Why Paint Cats

12 Comments

Last night I picked up a copy of Why Paint Cats, the latest bit of deadpan inspired silliness from Burton Silver and Heather Busch, the people who brought us Why Cats Paint and Kokigami. They do a lovely job of going just far enough over the top to make clear that they're making stuff up, but making enough of it sound plausible so that you can't quite tell whether there's any basis in fact at all. I'm assuming the painted cats in this latest volume were done in Photoshop, but however they were done, they're done well—startling, lovely, and funny images.

12 Responses to “Why Paint Cats”

  1. Heather Shaw

    I bought that book last year (or the year before) and I loved it! I’m heartbroken at the suggestion that it’s made up! Really? So, you mean, I *shouldn’t* paint my cats (when I finally get some)? Meh! No fun!

    Um, do you know if *all* Burton Silver and Heather Busch’s books are jokes? Kokigami is selling pretty well for us at work, and I’d hate to think I embarrassed myself in the review! It really didn’t seem made up at all, if it was!

    reply

  2. Jed

    I think Kokigami is a very clever hoax, but I don’t have any actual evidence to support that. But when we first saw the book we Googled the word, and all the references we found on the web appeared to derive from this book rather than from any other sources of information about this alleged ancient Japanese art.

    Does the book contain a bibliography? If so, and if you want to pursue this further, you could see whether any of the books in the bibliography actually exist. There are a number of fake quotations in Why Paint Cats? and one of the comments on their comments page notes that the commenter couldn’t find a copy of one of the books in their bibliography. It’s possible that I’m completely wrong and all their books are based on real stuff, but my guess is that none of them are.

    (The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices apparently has an entry on kokigami, but I’m not willing to pay their registration fee just to find out whether they got their info from the book or not.)

    reply

  3. Shmuel

    …and that the name of the Japanese practice in question is an English-language play on words doesn’t exactly add to its plausibility. But I haven’t read the book (nor do I know any Japanese), so I couldn’t say for sure.

    (And having sought out and read the review in question, I think it works either way…)

    reply

  4. Will Quale

    I was given Dancing With Cats, a similar book by the same authors, as a present by a modern dancer friend. The book consists of photographs of modern dancers, many of them in hilarious or ridiculous costumes, cavorting with their cats, and is filled with “dancespeak” commentary in over-the-top dance theory jargon. I, and about half the people who’ve reviewed it at Amazon, think it’s a satire; but a lot of folks, including the dancer who gave it to me, think it’s for real. (I thought it was for real the first time I read it; after thinking about it for a while and rereading, I changed my mind.)

    I had no idea the authors were also behind Why Cats Paint (which I’d heard of) or Why Paint Cats or Kokigami (which I hadn’t). The Kokigami website was a lovely thing, but I’m totally convinced that one’s a hoax, which in turn encourages me to think the others are, too.

    reply

  5. Heather Shaw

    Ah, we carry The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices but wouldn’t you know it, we’re out of stock on it . . . damn.

    According to the “historical perspective” portion of the book, “gami” is the word for paper and “koki” is a small piece of cloth worn at the waist by the supporting actors in noh theatre.

    Ah, no biblio but I just found a list of other books to look for in the front of the book, and they’re pretty obviously a joke: “The Classic paper Costumes of Dong Theatre” and “Art Dicko”. And there’s a bit on the back of the title page where it says “This book is intended for entertainment and humor purposes only. Neither the artist, author, nor the publishers will assume responsibility for the use or misuse of any information or artwork contained within this book.”

    So, yeah, probably a joke. I’m off to decide whether or not to fiddle with our review now . . .

    Sigh.

    reply

  6. Anonymous

    This book is not fake. People have painted their cats more many years, and I’ve seen it. Its not photoshoped or anything, its all real. These people are aritsts, and use dye to paint their cats. Other animals have been painted, but cats are easier because they sleep so much. They use special dyes, and colorings to paint their cats with special tools. Its true, its not fake. If it was fake, it wouldn’t be allowed to be published unless it said in the book somewhere, “Photos are fake, we edited them.” They are actuall photos, people, so stop accusing this of being fake.

    reply

  7. Jed

    The previous comment is not fake. People have posted silly but true comments more many years, and I’ve seen it. Its not a troll or anything, its all real. These people are aritsts, and use vociferous statements to sound knowledgeable. Other works of nonfiction have been written, but blog comments are easier because they’re short and public and people will believe anything they read. Its true, its not fake. If it was fake, it wouldn’t be allowed to be published unless it said in the blog somewhere, “Comments are fake, we made them up.” They are actuall true statements, people, so stop accusing this of being fake.

    reply

  8. Nolalou

    The author himself has said this is a parody! The cats were NOT realy painted!
    See the wikipedia site.

    reply

  9. Jed

    Wikipedia itself has said this is a parody! Wikipedia is ALWAYS realy accurate, especially when it makes claims without providing citations! See the wikipedia site. People do NOT realy post trolling comments in blogs!

    reply

  10. grrlypainter

    I have “painted” my cat using photoshop. I wanted to see if this was the way they did it. I am a graphic artist, and the results look just like what they did in the book. I am 100% convinced this is what they did for the book. As for having to say “photos are fake we edited them” All they really have to say is, “yes these are real digital photos, and yes this is an art book” Now they are covered under digital art. Which is exactly what the “why paint cats” book is.

    reply

  11. Jed

    I’m not sure why this is suddenly a popular entry, but I think I may have been too vague in the past, so here’s an unambiguous comment:

    It is my firm belief, backed up by a variety of evidence, that the book is a parody, and that the photos in the book are not actual photos of cats that have been painted.

    In case it wasn’t clear, my previous two comments were meant as jokes, poking fun at the previous commenters’ styles of arguing their points.

    I don’t think there’s much point in continuing to argue about this topic, so I probably won’t approve further comments on this entry.

    reply

  12. Amanda

    i want my cat painted!!!!!!!

    reply

Join the Conversation