Multi.Colored—tattooed people, tattoo dreams

Now that we’re past Halloween and the Day of the Dead, I’d like to consider the use of death images in body art.

Skulls, skeletons, and other ancient images of death remain incredibly popular as body art.  In ancient times such markings would have been used as a symbol of power, or for protection from evil (archaeologists turn up such designs all the time, all over the world).  Today, at least in “western” society, those images are often used to convey a message.  Politely phrased it would be “Don’t mess with me.”

Gang tattoos are loaded with death symbolism, in an attempt to convey power, fearlessness and the disposal of enemies.  But the skull-and-crossbones motif once used to identify a pirate has long since passed into popular culture and adorns many bodies today as well.  Some body art explicitly displays the destruction of other living beings.  Some just conveys the threat.

As the old saying goes, “You are what you eat.”  To my somewhat mystical way of thinking, such toxic images would be poisonous to the soul of the wearer.  I feel that body art should represent something positive to its wearer–even if that image is in honor of someone who has died.  One of my tattoos is in memory of my grandmother, but it’s a bold and colorful dragon.  I would not put a tombstone on my skin.

What do you feel about images of death and destruction?  Are they just so much ink, or does their presence affect their wearer in some way?  Am I just too far over the moon?

photo credit: katie cowden

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

I’ve written on the subject of religious objections to tattoos before (if you’re interested, you can read that entry here).  I was reminded of that by a story in yesterday’s local paper, on the subject of Jews and tattoos.

Before I begin today’s essay:  I had one Jewish grandfather, but he died before I was born, and I don’t claim any expertise on the subject of Judaism or the Law and the Prophets.  I am an interested outsider, with a nearly lifelong interest in Biblical history and comparative religions.  I belong to no sect, either by heritage or by choice.  All human theological traditions both living and past have an equal chance of being true, in my opinion.

Does Leviticus say no?

That said, it is widely believed that there is a prohibition against making any marks on the body in the book of Leviticus.  The various translations seem to agree that people should not cut themselves “for the dead” (it was a tradition in many cultures for the bereaved to slash their own skins).  But what follows differs depending on which translation one reads.  Some prohibit “making marks” or “printing marks” on the skin, while some use the word “tattoo.”  I can’t read Hebrew, so I don’t know exactly what the original Scripture said.  I am looking forward to Dr. James Tabor’s group’s future publication of The Transparent English Bible, so those of us who can’t read the original IN the original can finally get as close as possible to what it says.

Many Jewish people believe that the prohibition is against tattooing, which made the death-camp marks all the more horrible.  And that memory quite rightly lingers on, lending greater force to the present-day prohibition on tattoos.  Whether a modern tattoo becomes a matter of honor or horror is far beyond any outsider’s business to decide.  But according to the article, many modern Jews are choosing to be tattooed precisely because they value their heritage and wish to say so in a permanent way.

Does 21st century choice enter into it?

In an earlier post, I talked about choosing religious or spiritual designs for tattoos.  I believe those designs should have intense personal significance, and certainly people who choose to override religious prohibitions must have strong feelings on the subject.

Here is a link to the original story. If you do a Google search with “Jew tattoo” you’ll find plenty of opinions pro and con, with good reasons to support both sides.  Do you have an opinion?  I’d like to hear it.

photo credit: hometownzero

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

So far, no luck on fixing the internal server error.   I’m trying to get 1&1 to recognize that a server error is not a WordPress error, but so far I’ve had no success with that.  I appreciate your patience while we try to get this problem solved.

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

Tattoos and other body art are becoming more popular all the time–just look at all the tattoo related showson TV these days. Even the National Geographic has gotten into the act. But the fact that something is popular doesn’t necessarily mean that it has widespread acceptance.

In what ways are multicolored people reminded that body art is still outside the mainstream? As I see it, there are three common objections.

Dress codes

I used to laugh when a friend who worked as a fundraiser for a fundamentalist college told me he would never ever EVER dare wear anything but a white shirt to work. The people he worked for wouldn’t tolerate anything else. And whether it was strictly true or not, he believed that the potential donors he went to see wouldn’t tolerate anything else either, and if his clothing offended them he could kiss their money goodbye. That was years ago, but it’s still pretty much the rule that employers have dress codes and employees are expected to follow them.

So, it’s practical to have your tattoos applied to areas that can be covered up by clothing. Not quite so easy to conceal piercings, unless they’re in intimate areas. There’s a market out there for clear or flesh colored spacers that can be inserted to keep a piercing open, but from my reading I gather they’re not entirely satisfactory. (Nor, despite what I saw at one previous job, is a bandage over a pierced ear going to fool anyone).

Conscious or unconscious aversion

Historically speaking, tattoos have been favored by the “upper crust.” All kinds of royalty had body art a hundred years ago. (Heck, Prince Charles was in the Navy, do you suppose he’s got ink where the sun don’t shine?) But, sad to say, most people don’t know diddly-squat about history, and their main exposure to tattoos often comes from gangbangers, bikers, sailors, soldiers, and other kinds of People We’re Not. Thus, tattooing gained an unfortunate reputation as being the provenance of People We’re Not, and anyone with a tattoo is therefore eyed with suspicion. (My father didn’t want me to get my ears pierced when I was 16, claiming it “looked cheap.” I’m glad I never found out what he thought of my tattoos.) The fact that this anti-ink prejudice exists is something multicolored people have to understand and deal with, no matter how irrational the basis.

Age and its issues

“What will happen when you get old and it sags?” It’s true that our skin changes shape as we get older. And it’s a common assumption that wherever the tattoo goes, the skin will sag, wrinkle, change color, and otherwise distort and deface the tattoo, so why even bother? Of course, the fact that humanity has a long tradition of art that gets better with age, despite the ravages of time upon the medium (the Mona Lisa ain’t what she used to be, and neither are the Lascaux cave paintings) doesn’t seem to apply to body art. It’s gonna sag! Don’t do it!

Of course, the idea that we can enjoy the ink till gravity takes its toll doesn’t seem to mean anything to the sag fanatics. And the fact that there are plenty of areas that don’t sag doesn’t change people’s minds, either.

What’s your story?

What kinds of objections and challenges have you faced? Did your family raise a fuss about your tattoos? Were you called too young or too old? Does your employer have even an inkling you’re covering up inking?

photo credit: Cassi Saari

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

In my series of articles on getting your first tattoo (you can find the index to that series here) I talked about the issues involved in using Other People’s Art. (You can read that article here).

Besides the practical matter of getting permission to use artwork, there are other issues one should consider. Primary among them is whether the artwork you love will translate well into a tattoo. Many designs need to be simplified because the shadings and lines won’t work well on skin, and matching the colors exactly is not always possible (the combination of tattoo ink and your skin tone makes the match tricky). There are many artists who can do incredibly detailed fine line work, but the ink may spread out over time and the fine lines will merge together and blur the design.

Sometimes artwork in color translates better to skin in shades of grey, and this is often done when the tattoo is a portrait or reproduction of a photograph of a person. The artist can translate the photo freehand, or run it through photo editing software that will turn it into a “pencil sketch” to use as a basis for the tattoo.

And there’s also the issue of translating two-dimensional artwork into three-dimensional body art. What looks great on paper / canvas /etc might not do well when wrapped around your arm. Keeping the lines in the same relationship on a differently shaped surface is a challenge. And even the most precise reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork can alter over time as the body inevitably changes. (No, most tattoos don’t “sag” but skin loses its elasticity and changes color with time.)

My quest for real art

A few months ago we went to a gallery showing by our favorite local artist, Kythera of Anevern (you can see some of her work in her portfolio here). One small print called to me from clear across the room when I walked into the gallery and I bought it at the speed of light. In looking at it since I brought it home, I realize that in many ways it represents me and my mother, and it would make a great sleeve tattoo that could be coordinated with the “swoosh” of stars over my right collarbone. And of course I have the advantage of being able to commission the artist herself to adapt the work, so I know the changes would be with her approval.

If you select artwork by a living artist for your tattoo, asking the artist’s permission to reproduce the art should also include asking the artist’s permission for the tattoo artist to simplify the art if that is necessary. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to commission the artist to do an adaptation, but the artist’s permission should always be sought. You wouldn’t want someone stealing something of yours and wearing it forever.

Do you have tattoo artwork that’s been adapted from another medium?

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

I saw a story on the news last night about a 9-year-old girl in Texas who is learning to tattoo. (Not anentirely new story, as I found out when I did a Google search today.) Watching it left me with mixed emotions.

While I’m all in favor of this girl going ahead (and of course having a father who owns the tattoo shop makes it spectacularly easy for her) I wonder if the widespread publicity won’t lead other people to believe that if a kid can do it, anyone can.

I read several boards and blogs devoted to body art and from what I’ve read there (I have no personal experience with this) it’s not easy to get an apprenticeship. I do know that the apprenticeship is vitally necessary, because there is a lot more to being a tattoo artist than the general public realizes. (We multicolored people are much more likely to understand.) It’s not just a matter of learning to color inside the lines with a buzzing needle–there are health and safety issues that are of vital importance.

And the girl herself isn’t quite ready for prime time. Her dad has to support the needle apparatus because it’s too heavy for her to hold, and her designs are about what you’d expect from someone her age. But she’s growing, and both her hand strength and designs will improve over time if she keeps at it (the nationwide publicity might well insure that she keeps at it, too).

So I’m torn between cheering for the girl who has already gotten a foot in the door (OK, if your dad owns the shop, it’s not exactly tough) and who may inspire other young people to consider tattooing as a profession, and wondering whether the publicity surrounding her will convince people that there’s nothing special about tattooing if a kid can handle it.

Have you seen the story? What did you think?

Here is about.com’s Karen Hudson’s common sense guide to becoming a tattoo artist.

photo credit: mborowick

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

There’s a leech out there who’s stealing my posts verbatim, including my images which have NOT been released into the public domain. Imitation might be flattering, but stealing word for word, no way.

photo credit: shredpet501

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

In my previous post on firefighters’ tattoos I touched briefly on the issue of employee dress codes.

A hundred years ago, tattoos were quite the in thing amongst the upper crust. All kinds of aristocrats had ink in various places and there was no social stigma involved. On the contrary, it was something enjoyed by the sophisticated creme de la creme.

Over time, however, the tattoo became associated in the public psyche with sailors, circus performers, bikers, hippies, gang members, convicts and other supposedly undesirable elements, and despite the increased popularity of tattooing today, and the numbers of “mainstream” people who are getting inked, the stigma of bad associations gone by still lingers.

Thus, many employers (who tend to be conservative) want nothing to do with people who have visible tattoos (or piercings other than the occasional earring or two). Image is everything in many workplaces, and heaven forbid the nice lady who takes your bank deposit, or the guy who deals with your investment, or the people who fight fires or arrest crooks, have any visible ink. Not that anyone can prove that being tattooed affects their performance in any way. It just doesn’t LOOK good.

Have we really become a nation of Fernandos? (Billy Crystal’s character who thought it was better to look good than to feel good) Do we care so much about appearance that we don’t care about substance or performance? Is this, or is this not, the 21st century?

Have your employer told you “no visible ink”? I’ve never worked in a place where that was the rule, thank goodness, although my tattoos are easily covered when necessary. But it seems like more and more workplaces are getting more and more strict. Or am I imagining things?

If you’d like to read more about celebrity tattoos, do take a look at The Vanishing Tattoo web site, which is a gold mine of information and inspiration.

photo credit: Indiana Stan

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

On the front page of today’s Los Angeles Daily News, there was a story about the new policy at the Los Angeles Fire Department.

Firefighters’ tattoos must be covered up at all times. Apparently, the LAFD brass thinks that tattoos are… unprofessional? Not the proper image that the department wants to project?

Tattoos must be covered in the firehouse as well, and according to the story they even have to be covered up while the firefighters are sleeping. Yeah, sure, the general public is keeping an eye on THAT.

This is the same fire department that recently paid out over a million bucks to settle a complaint about a practical joke. It seems to me that they’ve got their priorities way, way wrong. If I call the fire department, I don’t care what the firefighters look like while they’re dealing with the blaze. If they’re out doing presentations to school kids or in some other situation where image is king, OK, no problem, cover the ink. But it just seems to me that there are a lot more serious things the department ought to be putting on its worry list.

photo credit: kilt medic

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

I used to watch all the tattoo reality shows. I thought they were a good idea, getting people used to the idea that tattoo parlors aren’t just places for bikers and sailors to hang out. But the more I watched, the less I liked what I saw.

Naturally, a reality show isn’t really reality. The camera crews have to be there, and no matter how much the people in the show get used to the presence of the crew, they are never going to act the same for the TV show as they are when nobody else is watching. Plus, the show’s not going to waste time filming the humdrum events of the average day–they want drama and flash and stuff that’s out of the ordinary so as to attract the audience. I think “Inked” came closest to showing reality and that’s because it focused more on the artists and their interactions than it did on the customers. But how much can you do with a half hour show, especially in a shop where the owner is taking care of other businesses as well?

I’ve seen reports in several places that life on “Miami Ink” isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. The artists aren’t there every day, the people who supposedly spontaneously walk in to get a tattoo have actually been auditioned ahead of time, and so forth. I don’t know if all that’s true, but it certainly seems to be a common topic for discussion. It is pretty obvious that the entire process of applying the tat to the skin can’t be shown, because good, careful work takes hours, and the audience would go to sleep. Not to mention that they want to show multiple customers, not just the work that goes into one piece.

I haven’t watched “LA Ink,” but I did think Kat got a raw deal when they booted her off “Miami Ink.” Too many big egos in one small shop. I’m glad to see she got the last laugh. But I doubt her show reflects the reality of life in her studio any better than the previous one did.

Do shows like this encourage every Dick, Jane and Harry to go get inked? Does it mean that people have unrealistic expectations when they walk into the shop? Is the process shown clearly enough that people realize that it’s messy and painful and time-consuming to end up as beautifully decorated as you want to be? It just seems to me that cutting everything down into a few quick clips gives people the entirely wrong idea.

Anyone else have an opinion on that?

photo credit: leedsyorkshire

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites