Voici de quoi parle ses oeuvres :
The Baby Bunnies series provides an analysis of the consumptive attitude that (post)modern man has taken on in relation to pets.
The pet is developing from 'man's best friend' into a completely commodified article of consumption.
Pets are no longer bred purely for their function (think of for instance the duck hunt) but are also selected on their aesthetic value and the way in which the animal will fit its (future) urban environment.
Hypoallergenic cats and phospholuminescent fish are just some of the tragic examples of this process.
We're currently witnessing a development which is focused on creating the 'perfect' pet.
Due to breeding programs and genetic manipulation, we can recreate the pet into its 'ultimate', fantasy-based form, asresembled by (plastic) toy pets: Smooth skinned or fluffy. Candy pink or with 'natural' color patches, featuring big shiny eyes
and/or limbs you can manipulate.
Mankind has been trying to dominate the animal kingdom for millennia and this ongoing endeavour will eventually result in the perfect pet.
A pet that can be adjusted to the wishes and desires of its owner. A pet that will be the perfect accessory in daily (social) life.
On visite par ici ou par la, voir meme, encore la et si vous avez encore faim, hop et re hop
Bonus cadeau, le chat reversible :
RépondreSupprimerhttp://looovetinkebell.com/system/blocks/5747/images/original/popple.jpg?1265841788
j'espère que c'est pas de la vrai fourrure sinon c'est un peu glauque ^^'
RépondreSupprimerCe sont de vrais animaux, tout court :D
RépondreSupprimerLa vache c'est glauque !!
RépondreSupprimerM'en vais prévenir Brigitte de suit >>>...
Ce qui est glauque c'est ce qu'elle veut nous signifier, ce ne sont pas ses moyens qui le sont.
RépondreSupprimerC'est pas glauque de faire vivre un chat dans 30 mètres carré par exemple ?
Voici ce que peut lire sur son site, et je trouve que son point de vu est assez pertinent. Après elle n'a jamais tué un chat non plus hein.
"TINKEBELL. provokes by exemplifying the blind spots of modern society. She confronts a public that revels in being indignant about everything that has nothing to do with them, but at the same time is very apologetic about their own actions. She questions why millions of male chicks are brutally killed every day (often by throwing them against the walls of a barn) but she gets arrested for threatening to do the same in public. Why are people who openly discuss the lowering of the sexual age of consent treated as vile pedophiles, but are 'barely 18' websites intensely popular?
By turning her own cat into a handbag she tries to show people their own hypocrisy about the use of animals for consumption and leather production. If anything, her works form a extreme incentive for the discussion of our morals and the way society is developing.
These actions often leave her with a lot of negative feedback. From all corners of the web people have used the relative anonimity of the internet to send her the most foul death wishes. Fascinated by the enormous anger and cruelty of these messages, she tried to find the people behind them. To her surprise these were ordinary people living ordinary lives. For these people the internet was a faceless funnel for their anger, a one-click way of justifying their indignance. TINKEBELL's reaction to this flood of hatemail was publicizing a book, called 'dearest TINKEBELL,', in wich she identifies these anonimous criticasters. In this way she defies the awkward position of an artiston the internet. She no longer is just the reciever of all this faceless anger, but takes charge in responing to it."
J'allais dire un truc futile, du style "tiens les animaux de Minecraft".
RépondreSupprimerL'habituel probléme avec ces oeuvres d'art, c'est qu'elles ont peu de chance d'être vues et comprises par les bonnes personnes.
On peut donc gloser sur le fait que l'artiste surf un chouilla sur la veine glauque, vue recemment à propos d'expos de boyaux humains.
Et puis un paradoxe : la personne qui va acheter cette oeuvre d'art ne sera probablement pas un défenseur des animaux (vivants).
Par contre son bouquin sur les internautes fachés par ses oeuvre, même s'il est probablement bien vain (pour qui connais un peu le milieu des haters who's gonna hate) peut se reveler interessant.
je parie que ce sont des gens déjà convaincus par le message qu'elle véhicule qui se sont le plus nombreusement montré indignés par ses oeuvres.