Horseflesh, I think someone in their 30s has probably given it some thought and isn’t jumping in on a whim as some kids do.
It took me a while to check back in here, but neutron star’s comment is fair enough. It was not my intention to make a broad generalization, and lord knows that I have plenty of non-tattoed acquaintances to whom the whole subject is a non-issue.
The truism at the heart of my comment that "“the only difference between people who have tattoos and people who don’t is that the people with tattoos don’t care if you don’t have any” still stands, though. There are (clearly, as seen in this thread) LOTS of non-tattoed folks who find the very idea profoundly offensive. Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t tattooed folks who, despite vehement denials to the contrary, don’t secretly think they’re “cooler” than their (presumably) un-tattoed peers, but their numbers don’t even come close to those on the other side of the equation.
More than anything else, my statement reflects a cliche that one hears a lot in the tattoo “community.” And that’s another issue that one should bear in mind in any discussion of tattoos and tattoing: that we’re not all really talking about the same thing here. Especially in the last couple of decades, one’s location and socio-economic class have a lot to do with not only one’s attitudes towards tattoos, but in fact the tattoos that one is exposed to. For instance, here in the Bay Area, which is often referred to as a “Mecca of tattooing,” as a young middle-class college-educated graphic artist, I see very different examples of tattooing than does, say, someone in a blue-collar or rural community in the Midwest. So of course my attitude is different; I’m very comfortable with the proposal that tattoos are art (well, maybe “commercial” art rather than “fine” art), but I can understand why someone with a different frame of reference than myself might not agree.
There is undeniably a deep-seated prejudice in today’s young, middle-class tattoo community towards certain styles of art and certain subject matters and away from others. So comments like the one above by ** look@hergo! **, who says something like “everyone I know has a tattoo, so I’m going to be different by NOT getting one,” while sort of clever, create a really misleading perception of a monolithic community of “the tattooed.” No two tattoos are exactly the same, and there are as many reasons for getting tattoos as there are recipients (probably even more).
To me, tattoos are both a private and a public matter at the same time. I have three. Only one I slightly regret.
But all three tattoos can be covered up. Only one of them slightly peeks out beneath the sleeve of a polo shirt. My wife says that it is sexy when the one on my arm does poke out. But I digress…
I think of my tattoos as a time capsule. Five thousand years from now, when two hikers pull my corpse out of a crack in a glacier, if they are able to decifer the tattoos, they will learn something small about myself and the time that I lived.
I like my tattoos because I am pronouncing to others something that is important to me, as well as giving them a slice of my personality. My tattoos are also of stuff that I don’t want to forget, eventhough there is a very slim chance of that ever happening. Kind of a reminder.
But, frankly, I often times forget that I even have tattoos.
Wow. I’m starting to get deep with this stuff.
The trade off is that I am a pretty shy person, actually, so I go to somewhat great lengths to make sure that they are not seen.
In a way, it is like carrying a flag around with you that proclaims your favorite Beatles song, hoping someone else who likes the same song stops you and says, “Hey, we like the same song!”
I tend to be skeptical of people who claim that they dress (or adorn, as in the case of tattoos or hairstyles) purely for themselves, with no interest as to what anyone else thinks. I think there are two concepts getting blurred here. People don’t necessarily dress themselves in order to make other people happier, or even to make other people think they look nice. But they generally have in mind the image that they are presenting to others.
As an example, consider the rebellious teenager who deliberately chooses the most shocking and offensive appearance possible. This guy is not interested in making anyone else (outside of his social circle ) happy about his appearance - to the contrary. But yet, the main purpose of his appearance is the image that it presents to society - that being that of someone who scorns societal norms and values.
To a less dramatic extent, most people who dress or present themselves in a certain way have in mind the image of themselves that they are presenting to society. This does not imply that they are looking for societal approval, but only that they are interested in presenting themselves in that guise.
Society is given as an example, which would generally apply to visible clothing or adornments. In the case of tattoos in parts of the body which are not generally visible, the primary interest would be those people who do see these parts.
A test would be if someone was stranded for an extended period of time on some desert island, with no one else there. Would such a person maintain the same interest in their appearance? I am very skeptical.
There could be exceptions, of course. There are exceptions to everything. But I think what I’ve said is generally true.
No argument here, about anything that you’re saying. But I always feel that there is a strong unspoken critique in this argument whenever it is brought up in the context of tattoos, those damn punk rockers, or when folks try to figure out what’s wrong with kids these days that they gotta dress like that. Heck, I think that IzzyR’s comments hold even MORE true when applied to the other end of the spectrum, in terms of the whole dialogue about appearance and society.
For instance, consider folks like myself, or many of the other tattooed professionals in this thread and out IRL, who have the liberty of dressing however we like for work. When I go home, or go out with my friends on the weekend, I appear exactly the same way that I do at the office: visible tattoos, jeans, t-shirt, etc. Now consider my ex-roommate, who would go to work every day in slacks, oxfords, and a button-down shirt; the instant he walked in the door at the end of the day, the work outfit would hit the floor and he’d be dressed like me.
Now in the scenario above, which I think should be familiar to just about everyone, which of us is “interested in presenting themselves in [a] guise,” and “has in mind the image that they are presenting to others”? I agree very much with Izzy that people who say they’re not trying to inpress others fill me with scepticism, but folks with visible tattoos and the like seem as thought they’re at least being a little more honest, in a certain way, than those who submit to the banality of conformity. Let me put it this way; if I hear something like the comments above about the desert island, it better be coming from someone wearing sweatpants.
And I know very well that even “rebellion,” in today’s commodified world, isn’t as transgressive as the teenagers at the mall would like to think. No one is going to topple the IMF or the G7 with a pierced eyebrow. But I don’t think it makes sense to completely dismiss the fact that one’s physical appearance can have a very real effect on one’s emotional and (sigh) spritual sense of self. I think that’s perhaps what people mean when they say “I got my tattoo for MYSELF.”
Sorry about this disjointed rambling, I’m at work and can’t fully concentrate. I guess the upshot is that while I respect and to a certain extent agree with what Izzy is saying above, I resent the contempt that I frequently see expressed (not necessarily by anyone in this thread) in very similar terms.