It’s practically a requirement for 20 and 30 somethings to get inked these days if they want to be in with the in crowd. Is there some critical saturation point where so many normal schlubs and uncool people will have tattoos that it’s no long the thing to do? Is that point coming anytime in the foreseeable future?
Future?
Ninja’d!
I hate my tattoos!
It’s only going to be a matter of time before visible tattoos are going to be a REQUIREMENT for mainstream jobs.
Oh, wait. It already is; it just isn’t in writing AFAIK. :rolleyes:
I think we’re there. I mean, they’re not uncool, but at this point I think they’re just ordinary. They’re like multiple ear piercing on women, or single piercings on men around the year 2000. There was still a small minority who grumbled, and a few employers made you cover them, but most people didn’t even see them anymore.
You can still shock with content, like a swastika on your forehead, or the word “pussy” on your chin, and an arrow pointing up, but you can do that with piercings too. Gigantic bull nosering piercings that you clip a leash to, and hand to your girlfriend will shock some people, while making others just feel embarrassed by your obvious desperate need for attention. (And frankly that “desperation” vibe is what I get from people with obscene tattoos as well.)
Tattoos are not “in”. They don’t identify you as a member of the cool kids club. Anyone, even a hopeless dweeb, can get a tattoo. They don’t size you up when you go to the tattoo parlor and have a sign at the door “You must be at least this cool to get a tattoo.” All you need is the money to pay the guy with the needles.
Tattoos are not alternative, they are mainstream. They are not remarkable, they don’t set you apart from the mundanes. Employers no longer consider a tattoo as a proxy for an employee who will have an attitude problem.
Neither do employers look at a guy without a tattoo, and dismiss him as uncool. That’s fucking ridiculous.
Here we go again…:rolleyes:
Everyone wears clothes, and they can still identify you as “cool” or “uncool.”
Everyone chooses a hairstyle (or chooses to remove their hair) and it also communicates quite a bit about a person.
If things trend toward more and more people getting tattoos, something humans have done for many thousands of years, there will be far less of a reaction to someone simply having tattoos and more importance on the subject matter, the quality of the artwork, the relative fame of the artist who did the work, etc.
May I attempt to rephrase the op?
Will there be a point that having a tattoo is such a mark of conformity, of following the crowd, that the “cool” rebel look will be being uninked?
No question that right now there are cliche tattoos, rude tattoos, obscene tattoos, and very personal and/or creative/artistic meaningful tattoos. Right now having a tattoo is not cool or uncool in and of itself, it is part of an ensemble of an image and a tattoo is an optional part of whatever that image is, be it rebel or nerd or middle class soccer mom.
Now though is not the question.
That’s always been the case with fads in the past. I suspect that in future decades the “natural” look will come back in again, as it did in the 1960s, but it won’t take the same particular form as it did then.
I used to have a star on my belly but then all the plain-bellies started getting stars on their bellies so then I had the star removed.
Discussions like this always make me think of a George Carlin bit. He was talking about piercings, not tattoos, but I think it is pretty much the same thing:
Years ago I heard a grumpy old man refer to this as the carnie era - tats, piercings, men with shaved heads, women with brightly dyed hair, and everyone cursing like sailors.
I agree. Also, tattoos were never the thing that could change someone from uncool to cool, just like putting on a leather jacket or some other cool piece of clothing would change someone from uncool to cool. An uncool guy who gets a tattoo won’t become cool, he’ll just be an uncool guy with a tattoo.
I don’t think there will be a point where the existence of tattoos are uncool, just unremarkable.
I didn’t get one because I wanted to be cool. I wanted one because I wanted one. It’s on my left shoulderblade, rather large for a first tattoo, and unless I’m wearing spaghetti straps you can’t see it.
I’m not looking to make a statement or swim against the stream. I wanted it because it means something to me.
Data point from talking with current college-age friends. Tattoos are pretty much obligatory for frats, sororities, and athletics. Just another coming-of-age gateway like puking over a banister.
The point at which tattoos became un-cool was about a month ago, when I got my first one.
Sorry, but that seems to be how it works.
Regards,
Shodan
Some of us have always considered all types of bodily self-mutilation to be uncool, ranging from tattoos to pierced ears.
This.
And this.
When does something constitute “mutilation?” Does cutting your hair or shaving count?