Clint Eastwood’s daughter destroys $100,000 bag, thinks people don’t get “art”


You know those amazing, covetable Hermes Birkin bags that celebrities carry? New ones at the lowest price point cost more than my car, and the highest end models can sell for up to $150,000. Well Clint Eastwood’s daughter Francesca, 19, destroyed a gorgeous $100,000 crocodile skin Birkin as part of a photoshoot with her 30 year-old boyfriend, celebrity photographer Tyler Shields. The pair took photos as the bag was set on fire and cut in half with a chain saw. So Shields is probably to blame for this, although Francesca obviously went along with it. You might remember Shields from such dumb stunts as: Mischa Barton eating raw meat, Tamara Ecclestone rolling nude in a million pounds of real cash, and Lindsay Lohan getting shot.

Shields is now appearing on the Eastwood family reality show, “Mrs. Eastwood and Company,” and he’s using this latest stunt to promote it. He even plugs the show in the entry on his website with these photos. Here’s what he wrote:

For the people who don’t know a Birkin is the most sought after bag in the entire world there is a waiting list and some of them can run upwards of $100,000. This is the red Crocodile Birkin VS the red $200 chainsaw and 4 dollars of gasoline! Make sure you check out MRS. EASTWOOD and COMPANY this SUNDAY and MONDAY NIGHT 10PM on E! Watch this bag get destroyed IT IS INSANE! Also click here to see a pair of Christian Louboutin’s meeting their demise.

[From Tyler Shields]

Shields and Francesca wrecked some black Christian Louboutin pumps back in January, and those photos didn’t get as much attention of course, nor did they draw as much ire. There’s a big difference between ruining a $500-$800 pair of shoes and mutilating a purse that’s worth more than most families earn in a couple of years.

TMZ reports that people are trashing Francesca and sending her death threats over Twitter and Facebook, and her response is that people just don’t get it.

Clint Eastwood’s daughter has been bombarded with vicious online death threats after she publicly demolished a $100,000 Birkin bag in the name of art, TMZ has learned.

Francesca Eastwood, star of “Mrs. Eastwood and Company,” and her BF Tyler Shields took a chain saw to the pricey bag and then LIT IT ON FIRE …. which has angered dozens of fashionistas (and many who are just economically challenged).

Eastwood has been receiving death threats via Twitter and Facebook, such as:

– “Some of us actually have to work and live check 2 check, spoiled rotten bitch to burn 100k bag.”
– “You’re a stupid whore. How f***ing dumb can you be.”
– “You should kill urself, ungrateful bitch – wasted money when families can’t eat.”

Sources close to Francesca tell us … the 19-year-old said she knew people would be shocked, but never expected this level of hatred. We’re told she’s been telling friends … people just don’t understand art.

[From TMZ]

You can read more comments on Tyler’s blog, including some that trash his style as well as his concept.

As much as people who live in the real world have trouble grasping the point of Shields’ brand of shock art, it’s clear that Francesa doesn’t “get” reality either. Of course people are going to be upset. (Although personal attacks and death threats are of course wrong.) It must be hard for a girl still in her teens, who will never have to willingly work a day in her life, to understand how wasteful this seems to a lot of people. I blame Shields for this, though.

What is poor Clint Eastwood saying about this? He’s already got to contend with that stupid reality show he wife insisted on doing. It’s got to be humiliating to see the antics his kids are up to. I used to see him as a Dirty Harry, Walt Kowalski type. Not anymore.

Francesca and Tyler are shown in October, 2011 and January, 2012. She’s also shown alone on 5-9-12 and 4-30-12. Credit: WENN.com. Birkin photos credit: TylerShields

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

226 Responses to “Clint Eastwood’s daughter destroys $100,000 bag, thinks people don’t get “art””

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Cb says:

    I’m surprised Kristen Stewart didn’t come up with this stunt since she has the same upbringing and loves to talk about art and suffering for it while we the normal people can’t grasp that.
    Overprivileged Hollywood offspring.

  2. StopItLuke says:

    I feel seriously bad for Clint Eastwood, he’s worked his entire life to become a respected actor and director and now his wife and daughter are determined to drag him down by association and for what, a bit of Z list fame?
    I never get people that have millions and millions of pounds in the bank but still want to become a z list celebrity, why??? If that was me I’d rather have the money and none of the attention but there we go.

  3. Snowflake says:

    what gets me is people that are stupid enough to pay that much money for a bag. that’s having more money than sense.

  4. Zelda says:

    I don’t have a problem with her trashing a bag as critical commentary on materialism. I have a problem with her PAYING THE COMPANY for the bag so she could trash it as commentary on materialism.

    *intercom crackle*
    Passengers, if you’ll look just about 3 feet above the head of Ms. Eastwood, you should be able to see the critical argument againt materialism whizzing by with tremendous speed.

    (I also have a problem with the fact that this stunt is beyond derivative, but whatever, that’s not the worst thing she’s done.)

  5. alecto says:

    Apparently I don’t get “art” either.

  6. sem says:

    Its her money. She can do whatever she wants.

    • Nance says:

      She can spent it, but we can not buy this is art.

      • yo momma says:

        why is she getting all the flack when it wsa shields who did the pic? and have you not seen his work-he tries to hard to be controversial to hide the fact hes got no talent. she obviously doesnt have any taste though if she is dating this terry richardson wannabe (and terry is a major creep ew!)

    • Bad Fairy says:

      That’s true. But she’s still a clueless snot who just insulted her father’s fans and told us we were all morons because we couldn’t afford to set a hundred thousand dollars on fire for the sake of “art”.

      • KatC says:

        I don’t think she’s saying we’re idiots for not getting and burning our own bags, but rather she’s saying that most of the people criticizing her for wasting money are not even trying to get the point of the shoot. For what it’s worth, I think the point is that the bags are insanely over priced and the sole fact that they persist to exist is in itself offensive.

    • Moi says:

      HER money? I think you mean Daddy’s money.

    • DreamyK says:

      Yes, it’s her money. But there are some awesome not-for-profit organizations that help people with needed things not covered by insurance. Most of the people make too much money to get assistance, and not enough money to pay for things like dental care, expensive car repairs etc.

      Think about this: If everyone pitches in a few bucks, a rocking chair not covered by insurance, can be purchased to help a mentally ill woman who uses it to calm down. Or how about a few bucks toward a new mattress for a woman whose MS is so bad she is now confined to bed on a 20yr old mattress that sags in the middle. If enough people can kick in $5, then they have helped improve someone’s quality of life.

      My point is this: Burning that purse helped no one. It’s incredibly hurtful and wasteful to do what was done to that valuable piece of merchandise for attention. The Occupy movement sprang into being for a reason.

  7. Rhea says:

    I really don’t get what the photos supposed to be about except that it’s a waste of things to do. He could use the money for some charities/any other good deed instead of buying a ridiculously expensive bag that would later on get destroyed.
    Ah…the things that people do for attention#cough# I mean..art, of course!!!

  8. Tapioca says:

    Oh, if only she’d spent some of that money getting her roots done.

    Yes it is wasteful, but surely you can’t expect celebuspawn who’ve never worked an honest day in their life to have any concept of the value of money? At least when dance act The KLF burned £1 million on a remote Scottish island for the sake of “art” it was they’re own cash, not Daddy’s!

    I expect the crocodile that lost its life for that bag is pretty pissed right about now though…

  9. DanaG says:

    I guess she doesn’t get money the way we do. Art is not setting fire to an overpriced handbag that is just waste and an idiot’s excuse. I think E paid her too much for her show if she is already doing these sort of stupid stunts. Clint must be so proud. NOT

  10. Darlene says:

    I don’t see anything more shocking or wasteful about destroying the bag than BUYING the bag to begin with. This bag right here represents everything I eschew. My priorities are elsewhere.

  11. Ming says:

    If she wants to destroy her property – please: Blow up your house and get yourself a new one. That ugly bag wasn’t mine, so whatever. Pyros 4 life !

    On the other hand, that action was dumb sh-t. If poppa Eastwood sets his $ 1000000000 cowboy hat in flames, THEN it’s probably full of meaning and a secret ending of J. Edgar.

    In the end. Yeah. What effs.

  12. PrettyTarheel says:

    I love Walt Kowalski.

    He’d know what to do with this child. He would make sure his prized possessions were NOT left to the spoiled brat of the family, that’s for sure.

  13. sup says:

    who cares about the stupid bag. i say good riddance. this might be the only concept by shields that i can get behind. to clarify my point i don’t get why the whole world worships these incredibly ugly hermes bags and louboutin (sp?) shoes (the latter is ok looks-wise, but still) they are incredibly pricey for bags and shoes. i don’t care what material it’s made of, their prices are unnecessarily high! a hermes bag could pay for the rent of many families. so i get the point in “destroying the hype” i think this is what the photoshoot means, it’s just a friggen bag. and the louboutin shoes are supposed to be the toughest shoes, well not so much as seen in that shoot. i think it’s dumb that the damn things are so expensive in the first place. but most of all i’m bothered that an endangered species (crocodile) had to die to give its skin to the stupid bag. i don’t see why people would buy that thing.

  14. suckstobeyou says:

    Tyler Shields…what a celebrity whore.

  15. Talie says:

    It’s cute how thinks it’s her money that paid for this bag.

  16. Coco says:

    She should take this saw and cut her arm or something. It would be art.

  17. PS says:

    I cannot believe that people are willing to pay so much money for an overrated piece of leather. That’s obscene!

    Oh, and I don’t care about this Eastwood chick. It’s not like they are burning money in front of homeless people or something like that.

  18. Beta says:

    wow that is edgy
    *rolls eyes*

  19. NM6804 says:

    These days you can take a dump, draw a smiley face on it and call it “art”. It’s ridiculous.

    I think the idea of being watched by many people and getting recognition and a platform is far more important than the work they put on display. It’s just about their 15 minutes and they don’t care that it might be the 15 most silliest, stupidest minutes of their life. At least they had it (and got paid for it sometimes).

    When I went to Berlin, there were squatters who were funded to turn a building into an art project. It was truly wonderful. They had six floors full of artist displaying their work (with lots of pop culture references in relation to the economic situation) and outside there were statues made from iron. Now that was art and people could relate to it. All the art could be bought too.

  20. dahlianoir says:

    She could have bought and destroyed a replica while giving away the money to charity. Stupid girl.

  21. Nance says:

    She just spent at least 100 204$ for something nobody will give a shite in 2 weeks (if not already)! Wow! even if I’m not surprise.

    If she really don’t care about money, she can gives a little to me, just a little 200 bucks (which is probably nothing for her) would be ok, I will call it art if this is what she wants.

  22. teehee says:

    Good that she destroyed those symbols of unnecessary, extravagant excess. Why hate on her for doing that?? I’d do the same if given a chance ;)

    • bluhare says:

      If she thought it such an unnecessary extravagance, why did she buy it in the first place?

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      The statement might be more effective if she wasn’t someone who is already extremely wealthy. What is the relevance of destroying a $100K bag when you still have a closet full of high-end designer items? If she was strong in her convictions and wanted to make a real statement about anti-consumerism, she would donate the bag and all her clothes and start shopping at thrift stores.

    • Lukie says:

      B/c a fake burkin looks the same on camera and the money spent on the real one could.have been donated to charity.

      That would have been an art piece I could have gotten behind. Not this waste of money.

    • jaye says:

      Would you really?? Would you REALLY SPEND $100,000 on an item just to destroy it to make a statement about the state of American values when there are people who have jobs and no clue where their next meal is going to come from or where they are going to lay their heads at night? Does that not seem the least bit counterintuitive? Or at the very LEAST a slap in the face to people who don’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of?

  23. Nev says:

    the show will be cancelled…yawn.

  24. Jackie says:

    clint has raised one hell of an ignorant daughter.

    • Soxfan says:

      ^This, so much. Yes, Tyler Shields is an idiot for “creating” this shoot, but, she has clearly been raised by parents who did not do a good job in making her aware of others. Who knows, maybe she gives millions of dollars away in private, or spends countless hours volunteering at homeless shelters or hospitals, tutors disadvantaged students or organizes bake sales, but, I tend to think not with that snotty remark. Sorry, I blame the parents.

  25. Toot says:

    I kind of get what they were trying to say/do. It is beyond ridiculous for a bag to be worth that much.

    The people pissed about the bag being destroyed are sad to me. To put that much value in basically a purse is pathetic.

    • Nance says:

      Poeple are not pissed about “the bag being destroyed”, but about how she is rich (and still rich) and blow huge money for something nobody will give a shit in 2 weeks maximum. Oh, for the sake of art.

    • Ducky La Rue says:

      I don’t think they were trying to say or do anything other than “look at me! so edgy! you don’t understand art!”

      But there’s really no deeper message – it’s just “look at me, pay attention to me!”

      Look at the write-up Shields did for his little stunt – there’s no deep thinking there.

  26. Macey says:

    I think the most shocking part of this story is that people actually pay up to $100 grand for these ugly-ass bags. I have yet to see one that was appealing and Ill never get why they charge so much for them. I dont think they’re anything more than a way to let people know you can afford a 100K bag. The makers of these things are laughing all the way to the bank knowing they cost less than $100.00 to make.

  27. Nina says:

    How about using that $100k to feed a bunhc of homeless families or donating it to charity to do some good, rather than this ” cheap” stunt? Oh but the former wouldn’t be ” art” would it?

  28. cody says:

    I saw one of the episodes from Eastwood and Co. and it is awful. They are trying to hard. Who cares about the boy band who lives with Mrs Clint Eastwood. Clint must be a real pushover to let this happen. If he wanted them not to do the series, he could have said no and just increased everybody’s weekly allowance. Clint Eastwood has older children from other marriages, I can’t believe they are not a little embarrassed about all this attention.

  29. CreamSoda says:

    A little off topic here, but I caught an epidsode of the show last night. Let me just say that the housekeeper (not sure of her exact role) who got her nosed pierced on the episode is the true star of the show. The woman is hilarious. Mrs. Eastwood, on the other hand, is not – try as she might.

    • TG says:

      Agree with you. The housekeeper is adorable. Mrs. Eastwood is embarrassing. There is too much TRY going on. I know that might be a Lainey saying but if fits with this broad. Clint is a legand and has been living quietly with his family for 16 years, at least and why suddenly does this woman need attention? Being with Clint would be all the attention I need. It is sad. Her daughters are attractive though and seem well-behaved. Frannie is just going thru the young love stage. Hopefully she will pass thru to the otherside unscathed and ditch this loser guy.

      • Drama kitty says:

        Agreed it was the boyfriend who got the bag not the daughter . I hope it was a fake a real one could have been sold and proceeds donated to a charity a lot more good would come from that . The whole hipster I am enlightened artist bullshit just doesn’t cut it with me . I get that he is trying to make a statement about materialism but it was a waste if he really spent a $100,000 on a bag so he could destroy it in the name of art . I blame the boyfriend she is young & in love & it wasn’t hers or her dads money . I think it was a fake they used .

    • bluhare says:

      Wouldn’t that be fun if the housekeeper is so great everyone wants to see her on the show and not the stars? That would be awesome.

  30. horizonte says:

    btw, i just checked out the photographer’s website… is it me, or is this terry richardson jr? ugh.

    • fluffybunny says:

      If by Terry Richardson Jnr you mean creepy and an average photographer then yes, yes he is.

      Thinking of it, I’m pretty sure in my art text books there is a chapter on pretentious douchebags who think being artistic is being a pretentious douchebag.

  31. Jordan says:

    1. Those aren’t death threats.
    2. She is a spoiled brat looking for attention.
    3. If she paid for the bag, she can do whatever she wants with it (whether it’s stupid or not) but if the bag was given to her by the company, I understand the hate.
    4. The only person she is hurting is Clint Eastwood and his legacy.

  32. lil ole me says:

    No Francesca, we don’t get it. No one I know would be dumb enough to purchase such an OBVIOUS SCAM (the purse), let alone bother to destroy said item.
    Seek attention much?

    • bluhare says:

      All right, I was dumb enough. Back in the day I bought a Hermes Birkin from a friend who wanted a new one and wasn’t going to use the one she had. It’s not crocodile, it’s the regular leather they use (although there’s a zillion varieties and I have no idea what mine is). Yes, the bag is gorgeous. It’s not worth the money, and she gave me a dealorama on it. Would I burn it for art? Hell no. I’d consign it or sell it on eBay.

  33. Nance says:

    Bieber and her. This must be the day of the badasses.

  34. Jayna says:

    I watched the show. I cringed because of Dina’s behavior. In favor to her, this woman is not pretentious in the least and from interviews I have seen of her even in the past she is basically humble, not trying to pretend she is this socialite. She said she wears little to no makeup and dresses casually, which she does. One interviewer tried to play up her charity work and she refused to accept the praise saying her name was on charities but many of them she did little compared to all the hard work others did.

    BUT this show is so budget and makes them seem flakey and shallow. Francesca talks almost as bad as Paris Hilton. Dina is a likable flake who admits it is probably a midlife crisis, empty nest syndrome, trying to promote the band. But her flakiness and drama queen behavior is not a good reflection on such an icon like Clint. I cringe for him. But he’s 81 and I guess he is off shooting films all the time and finally caved on this show. But you only see him like 30 seconds on a few shows it seems.

  35. Violet says:

    Clint needs to stop bankrolling his idiot daughter. Francesca is 19, so it’s high time for her to get a real job and gain an understanding of how hard the average person has to work to earn enough money to buy one of these $100,000 bags.

    This Tyler seems like a complete loser, and looks much too old to be dating a teenager.

  36. Carolyn says:

    If I had a spare $100K (as if!) a – I wouldn’t buy a handbag with it and b – I wouldn’t waste it either. Words fail me. Is this considered celebrity news? Celebrity PR has really gone to hell.

  37. Skinnybetch says:

    Just the idea that people would buy an overpriced bag like a birkin and wait 15 years to get it simply because Anna Wintour and the rest of the fashion industry deems it trendy and fashionable is ridiculous. I can’t believe she received death threats over this! Ahaha

  38. Jacq says:

    WTFFFFFF is a 19 y/o doing with a $100,000 bag?!?!?!

  39. Rhiley says:

    I lived in a really big, artsy city for a few years when I was out of college. There are lots of art colleges there. Once a student at one of them made waves when he asked his classmates to come outside so he could present his project to them. He pulled down his pants and sh-t all over the place, all over them, ate his sh-t,and pulled up his pants and continued to sh-t all in them. No joke. He called it art. Most people called it sick and disturbing. Taking pictures of a rich blond burning an expensive bag is not art. It is boring and makes no statement whatsover. It causes no reaction other than to have people viewing it say, “Gosh, how pointless.” When I see Robert Doisneau’s “The Kiss,” for example, I think, “This is really special. This is exactly the kind of moment photography is meant to capture and make stand still for a lifetime.” I look at Tyler Shields crap and I think, “Get out of Hollywood and get some life experiences, you twit.”

  40. Mitch Buchanan Rocks says:

    I still can’t believe that a celeb (Kelly something from gossip girl) named her kid Hermes.

    • cupidtyrox says:

      Time for useless trivia.
      Hermes was the Greek god of travellers & trickters. He also was the messenger of the gods. His father was Zeus & his mother was Maia. The story of his birth are fascinating if you care to read it..
      P.s. I know you didn’t ask for any of this information.. but i can’t seem to help myself when it comes to Greek mythology.. (sheepish grin)
      p.s. I hope the actress you mentioned named her kid after Hermes the god & not some freaking luxuries goods company..

      • bluhare says:

        You are a lovely person for thinking that, because I’d bet money on the fact that she named the kid for the luxury goods house.

        They got started making equestrian gear (and still do). My horse Auggie (bless you Auggie, I still miss you!) had an Hermes saddle that his old owner kept when I bought him, although I did ride him on it many times.

      • Mitch Buchanan Rocks says:

        Thank you, cupididyrox, it is always good to learn new tid bits of information :) and I have to sheepishly confess that I only knew of Hermes as a bag (turns red in embarassment)

        I recall reading in a trash magazine like Star or something when I could afford to buy them, that Kelly Rutherford – now I remember her last name – actually did name her kid for the Hermes bag since she is a fan of them.

      • Minty says:

        Hi cupidtyrox!

        No need to feel sheepish about Greek mythology. I grew up on that stuff and their Roman copycat counterparts. They were my childhood fairy tales. Still love them. Thanks for mentioning Hermes, aka Mercury(Roman).

    • LAK says:

      hey, don’t rag on my name.

      And i was named for the god not the fashion house.

  41. G says:

    Well, actually, they have a point. No one would be interested if they said it was a replica, would they?

    BTW, most of you seem more upset at the price of the bag in the first place, which I think is exactly what they’re trying to say. (If they’re really trying to say something.) I think there’s something here, but the execution of the photos are weak and derivative.

  42. RuddyZooKeeper says:

    Why is “art” looking more and more like budget Polaroids lately?

  43. Sienna says:

    They are so out of touch with reality it’s sick. They feel like they need to burn 100,000 dollars to get press. This is the highpoint of materalism, nihilism and plain stupidity.
    They could have sold the bag and gave the money to charity instead of making this useless piece of “art” nobody’s waiting for anyway. She (they) deserve the hatred they receive. I bet they don’t know anything about real art, painters and people that actually made thrilling things without having to be a f*cking c*nt.

  44. cupidtyrox says:

    This Terry Shield’s entire schtick which he calls “art” is just increasingly stupider stunts all done to garner attention. I wish everyone would just have issued a “that’s nice” type of comment & then gone on with their lives. They’d have been seething. That’s how you take down a fameho by starving them of their drug of choice “Attention”. All these hoopla has ended up validating them.

  45. Kristen says:

    I’m sure that she comes from the same brand of upbringing(??) that Petra Eccelstone comes from. Maybe she can move into Petra’s 85 million dollar mansion – they can burn Birkins and eat cake all day long in front of a line of poor people.

  46. bns says:

    This girl is just like every other spoiled, pretentious, trust fund baby living in LA. Those who can’t see the “art” are just not worthy.

  47. TXCinderella says:

    Mrs. Eastwood needs ADHD meds. Poor Clint.

  48. jc126 says:

    Repulsive and wasteful. Of course that also applies to a $100,000 handbag.

  49. Sarah says:

    I think I’m less insulted that she flaunted wasting so much money as much as I’m insulted that she thinks she made “art”. Idiots like her are the reason the LA art world has become so steeped in bull$@*^.

  50. serena says:

    Poor poor Clint.
    Maybe he spoiled his wife/daughters too much and this is the result.

    But don’t blame him too much, he’s the same old Clint after all.
    It’s his family.. they are taking down his name so fast it’s unbelievable.
    People just continue loving Clint, not his dumb family.

  51. nettie says:

    Wow. Just no words other than Clint must be so proud. Ugh.

  52. Jilliterate says:

    Well, if it was intended as a deconstruction highlighting the overinflated value we place on arbitrary items, then props to them, because they were certainly successful in conveying that message. As many folks have pointed out, your first reaction might be, “What a waste of $100 000,” but then you look at the pictures and really realize that all that was burnt was a purse. A HANDBAG. That’s it. Not a house. A handbag. When considering that, the burning of said handbag doesn’t offend me any more than the fact that there’s apparently a waiting list of people wanting to go out there and spend $100 000 on a freaking purse.

    Personally, I’m not going to rag on Francesca too harshly — nowhere does it say that it was her bag or money that was wasted, nor does it seem to be her idea.

  53. WickedSteppMom says:

    Huh, if I had $100,000 just laying around, I’d pay off my mortgage…not buy a purse. I actually looked at bags at TJ Maxx this weekend & while it was exciting to see that my little podunk TJ Maxx had a bunch of designer bags, I’m not in a place right now where I can spend over $100 for a bag (which is why I was looking at TJ Maxx for one in the first place!) This spoiled little snot wouldn’t last a day in my life. And BTW, I appreciate REAL art…not setting things on fire that you bought w/someone else’s money as a commentary on materialism, when you have NO CLUE.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      THIS. Exactly. The fact that a bag costs 100K. Ugh. I’m so BEYOND disgusted with our consumerist culture. The only thing that makes a $100K bag more offensive is some celebspawn lighting said bag on fire in the name of “performance art”. At least donate the bag if you don’t want it. Hell, put it up on ebay and donate the proceeds to charity. Do something productive and worthwhile with your life instead of acting like an entitled 1%er.

      F*ck, I’ll take a decent $50 bag from TJ Maxx any day of the week over some obnoxious bag that is worth the cost of 4 cars.

  54. jellyfish says:

    Wow that is not art, not even in the slightest bit. $100,000 is a lot of money, why not just donate it to charity. Get some positive press instead.

  55. Jill says:

    I watched the episode. She walked into Tyler’s home and he had the bag. Her father did not buy her the bag. She did not buy the bag. Her boyfriend had it (it did not address how he came to have it but it did show that it did not come from an Eastwood) and let her carry it around for a few days before they destroyed it together as part of the photo shoot. I am not defending anyone, just trying to put some of the details of the episode out there before everyone assumes she or Clint Eastwood paid for that bag.

    Also, based on the after shots of the bag, does any one else think it looks like a fake bag? Again, not defending anyone, it’s entirely possible they destroyed a bag that costs that much (although I don’t think Shields himself has quite that much “F You” money to throw around like that) but it seems to have burnt and melted in an odd way.

  56. TheOriginalKitten says:

    “Mrs. Eastwood and Company”??? Seriously? This is what the show is called….? WTF is the world coming to. We need a serious cultural intervention on this reality TV show shit.

  57. Vee says:

    Just another entitled, spoiled Hollywood brat attempting to be relevant by being outrageous. It’s a sad commentary when these talentless hacks get this kind of exposure.

  58. JudyK says:

    Art? This has NOTHING to do with art, but it has a lot to do with being a spoiled brat.

    It’s downright immoral.

  59. JillR says:

    But see how she matched her lipstick? That’s art, people.

  60. lisa says:

    I just saw that she is getting death threats.

    I think people can do whatever with their money/property. but as many have noted when so many people in this world are struggling it is hard to stomach something like this. It just feels like a slap in the face of what could be done.

    LOOK if I had the money doubt I would buy something that expensive. My rule of thumb, don’t carry a purse that is worth more then the amount of cash you have to carry in it. NOT credit cards.. cash.

    I also saw that Dina is dropping the name of their famous friends too. NOT good. This is going to end badly. We didn’t know much about Clint and his family. I think this show just shows that there is a lot going on in many celebrity homes. The ones everyone brags about because they are not in the public eye. Well now we see a man’s family we never heard about. All the focus on other celebrities because they are more sought after. You don’t know about all the other celebrities because the paps are not focused on them, so all their crazy and whatever is hidden.

  61. Riana says:

    What I don’t get is the anger in the first place.

    It’s her/her Father’s money and they can do absolutely whatever they want with it. As we ALL could while growing up. Lots of us spent money on destructive things and if she really believed she was creating at then so be it.

    I can agree it’s wasteful. I can agree it’s dumb a bag cost that much in the first place, but I jut can’t agree with the attitude that she should suffer for usin money from her family to do what she wants even if another person is dealing with a more dire situation.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      And what I don’t get is the dumbing-down of incidents like this (and others) with “it’s her money she can do what she wants with it”. Don’t people see that this is symptomatic of a much larger issue? People are so consumed with buying *things* (things that we DON’T need) regardless of cost. Unnecessary material items often use up earth’s valuable resources to produce and they are completely superfluous-a fancy bag doesn’t make you a better person or make your life more worthwhile. Just because you have the money to spend on a $100K bag, this means that you shouldn’t question WHY you’re buying something so extravagant?
      So we partake in a culture that offers $100K bags when people in Malawi make $160 a year? I mean, you can rationalize it however you want, but it’s just WRONG. I agree she shouldn’t be receiving death threats but she should understand the repercussions of her actions. It’s just plain offensive when most are struggling to get by. If we all just started focusing on being better people as the key to happiness, instead of buying shit we don’t need (or worse-buying it then DESTROYING it for no reason) then the world might actually start to improve..

      • Riana says:

        It isn’t dumbing down, its removing the personal emotional attachment. If this was money from taxpayer’s it’d be one thing entirely, but this is money that was earned by the hard work her Father did. Last I checked not a single penny he earned came with the condition “You have to do what we say with it”

        Couldn’t you say the same thing about the car you drive, the clothes you wear? You could easily ride the bus, you could easily go to better lengths to do more for the Earth.

        For instance if every bag in the US cost 10 bucks do you think the govt. or private business owners of Malawi would change how much they pay their workers? I think the anger stems more from personal frustrations aimed at people who are merely living their lives, albeit with more expensive tastes than most of us.

        She didn’t create the issue with the economy, I just don’t get the logic of ‘we all have to do this’ because some of us are struggling. And I’m speaking as someone who IS struggling, but I don’t believe my conditions mean others should be hindered in their lives so long as its not my money. I think we all should be better people, but buying or destroying this purse doesn’t make her a bad person.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Riana-I took public transportation every day for 15 years until my mom gave me her old car. I didn’t drive from age 18-32 so please don’t lecture me about that. Even now, I walk two miles to work every morning and only use my car on the weekends-NEVER during the week when I walk or take the bus. I live in an urban environment and I grow lettuce, herbs, tomatoes and peppers all on my roofdeck. I shop at the farmer’s market, I rarely go clothes shopping and I always recycle. I’m not saying this to sound sanctimonious-I’m just saying that you don’t know me. People that DO know that I go out of my way to minimize my carbon footprint and I think I do a pretty damn good job of it. In fact, I think my everyday lifestyle makes more of a positive impact than burning a $100K bag. *shrugs*
        The issue isn’t whether she “caused” the problem with the economy, the issue is what is she doing to help (I mean, besides burning a bag in a silly photo shoot to promote a silly reality TV show)? Why are people with extreme wealth suddenly exempt from social and moral responsibility? If anything, money is power and with more money comes more power, MORE social responsibility and obligations as these are people who are in a position to affect real change. Not all of us have the money to donate, so we do what we can to minimize damage to this earth. Sorry, but rich folk shouldn’t get a free pass to spend wildly just because they can. Hell, if I had $100K I’d sooner give it to a perfect stranger on the street than to use it to buy a useless bag.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        And just for the record-I have a great job and I make good money. This isn’t about being jealous of the wealth of others. It’s about putting an emphasis on social responsibility over empty consumerism because money CAN make a difference, depending on what one choses to spend it (or NOT spend it)on.

      • Riana says:

        @ Original Kitten

        I actually really like your message and I’m thankful you practice what you preach. A lot of other people would be outraged at her and then engage in other wasteful habits. So that’s good.

        While I agree with your point I think the ‘moral obligation’ issue is a tricky one. For instance do people get angry at celebrities for riding on planes abck and forth over the country to film movies? Do they boycott them? Most people don’t. This issue produces just as much negative impact on the earth but most people aren’t troubled. The rage towards her in particular strikes me as a conflict of that. Its an echo over our current economical state where we try to reign everyone into the same spending and shopping habits regardless of her income as a sort of ‘feel-good’ rule.

        Were her actions wasteful? Absolutely. Was it an incredible waste? Absolutely. But if I recall Clint Eastwood is one of the celebs who has given millions upon millions to charities. I think within reason he, his family, and others are allowed their bits of waste as long as it doesn’t harm anyone.

        I mean the average shopper at Walmart is responsible for slave wages and sweat-shop working conditions…it’s a very tricky issue to dictate moral obligations based on spending.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Listen, my statements are directed more towards the collective social conscience, rather than telling individuals how to spend their money. I agree with you that it can get tricky and in no way am I trying to sound preachy or dictate how others spend their well-earned cash.

        I think so much of the examples you list are insanely excessive as well (private jets and $400 of champagne etc) and I’m not sure why we all turn a blind eye. But honestly, this issue isn’t limited to just the wealthy. We all have to change bad habits (myself included) and start reconnecting with a life that isn’t based on owning material things. A few years ago I was going through my closets and realized just how much clothes I had accumulated. It seriously upset me to the point where I just cleaned house-donating bags of clothes to Boys & Girls Club. I just couldn’t believe how much STUFF I had. Stuff that I didn’t need/use. From that point on, I have made a conscious effort to NOT shop. I have everything I need and of course, I love clothes and new things (it IS fun and I do miss the “rush”) but I just want to LIMIT my spending habits, not because I can’t afford it, just because it’s generally wasteful. Too much of our American identity is rooted in consumerism and it’s so insidious that I think people don’t even really recognize it.

        PS Just for the record- I love Clint Eastwood :) I’m sure his daughter is a good kid, she just seems like she’s in a bit of a bubble ya know?

      • KatC says:

        I think you are making the same point in your post that they are trying to make in this shoot. And personally, if this convinces people to stop buying these absurd bags, then I would consider it 100,000 well spent.

    • WickedSteppMom says:

      Riana: I’m going to take a shot in the dark & guess that you’re not, and never have had to wonder how you were going to feed yourself/your family, pay for your medicine, and/or pay your bills. For the people even in the middle class who work hard, make a decent income, and yet still struggle to make ends meet, this girl’s nonsense is enough to cause anger…for the people who fall below that, who just want a safe place to sleep, something to eat a few times a week, and occasional medical care…well, her antics would be infuriating. She has no idea about materialism, because she’s completely materialistic. She couldn’t survive without all her material objects, because she’s never HAD to…she honestly has no idea what the concept really means.

      • Riana says:

        @Wicked

        Actually I have anxiety which I’m on medication on because of how much I worry about my family and how we’re going to make it. I think it’s a safer bet never to take a shot in the dark if you’re not absolutely sure of the answer. I think considering the fact I can’t get insurance and have a car that’s about died on me hindering how much I can even do in a day I get it.

        But once again…if I work hard enough and make my income I’d like to believe as someone living in a land of freedom that I don’t have to answer to how its spent UNLESS it is taken from taxpayer’s or others. Which is why I’m not angry at her. Yeah my life sucks pretty hard right now but as far as I know her spending habits had no impact on me so I can’t begrudge her what she purchases. Its her right and she’s lucky enough to have the money, but that’s luck. Shrugs.

        Still don’t get the anger. Annoyance yes, its stupid, yes, but anger…no.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        It’s an issue because she made it into a publicity stunt (art my ass). She might have a closet full of Birkin bags at home, we don’t know and and I agree with you that we don’t necessarily need to know. So yeah, it’s not our business until she MAKES it our business. She used the media to get attention and now she has to deal with the flip-side of that—people are gonna tell her to shove that flaming Birkin bag up her ass :) If she doesn’t want people to comment on how she spends her money then she should probably keep that sh*t private. Listen-she gets no hatred from me-she’s young and she made a dumb decision but she has an opportunity to learn from it now.

      • Snowflake says:

        I’m poor and her burning the purse doesn’t bother me. i just think people are silly for paying that much for a purse. as far as the rich vs poor, life is not fair. some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth, others struggle. i don’t expect anyone to spend their money on me. i don’t expect anybody to expect me to help them. what little money i make is mine, and i’ll do with it what i like. i would feel the same if i was rich. there is no greater moral obligation imo simply b/c you have money.

  62. Mara says:

    I really don’t understand why this kind of bags are so expensive is just a freaking bag and cost so much money so extravagant .

  63. Barbara says:

    In Francesca’s formative years she lived with her mother, not Dina and Clint. I am surprised that Dina took this reality route as she has always been so reserved

  64. Faye says:

    I can see the artistic aspect in something like this, but the fact is it is still very wasteful for someone with so much money to do it and expect us to take it seriously. Instead of wondering if the artist wanted to convey a message about materialism, the fragility of celebrity, or waste in the face of overwhelming need of others, it just looks like a publicity stunt. Maybe I’m being unfair, maybe this young lady really wants to be an artist, or sees herself as one, but until we see more of her “work,” it just seems tacky.

  65. Lovelife says:

    I do see it as art and I am quite poor. I think the issue is that they seem to have started to portray something, but didn’t finish it through. The reality is that even though this bag costs 100k.. it is STILL just a bag. It is the same as destroying those shoes or even something “worth” less. The only reason that bag is worth 100k is that people will pay that for it.

    I think a better art photo/installment would have been destroying that bag and then showing pictures of the amount of people who could be fed w/ that same money or something of that nature. The point could be shown that things are only worth as much as people will trade for them. People will trade 100k for that bag so that is what it’s worth, but all price/cost/money isn’t inherently worth something/anything it is agreed upon by all of us.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      She’s hardly a revolutionist-the “statement” she is trying to make has been made a MILLION times starting with the Dada movement in the early 20th century. Believe me when I tell you that the message was much more powerful back then when expressed through a group of capable and talented artists. Hell, in modern times, I would say that the Occupy movement, although not celebrities/artists, have made more of an impact through their incessant protests (“performance art”?) and they didn’t need to foolishly burn a $100K bag to do it.

    • Jackie says:

      this may be considered art to a group of grade 8 students. the idea and execution are juvenile, at best.

    • Lovelife says:

      Oh, it is definitely not original, but is anything really anymore. I think art is pretty subjective anyways. I think the picture is cool and personally I don’t care about the money she or her parents spent on it. I think it could still have been used to say something. As, even though it would be something that has been said many times before.. people obviously don’t get the message. A bag made of crocodile skin is only that expensive because we will pay that much for it. Just like anything else.

      Do I think she was actually trying to make any statement? No, I think she is 19 and is rebelling against what she knows. Along with it just being a “pretty” picture. But, I don’t think that people should really be all that upset. Even the poor in the US are rich compared to many others in this world and we “waste” money all the time doing things people from poorer countries would be shocked at. It’s all about perspective.

  66. Lukie says:

    Tyler Shields is 30 and that hideous crocodile bag has younger looking skin than he does…

  67. Kim says:

    I understand art and I understand an uneducated, spoiled brat who DOESNT get art at all.

    Trying to be “shocking” isnt art – it screams I have no real talent.

  68. TXCinderella says:

    She is pretty and well connected. She should just act and quit trying to be an art critic. At 19 she hasn’t seen enough art to make any determinations.

  69. Elizabeth says:

    So many things to say …
    1. I would have serious concerns about my teenage daughter dating a 30 year old man. Her daddy issues? His little girl lost issues? Ugh.
    2. Where is Francesca’s real mother Francis Whatshername? Someone has to be paying this blond bimbo’s bills? What the hell happened? Why are the adults in her life shoving money at this vapid girl?
    3. Lesson to Clint – should have stayed with someone closer to your own age. She would be over this famewhore crap by now.
    4. Sorry for the rant but I am getting sooo tired of stupid spoiled rich kids. Agh!

  70. Susie Q says:

    What I don ‘get’ is pretentious little brats who are removed from reality because they won the birth pool. You can bet she wouldn’t have done this to the purse if she’d had to make the money it took to buy it in the first place.

  71. sister says:

    The Purse Forum experts say this is a fake Hermes. I thought so too, looks too flimsy to be real croc. Even rich people won’t burn 100K, they worship money too much!

    Still, it’s a dumb famewhorish stunt. Poor Clint, his wife is a wannabe Kris Jenner.

  72. skuddles says:

    Someone made a rather good point on another site about this yesterday (think it was TMZ). They said Eastwood’s daughter paid a lot for bag (assuming it’s a real Birkin), therefore putting money into the economy, but bag sitting in her closet is worth nothing… so what’s the harm of destroying it in the name of art?

    Personally, I think it would have been a much better idea to auction bag and donate proceeds to charity, but not up to me to tell someone what is or is not art. It’s way too subjective a subject.

  73. GH says:

    Why is everybody “poor Clint”?

    He’s her FATHER – presumably he played a large role in raising her and instilling her with values. If she’s a shallow twit with no respect for money, that says something about him as a father.

    And if he only played a minor role in raising her, preferring instead to marry a shallow woman & let her take control of their daughter’s upbringing, then that also reflects badly on him as a father.

    Of course, Clint is notoriously irresponsible – he has fathered 7 kids by 5 different women, so it’s not surprising if he hasn’t been a good father to all of them.

    • Trashaddict says:

      I take it you’ve never had to live down your children’s behavior. Kids are God’s way of telling you, you are NOT in control-

    • Minty says:

      Thank you, GH.

      I think Clint is a great director. I’ve also enjoyed his earlier work in spaghetti westerns and as Dirty Harry, but boy does that man have a messy personal life. He’s been labeled a serial womanizer.

      While separated from his first wife, he had a daughter with some dancer in 1964. He did not publicly acknowledge his daughter until 1996. During his relationship with Sondra Locke, he had a secret affair with a flight attendant, who gave birth to his son (1986) and daughter (1988). Their birth certificates said “Father declined”. He did not publicly acknowledge these two until 1999. It seems Clint hasn’t shown the best judgment and behavior when it comes to his personal relationships. Agreeing to that crappy reality show further reinforces this impression.

    • Raven says:

      Have you watched the show? I have, my first reality show ever. I have had to re-evaluate Dina. According to an article on E!, she shopped all this film on her boy band for a reality show–anything to get them a break. The producer wanted more women, so she got her daughter and step-daughter involved. But she is a kind and compassionate person, helping the humane society with needy animals. I was pleased to hear her comments on the show about this bag. She’s having a positive effect on her stepdaughter, who really needs all the help she can get.

      I’m not going to defend Eastwood for his earlier conduct that was selfish and thoughtless. But he’s got a great family now with his wife and daughter.

  74. anonymoose says:

    Would like to know if the bag was supplied for the photoshoot gratis, or who paid what $ for it. Fair market price is fair game no matter what is done with it.

    That said, the photos are lurid (seems to be this photog’s style) but attractive, and Frances Fisher’s daughter seems to be very very grating and dim and self-serving (as seen on the Eastwood tv show). Why is she living with this family anyway? And, only 19? a teenager? She looks 35. Ouch. And those dark roots are FUGLY and LOW-RENT.

    Who the h*ll pays $100,000 for a purse?

    I bet those krappydashians get theirs at a discount in exchange for promos. Makes me mad that people with billions get discounts.

  75. mar says:

    Rich people. They don’t think like us.

    She probably thought this would be applauded- dumb tw*t

  76. the original bellaluna says:

    #1. Great, another self-entitled asshole the world needs like…well, another self-entitled asshole!

    #2. SHE doesn’t understand “art” if she thinks that kind of stunt is art.

    #3. An animal was KILLED for that bag, you stupid bitch!

  77. Rachel says:

    What an idiot. God, why not just burn a regular Birkin if you want to make a statement… those bags are still thousands of dollars, but nowhere near 100k. Take the rest you would have spent on the croc Birkin and donate to worthy charities. Think how many hungry mouths you could feed with that kind of $$! So clueless, the pair of them.

  78. Crazy Charlize says:

    The last bag that cost me $100,000 I divorced. (Rimshot!)

  79. Ginger says:

    If she and her bf’s “art” means pretentious, ridiculous b.s. then I think I “get it”

  80. anne_000 says:

    I don’t know what the message of this “art” was, but they could have gotten a cheap knock-off in downtown LA. If this was a message about materialism, then it’s as stupid as if PETA had bought a real fur purse & burnt it. It wouldn’t make any sense to do so.

    And it would take most families more than just a couple of years to make $100,000 since most families make less than $50,000 per year and even more years than that to save enough to buy one.

    But what I think is really pissy is that this girl is putting down other people as if they’re not sophisticated enough to understand and appreciate whatever “art” this was supposed to represent. I would say that most people do understand what happened because they appreciate the value of $100,000 especially in these hard economic times with so many people struggling. The actual people who don’t get it is not the rest of us, but it’s her & her boyfriend.

  81. whateveryouwantittobe says:

    Controversy does not equal art. And well done, I have a new found disrespect for Clint Eastwood for producing yet another rich little girl attention whore with no work ethic. This little girl needs to go do many a hard days work.

  82. lush33 says:

    As an artist myself with an extensive art education allow me to say…I don’t think she understands art. While I understand the cultural significance of burning an expensive purse, in reality she is burning another”s art. Also if the significance was behind the purse as an object, she could have a cheaper one to burn as effectively. Furthermore, if anyone involved thinks that this is shock art they have no concept of art history. Some of the punk performance artists of the seventies did shock art in a way more disturbing and shocking way than her mind could possibly conceive of with out exploding.

  83. chalkdustgirl says:

    1. She is an ass for saying that some people “don’t get art”. If she knew *anything* about art, it’s that we all perceive it with different emotions, which is what we’re all feeling here. So she can drop the artsy fartsy act.

    2. I personally find it hysterically sad and pathetic that, in a day and age where families are moving out of their homes due to dire financial circumstances and into tiny apartments (then dropping their beloved pets off at shelters because the apartments won’t take them–I volunteer at an animal shelter) that she is all Mr. Eastwood has to offer us. I can think of a BILLION other things she could have done with that 100K. But, of course, the little spoiled brat wouldn’t have gotten the thrill of attention that her talent can’t earn on its own.

  84. Shoe_lover says:

    if i got my hands on that little cow and her dumbf*ck BF.

    they dont understand art- art is Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Botticelli, Van Gough, Kandinsky, Picasso etc not being spoilt little fools who think destroying something worth so much is art. and some people would argue that a pair of Louboutins or a Hermes bag are art.

    say what you will about the Jolie- Pitts but i would be deeply suprised if any of those kids pulled that cr*p when they are older since they have been exposed to the reality of the world from a young age and even wear hand me downs. maybe some celebrity and socialite parents should consider taking their offspring into the real world occasionally

  85. Mooshi says:

    Amazing how dumb people can be, as to be swayed into thinking a purse is actually worth $100,000. There is no shortage of crocodile skin.

    Silly, silly gullible little humans.

  86. Adrien says:

    It’s been done before by the British band KLF. They burned 1 million quid. It wasn’t for art’s sake. It was just a silly stunt which the leader of the band, Bill Drummond would later regret.
    That Eastwood’s daughter’s action isn’t art. It’s boasting, similar to Floyd Mayweather burning hundred dollar bills at a party.

  87. KatC says:

    This photo shoot reminds me of a scene in Game of Thrones that I shall now recount for all of you; Tyrion is yelling at horrible King Geoffrey and Geoffrey says something like ‘You can’t yell at me, you can’t yell at the king!’ so Tyrion slaps him across his stupid, horrible face and replies ‘and now I’ve struck the king! Did my hand fall from my wrist?’

    They’re basically making the same point, and I think they’re doing it pretty effectively.

    The point being, I think these photos convey pretty strongly that this outrageous, offensive, horrible bag is just a bag. No one should try to sell it for 100,000, and no one should buy it. Put whatever label you want on a bag, it’ll all still burn the same.

    Also, it’s not as if the money spent on this bag was stolen from a charity. I am genuinely confused that people are so offended by this, as an example of waste, but not by the reality of all celebrities paying outrageous sums of money for designer goods so they can carry them for a week and then put them away in some huge closet somewhere.

    If this pisses you off because 100,000 could feed a lot of hungry people then by that logic you should be pissed off at every other outrageous show of wealth that celebrities constantly slather themselves in. None of the money they’re spending is going to feed hungry children either.

    • chalkdustgirl says:

      Hi, KatC. My point was, if you’re at the point where you can toss $100k out the window on something so extremely juvenile, why not help out a fellow human being as opposed to “making a statement” that will help absolutely no one? or simply for the thrill of publicity? I mean, this wasn’t fifty bucks. That amount of cash could have made a difference in someone’s life.

      Also, I think I understand what you interpret as her perception of this bag; however, I doubt that if we went into this chick’s closet, she would have clothes and bags from Target and Kohl’s. She’s probably got designer this and thats which she adores up the wazoo, so if your point is accurate, she’s a hypocrite, imo.

      • KatC says:

        She may absolutely be a total hypocrite, I’ve never seen the show, and I don’t really plan to watch it. I agree with you completely that she could very well have literally millions of dollars worth of clothes and accessories that she almost never wears, but then again maybe she doesn’t.

        I also agree that 100,000 could make a big difference in someone’s life, just like it could each and every single time some moron pays for one of these bags. To me, it seems like she is at least trying to stop people from buying these things. I do get that it is nonsensical to make said point by buying one of them though.

        I think this shoot could possibly be significant in the sense that it may call attention to the bags themselves, and make the people gross enough to carry them have to deal with a less positive reaction from the people they are presumably trying to impress.

        Honestly, the part of this story that I dislike the most is probably this one: “You know those amazing, covetable Hermes Birkin bags that celebrities carry? ” Am I supposed to want one of these? To wish that I was a celebrity just so that I could carry one? To actually believe that this bag is worth more than, at the absolute most, 1,000? IMO it is exactly this attitude that the shoot it meant to offend, and frankly, let them be offended, because this attitude is pretty offensive to me.

      • chalkdustgirl says:

        No, I’ve never seen the show, either.

        However, I don’t think she’s trying to stop people from buying them. If you look at the designer clothes and accessories she wears, she’s obviously no Natalie Portman.

        I think she (a) was starving for some media, which she got and (b) was attempting to be *shocking* by showing that she could in fact shell out that much cash for an extremely high end bag and burn it. Oh, and to make a feeble attempt to show that she knew something about art because she’s dating a dirty old artist, lol.

  88. Dana says:

    Am I missing something? Did Eastwood & Shields destroy someone else’s property? Was the bag stolen? If it was purchased by or for Francesca, then it was hers to do whatever she desired. Much ado about nothing IMO.

  89. aurens says:

    Hey, here’s an idea for an art project, get some of these high end fashions, donated by the manufacters and take pictures of ordinary people wearing them in their usual settings at work and at home to see how absurd, or maybe even beautiful they are (the people and objects) and then let the people sell the items on ebay if they want. That might have some interest as social commentary and be funny, just a thought. Burning something says nothing, no matter if it’s records, handbags or books.

  90. Sigh. SHE didn’t buy the bag. TYLER bought it for his shoot. SHE is the MODEL. This story as it’s being told by gossip sites is inaccurate, which leads me to mistrust every single thing written on these sites.Watch the show before commenting,then feel free to trash her all you like. But at least trash her for things that SHE did.

  91. Kay Cee says:

    It is a HANDBAG.Anyone who is upset over it being destroyed should be more upset that there is a handbag that costs so much in the first place.If she hadn’t taken a chainsaw to it, just as many charitable causes would have benefited from her owning the bag(none). The price of the bag is irrelevant to how much the average family makes in a year. It is blatant consumerism that makes us even care about this story, which itself is driven only by how high and exclusive a price people are willing to put on things.

  92. Vera says:

    The shoes are at least interesting – like, the construction/deconstruction is done well. Granted, I wouldn’t do it myself, but at least the shoes are done in a semi-artful way. The bag…that is just poor form. It just looks like a spoiled brat wrecking things for attention with her older, “artsy” boyfriend.

  93. Aries says:

    Who knew clint Eastwood’s wife and kids were such an epic embarrassment? Who even knew he had any? Clint Eastwood is a class act and legendary actor and they are making him look really bad with their cheesy reality tv show.

  94. Megan says:

    Can someone check’Tyler’s ID. He looks a lot older than 30.

  95. RdyfrmycloseupmrDvlle says:

    Francesca “doesnt get” the anger?? ( you heard of the 2008 crash right?? You know, when millions of American lost their jobs and homes and most still havent recovered?? Doesnt ring a bell? No?)
    Well, the French aristocracy ‘didnt get” why they were being beheaded either.
    same s**t, different day. It’s nice to see some things never change! LOL

  96. Alexis says:

    She is wearing so much makeup she could pass for 30 (although he could pass for 45, so he still looks much older).

  97. Trashaddict says:

    Well, for something that’s not art and that’s really stupid, it did manage to provoke a lot of comments (move over Brangelina!). I realized consumer lunacy was way up there when I saw a woman with a fur purse at my kids’ school – and by the way, it matched her coat. Unfortunately there was no red paint at hand.

  98. twoblues says:

    This is art? Um, no honey, it isn’t.

  99. garvels says:

    Clint’s two daughters and Dina obviously lack talent like the Kardashians, if they are taking the reality show route.

    It is too bad that they are going to muddy the Eastwood brand with this reality stunt.

  100. Jane says:

    Apparently I’m thick bc I don’t see why people are getting so upset about this. As far as Im concerned, its her bag so she can do whatever she wants with it.

  101. foozy says:

    i am shocked and disgusted!!! what a stupid f…..g moron!! people are starving around the world. some are dying due to lack of medical care and not having enough money to pay for it. she should be jailed, no matter what her age. i live in monaco and i have a rich family. would never dream of buying a bag at that price in the first place, not to mention burning it for fun. you’d have to be so out of touch with reality and so horribly spoiled and have an incredible disregard for the human condition in order to do such things. you’d have to be inhuman. shame on her and shame on her dad for allowing such behavior!

    • Popquiz4u says:

      Well-said! Your parents raised you right and grounded you with compassion for people and compassion for how much work most people have to do to buy a purse like that. Flaunting their wealth so callously *for art* is a slap in the face to those who don’t know where their next meal is coming from.

    • LittleDeadGirl says:

      Jailed? For destroying her own property? I think your reaction is a little out of proportion. If you care so much then donate time and money. Don’t waste your energy on her pointless act.

  102. Aud says:

    I wouldn’t call it art. I’d call it artistic barbarity and an insult to the worker who made that bag by hand.

  103. Popquiz4u says:

    His art is purely for shock value,nothing more. It doesn’t send any real message to anyone. His pictures are visually stimulating and that’s about it. No one is going to stop their consumerism by looking at his photos, in fact, he is promoting even more consumerism in that he will charge a high price for his photos and make a ton of $$$. Unless he makes over $200,000 in sales to cover the price of the purse and then uses the remaining $100k to help a charity, he’s only added to consumerism rather than changing it. Frannie, too, is a bit love-struck blind and naive, the things he made her do..:((

  104. LittleDeadGirl says:

    I don’t consider this art but why are people upset. She bought it fair and square. How is it any less wasteful to pay that much on a bag and use it? It’s a fucking bag. How much money means to people is just an indirect proportion of how much they make. For this girl that kind of money probably means as much to most of us burning a 100 dollars. Or throwing away a penny. Is it stupid. Sure. But she’s young and rich. Hardly anything to send her death threats over.

  105. Brittney says:

    I don’t get how destroying this bag is the upsetting part. The fact that a purse costs $100,000 is just as outrageous — if not moreso.

    All the publicity has generated a discussion about the frivolity of “wasting $100,000 that could feed thousands of people” — a discussion that should be had way, way more often.

    Why is it any better for people to spend that much money on an accessory for themselves? They could also be putting the money toward better causes. At least in this case, people are now talking about (and noticing) wasteful consumerism… which might have been the whole point.

  106. Maria says:

    So its a crime to burn a bag, but not a crime to have slept with a minor, I mean I know she wasnt 18 when she was dating that photographer Tyler, she must have been 16 or 17, but I guess people are to obsessed with the legalization of weed and gay marriage, which I am not against but dont find as important than kids trying to grow up too fast,a 30 yr old man sleeping with a child was once considered a crime, I guess it doesn’t matter anymore.

  107. Shelley says:

    Im certainly not one to be jealous of the privlidged children of celebrities, but I do think that Dena Easton should have donated her “hoarding goods” to charity instead of throwing it away. I also think Mr. Eastwoods daughter should have donated the bag to charity as well. I did like the photo shoot btw, it did send a message, but damn. That bag was worth $100,000 that could have been used to go towards charity.

  108. Shelley says:

    I just think that celebrities and those who have money and have an excess of “things” should donate it to those organizations that can help others. If I had that kind of money I wouldnt throw my things away, I would donate them. My husband and I dont make that kind of money, but my children dont do without and any extra that they have gets donated towards charity and for the children in our community.

  109. Linda says:

    Destroying a Birkin bag for art’s sake is just ridiculous. And what is the ruckus? I think the entire problem is with this ridiculous show? Francesca is pure trash, Morgan, a spoiled brat, and Dina just self-absorbed. Has Clint seen this debacle? Really, just take the show off the air. The Rirkin may have been worth $100K, but the show itself is worthless.

  110. disappointed says:

    Mrs. Eastwood & Company Show is odd. Dina cries at the drop of a hat. They seem to do odd things. Who would encourage a young woman to date a man who is using her fame to promote himself. Didn’t anyone find his screaming at photo models odd? She is his girlfriend. No one should put up with that treatment. Do yourself a favor Clint & stop this before it gets worse.

    • disappointed says:

      Charity Action after Photo Shoot – Second Thought: Any novice Photohsop user could have taken photographs of the expensive bag & merged it with the photos of a cheaper bag. The resulting image would be the same. The expensive bag could have been actioned off for charity after the shoot.

  111. Jevin says:

    What a kunt! But a hot one at that. Big bitch though, I hit that hot Milford step/mom of hers too