflected if other animal rights activists fail to see the benefit of such work.
From “our” point of view it might seem disgusting and immorale what she does. But with what she does, she is not worse than any other omnivore. According to the moral standards of the majority of our society, what she does is just normal.
P.S.: And btw, the purpose of art is not to be beautiful, tasteful, stylish or pretty. That’s what decoration is there for.
8 jefCostello // May 28, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Who are you tell say what and what is not art? You sound like the fascist Barack Hussein Obama.
9 LarryTate // May 28, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Maybe, effe, if you were better educated you would know that Ontario is not part of the USA.
The only poster here I would say with certainty is American is jefCostello (and you pretty much hit the mark with him, though you couldn’t have known when you posted).
10 neuroburger // May 28, 2009 at 3:53 pm
it’s in “bad taste” to kill for art - but killing for PROFIT…..(last time i was in hampsterdam, i saw no shortage of leather items for sale - i think they even have a “leather pride” day! - as soon as the DAPO gets on the mink and leather crowd, i’ll take their “concern” seriously!)(
11 Salmoran // May 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm
JefCostello, you, sir, are an idiot for your political proselytizing. to provide a valid critique of an author’s opinion, especially a counterargument (as opposed to an agreement) often burdens the critic with the need to justify his counter-criticism. without providing a valid argument and simply using an ad-hominem attack provides no new information and only gives other knuckleheads reason to pound their drums of ignorance about an issue that is unrelated (whether they agree or disagree that Barrack Hussein Obama is a fascist and whether the author is one too and as such, whether this is an apt comparison). what would be a helpful criticism? well, perhaps we could point out that as SCMcG says, Tinkerbell is making an obvious hypocrisy of most omnivores and animal users unbearably apparent. The fact most of us have learned to compartmentalize the chicken we eat, the leather shoes we wear and the glue we use does not make the suffering of the chicken, cow, and horse any less significant or ugly. This is not even a conviction of animal users per se because i am a happy meat eater, and i do so in complete understanding that such animals were killed to provide me with sustenance and comfort. the point here is again, not whether or not animal abuse is wrong, as even those who rely on animals can admire the ferocity of the work, but on the hypocrisy so rampant in all of us.. let me repeat that lest someone miss that point… this is first and foremost a criticism of the hypocrisy of all of us who can wear leather shoes and revile at the idea of a chicken thrown in a shredder. is morality variable depending on the animal? perhaps, and its a valid topic of discussion, but this is not the primary point the author proposes, the frontmost argument is to get over your hypocrisy before you begin to address the other issues. are you vegan? does that mean you are above all of this? hardly… i would rather discuss this with a humble individual who admits his hypocrisies than some fool who in revulsion screams about how terrible this is while ignoring how their own revulsion spotlights their two-faced character.
12 Martine // May 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I just wanted to update the story. According to the NRC Handelsblad which is a Dutch news organization I believe, has just published an article on their website stating that she strangled the cat. The cat did not die from natural causes. She intentionally killed her cat to make a purse.
Now, the thing is, she can say anything she wants about humans killing cows, and pigs, and chickens, and the list goes on. But we kill them for food sources. That’s what they’re raised for. Maybe we use too much. Maybe we could have better methods, ect. I believe whole heartedly that we need to explore better methods in raising our animals, and slaughtering our animals. However, comparing the slaughter of a chicken who was raised for food, and the strangling of a domestic cat to make a purse are not the same thing.
It’s also important to note that it’s a widely known fact that animal abuse is only the first step. From there a person builds up the courage to move on to humans. What will her next project be? I’ve read that she’s interested in child ponography.
Seriously people. She’s using the whole case against the slaughtering of cows as a smoke screen. It’s a means to justify some sick need she has to inflict pain.
Morality is not variable depending on the animal. If a chicken is raise to full-term, slaughter, and consumed, its life is not a waste. However, chucking a baby chick into a shedder is a complete waste. Killing a cat to make a purse is a complete waste. It’s a waste of life.
13 Martine // May 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Oh, and I also wanted to note that the article I read can be found at: http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2243400.ece/Artist_publishes_hate_mail_received_after_killing_her_cat
14 GrimReaper // May 28, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Someone should do the world a favor and kill that sick fuck woman. She’s a psychopath.
15 Deacon Blues // May 28, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Tinkebell -
To the shallow, everything.
To humanity, nothing
To the intelligent, a vacuum
16 oneandonlyhypnos // May 29, 2009 at 6:08 am
I have researched her, and she isn’t sincere. Everything can be found on my blog, please visit for more information. But here are some quick points:
“Amongst all this chaos, she has a point. The focuses on the grotesque to draw attention to the truth of our behaviour.”
No she doesn’t have a point. She eats meat herself as far as I know (evindence on my blog), she laughts about the strangling of her own cat, and jokes that the animal was supposedly depressed.
Concerning the hamsters: a hamster ball can be used for a limited amount of time (I believe 20 minutes). She kept 100 hamsters in hamster balls in a crowded exhibit for five hours straight with no food or water. That is abuse, and that is why animal protection services confiscated the animals.
Concerning the chickens: she didn’t just save them. During the exhibit she asked people: buy a chicken for 15 euro (about 20 dollars each) or I will shred them. That’s just about a form of emotional extortion. Near the end of the exhibit someone took the shredder away (saved the animals). So didn’t she prove her point (if that was what she wanted?) Not good enough for her, she wanted to through the chicks against the wall and kill them like that => agian the police had to intervene as far as I remember.
Her book she published violates privacy laws
She uses child pornography as art…
It’s just nuts. I even discoverd internet discussions of her, where she defended the import of cat and dog fur, because the animals are bred for it anyway. People are laughing about what she did, people are applauding her! She just devalues animal life even more. Whats next? Cat and dog slaughterhouses in Holland. I’m glad I’m from belgium. Thank god we fought to become independent over 100 years ago…
17 Animal lover // May 29, 2009 at 7:09 am
Someone should skin her and make a decoration out of her worthless ass…
If I personally met this individual (I refuse to consider her/it as HUMAN), I’d punch it in the throat repeatedly until it lost the ability to breath, then watch the horror in its eyes as it took its last breath, knowing it was done from my hands. I’d have look it in the eye, smile at it and say “Justice has been served” in its last dying moment.
18 jefCostello // Jun 23, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Salmoran, you are a gasbag. Art is subjective, and a cat bag is art in some peoples eyes. To attack this woman for expressing her creative freedom is what Barack Hussein Obama does to those that do not agree with him, it is fascism pure and simple.
19 Pedro Camargo // Dec 27, 2009 at 6:49 pm
What really appalls me is the fact that this self-proclaimed artist argues that she is “an animal rights activist” herself, when she is plainly trying to discredit the movement! She wants to confuse people on what animal rights are!
And to call it creative freedom is a ridiculous euphemism. You cannot justify violence, nor murder.
20 Eileen Campbell // Sep 22, 2010 at 9:16 am
I don’t give a fuck about pretentious art being labelled “Subjective”…what I do give a fuck about is some wanker of a woman undermining the hard work that animal rights activists all over the world do to try and make things better for the exploited….she is just like that other empty shell that let the dog die..”Oh look at me aint I controversial…buy into the controvosy so that I can make mega bucks out of my reputation”….”Fascism???” get off of your inflated high horse and give yourself a shake…so if I decide to club you one night, strip you naked and take a photo..then open my own exhibition entitled “Victim”..along with all the photos of the people I clubbed and stripped then I can do so because I believe it is art and art is of course, as we all know, “Creative freedom??”…it would of course be art in some people’s eyes..whats that? what about your “Human rights?” fuck your human rights man, this is art, get off my back you fascist.
She is only another exploiter..you can pick up a cat handbag made in china at any shitty third rate flea market throughout the world…
TO CAUSE SUFFERING AND TO CALL IT ART IS EGOTISTICAL BULLSHIT !
JefCostello you are sadly misguided……
21 Julie Cochran // May 31, 2011 at 9:55 pm
She….I mean It, is demon possessed and full of Satan! She is an evil, vile and less than human piece of worthless shit that needs to be eliminated off the face of the earth. Therefore, when all is said and done that she may sit at the right side of the thrown of Satan surrounded by his legion of demons. Please, somebody do away with this worthless shitbag!!!
22 nadin // Jun 1, 2011 at 8:56 am
she is sick!!!!!its not an art, she should stay all her life in clinic!!!!
23 Rose // Jun 11, 2011 at 6:34 am
I grew up in a family which raised chickens. My great-grandfather was a butcher and my grandfather was a veterinarian. They would have been beyond appalled by this so called “art” and waste of life.
When you raise livestock, it is necessary that the animals are treated humanely. I will not argue that this does not happen with factory farms. However, on a small, independent farm, it should and most often does. With raising chicks, the majority of the males are slated to become food. We did not bond with most of our animals, although a select few did end up becoming pets. Those would never have been killed–they had a special bond of trust. It is highly unethical to break such a bond. The others were treated humanely, and they were slaughtered quickly when the time came. They were not ground up in shredders or murdered for some kind of sick jollies on the part of a so called “artist.”
This sicko is not just creating art in bad taste using roadkill. As several of the commenters pointed out SHE MURDERED HER PET CAT, WHICH HAD COME TO TRUST HER. She is a sociopath and needs to be behind bars for life. Why this has not happened yet is beyond my comprehension.
24 Rose // Jun 11, 2011 at 6:57 am
And for those idiots who feel the need to drag President Obama into this debate, which has nothing whatsoever to do with him, he certainly has never murdered one of his pets and turned it into a handbag. Get a brain!
25 Nekro // Jun 18, 2011 at 7:09 am
maybe your father raped as a child.
26 Tallulah // Jun 18, 2011 at 5:33 pm
she should be gassed. she’s a vile monster.
27 jim hovde // Jun 19, 2011 at 3:05 am
Pump the whore full of hot lead, drop in Arabian Sea, let her have fish lunch with Osama….lol
28 jim hovde // Jun 19, 2011 at 3:08 am
Dirty scumbag whore….killed her cat…gimme a break….pluck her fingernails out first….before Sea Drop….double weight the bag..
29 theresa // Jun 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm
What’s her next ‘Artistic’ Step!! A baby purse?!! SICK!
30 ANDREZA // Jun 25, 2011 at 3:49 pm
YOU ARE SO FUCKIN CRAZY SICK !!!! I HATE YOU !!!! GO TO HELL YOUR EVIL !!!!!!! BRAZIL HATE YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
31 Shiva // Jul 1, 2011 at 5:39 am
MAYBE SOMEONE WILL MAKE “ART” OUT OF YOUR FILTHY ASS!!! YOU SICK BITCH!!
32 Rocio // Jul 17, 2011 at 4:04 pm
FUCKING BEACH! YOU DO NOT GIVE YOURSELF IT TELLS THAT WHAT YOU DO IS HORRIBLE? GIVE ALL FORMS THE PEOPLE WHO BUYS YOUR SHIT HAVE THE WHOLE FAULT…
DO YOU LIKE THAT DO “ART” WITH YOUR DEAD FAMILY??? ”
SAVE TO THE ANIMALS??? PLEASE, YOURS IS NOT AN ART, IS A PURE SHIT!!!!!
DIE SICK BEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
33 Rocio // Jul 17, 2011 at 4:04 pm
SICK BASTARD
34 Rocio // Jul 17, 2011 at 4:05 pm
IN YOUR COUNTRY THERE IS NO PROTECTIVE ASOCIASION OF ANIMALS IN ORDER THAT IMPRISONED FOR WHAT DOING THESE?
35 Rocio // Jul 17, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I HATE YOU SO MUCH…. DAUGHTER OF PROSTITUTE…
A PLANE WOULD TAKE FROM ARGENTINE, TO LOOK FOR YOURSELF AND TO MURDER YOURSELF…
LOOK WHAT YOU PROVOKE, I HATE AND DISGUST IN THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
36 georgie // Jul 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm
pretty is boring. if you want pretty you can go and live with my grandma. you can sit on her pink frilled couch - that’s pretty unique, visionary, interesting - and you can look at her flowers. you will die there, with my grandma never having thought up a single fantastic idea in your life. good luck with your dumb head. you can all get a life and may you dare to be different.
37 georgie // Jul 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm
ps - i love her art. i think she is wonderful!
from the animal lover.
38 SOMEONE WITH SENSE // Dec 16, 2011 at 4:47 pm
She is a fucking idiot, she should go to prison for animal cruelty.
THIS IS NOT ART YOU FUCKING MORON!!
I hope someone some day gives you a taste or your own medicine. Karma will get back to u
39 motley // Dec 17, 2011 at 5:33 am
OK then, Can I kill her and make a backpack out of her corpse?As a artistic response to all of the killing that happens to little baby girls in India every day
40 irish chick // Dec 17, 2011 at 6:19 am
Motley i agree She is not an artist isnt this how killers born killing animals first what a dumb bitch. Watch your back you never know.
41 kmm // Dec 17, 2011 at 7:58 am
Wow didn’t Hitler do the same type of thing?
42 waddleus // Dec 18, 2011 at 5:59 am
Nobody gets angry when a lion kills a deer, Humans killing other animals is the same thing. Scientifically speaking we are also animals, All is fair in the animal kingdom.
Please no stupid comments about the magical bearded man or some holy magical god, I am not interested in your imaginary friends you dumb animals.
43 KristAn // Dec 20, 2011 at 6:28 am
Wow are you actually mentaly reatarded?? No one yells when a lion kills a deer and so on and so forth becuase they eat their prey. They do not kill them senselessly to turn the other animal into “art”. They kill for reason and sustance. We are all animals and more intellagent to do such horrific things. If I kill an animal I eat it I don’t make it in to these sick, disgusting figures…
44 KristAn // Dec 20, 2011 at 6:32 am
I hope some one does the same thing to her and when they do they are not persecuted because it’s only art.. Guess the same goes for Jeffery Dhamer, after all it was only art what he did or any other serial killer, right? Because it’s pretty much the same thing..
45 Kat Johnson // Jan 5, 2012 at 7:07 am
I have to say I find this repulsive. It is not art, it is a way for a psychopath to cover her disease, so at best, she is brilliant psychopath profiting off idiots and sickos who buy into this and probably also have similar desires that they can fulfill through here trashbag art.
I wish she was in American doing this, she would certainly be locked away especially when you ad the child pornography on top of the sadistic nature of all she does.
I would never wish death on a human but I find it hard to believe she truly is one, I think she is a demon wearing human skin, maybe that is the irony of her so called art.
She needs to be exorcised from this world and sent back to hell where she came from.
46 Rick London // Jan 30, 2012 at 11:08 am
I’m afraid Tinkerbelle and her shenanigans “did not make my wife and I “get the point”. There is certainly nothing original in what she is doing “to make a point”…people have been using “shock ads” etc to show the analogy of eating animals, killing them for this purpose or that; since the early 1940’s. She simply takes it a step further, and I DO have the license to vote on what is or is not art. I’m afraid it is far from art; in fact the antithesis of art, which if used to make us think, should at least be original. This is just another take on, say, a PETA ad exploiting naked women “to get our attention”; or, to show a point. It is a step further than PETA in that she is actually killing the animals. If she cared about the animals as much as she says’ she would simply bury or cremate it. Not display it as art. The point she is trying to make has a horrific opposite effect of “the point she is trying to make”. While she makes the healthy of us feel ill; she also triggers the mentally ill of us to murder animals (and usually later people). The majority of us are MUCH more moved by documentaries like Sir Paul McCartney’s “Glass Houses” and others before him (making the same point but not appealing to the emotionally sick who “now thinks its okay because its mainstream art”. It is far from okay. It is in fact, murder. She says the cat was so sick it was going to have to be taken to the vet to be put down and she was only doing the most humane thing (because the cat was scared of vets). Do we simply take her word? Did she go to vet school? I don’t think so. And the first thing she may think if she reads this is “what a hypocrate; probably wearing a leather this or that and having chicken etc etc). No, my wife and I are vegans and we do not have one leather item in our home (or out of it). So don’t pull that. We care about the planet, but we share that with well-documented information and my wife with nature/wildlife photography. We live on a National Park where wild animals roam free among us. We can only be grateful that she would never be allowed to do the evil she does here; nor anyone else.
Leave a Comment