I think they look attractive and many nowadays are really well drawn and interesting. They have meaning.
I understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion but tattoos seem to me to be judged too harshly and assumptions are made about the people who have them that seem excessively “judgy” I have always liked them, my boyfriend back in the early eighties had them, long before they were so acceptable. That said my husband of 22 years had none it wasn’t a problem. I think I was annoyed by the negative comments from people about the personal choices of others. It seemed so intolerant.
It *is* the curmudgeon thread, though. Slightly unreasonable grumpiness is the entire point.
I liked tattoos when they were still a bit 'alternative', daring, not the done thing, and wanted one myself. I've gone right off them since they've become so ordinary. I wouldn't say they're fashionable so much as utterly conventional now. I still don't find them ugly, in fact I like the look of many and certainly understand the motivation to get one, but am very glad I never got round to getting any as it feels much more unconventional *not* to have one now, especially as a woman with kids in her early 50s - I'm not sure I know many others who don't have one! The 'they look ugly on older skin' thing is pretty irrelevant now they're so ubiquitous though - in a few years when almost every old person has one, they'll just be a fact of life and wrinkly tats will be the same as grey hair or stiff knees.
'If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.'
I have a friend whose back is covered in a massive tattoo of a golden Koi amongst water lilies. It is a work of art, but I'm afraid, to me, so many are closer to graffiti than art. I genuinely wonder why some folk almost cover their faces in tattoos then complain that nobody will give them a job. All choices have consequences.
If you Google 'tattoos' and choose the image option, are you saying that you like all the images shown just because they're tattoos and you like all tattoos as they're all attractive?
What meaning? Surely any symbol's meaning is inside the head of the person perceiving the symbol. You have to be told what a symbol means to share it unless the symbol is there just to evoke an emotion. I haven't a clue as to what a tattoo means to the wearer any more than I know what a person is trying to say about themselves by having bright pink hair.
How are tattoos judged any more harshly than anything else that is liked or disliked? You say you think tattoos look attractive - that is a judgement. And isn't that the point of fashion anyway - it is judged to be likeable in which case people follow it, or disliked in which case they don't follow. We all judge. All human beings take in data, sift it and judge it against some internal criteria built up over time, to categorise it. That is what humans do. I bet you have loads of things you dislike. You'd be odd if you didn't.
How people then make assumptions has always been there - as I said, my dad saw tattoos as being a 'class' thing and when I was younger short hair = thuggy (think skinhead) and long hair = peace and love. I liked short hair (but not skinhead) and didn't realise people may be frightened by me because of that. I was never a thug, but I can follow now that I may have been perceived to be.
I bet if you did a poll here, everyone would have an image of someone they wouldn't want to meet in a dark alleyway. In the past that may have been a skinhead, maybe someone wearing a hoodie, in some areas it may have been racial (all ways). People will make judgements based on how you look. We all do that. I would then say I would always assess someone in a worse way because I dislike, in some way, their appearance - as their appearance, in my stupid thought process, in some way reflects their mindset. And the appearance is all we usually have of people we don't 'know'. You can't get to know everyone, so have to work on appearance. But that changes doesn't it? 10-20 years ago, suit and tie meant businesslike, professional..blah, blah. Now it can mean dinosaur, staid, not a free thinker. You can change your dress code on a day to day basis though.
There's a guy I know who had an image of an old street with old style shops. Think over a hundred years ago and more provincial area than big towns and cities.
It means something to him but to me it is a very good greyscale drawing that happens to be on a guys arm. Put the image on a canvas and you'd pay a fortune for it in a gallery.
However, not many tatto are that nice to look at. They all have meaning to the owner of the body part but that is the whole point it's not about showing a meaning or symbolism to John Q public. It's a meaning to the person perhaps their closest people. Everyone else can jog on I think the vernacular goes.
I never want a tattoo because the last time I read the leaflet at a blood donor session you can't give blood at least for a long period of time if never. Plus I dislike the idea of giving myself pain for potentially a dodgy body art. You never know how it'll turn out.
I also dislike appropriation of cultural tattoos. Anything with symbolism as part of a foreign culture I find offensive for that culture even though not my place to feel affront. I also think Chinese or Japanese script on someone without link to those countries is a bit poor form too. Plus you really won't know if the finished product says good health or tiny weener!!! Or some other insult. Plus aiui the characters need to be precise or their meaning changes.
However it is their choice to have whatever they have. We can be critics if they're on show as far as decency allows. You're not OK to tell someone bluntly they're far, camp or whatever so comments about tats need the same consideration over feelings and offence. Not easy to do on a forum at times.
Personally, I wouldn't have a tattoo if I was paid to, but I have seen many which are fabulous pieces of art. The problem is that most art doesn't fade to a dark blue/black indistinguishable blob over time as tattoos seem to do.
In most cases I would say if people want them it's up to them but there are exceptions. Some years ago I worked with a young lady who had serious mental health problems and had self harmed for years. She then had most of her body covered in tattoos to hide the scars, and then had a complete breakdown because she hated the tattoos. They were removed by the NHS because of her mental state, and she went out and started the cycle all over again. I don't know how this cycle could be stopped but the tattoos were affecting her mental health but those applying them wouldn't care.
Posts
I have always liked them, my boyfriend back in the early eighties had them, long before they were so acceptable. That said my husband of 22 years had none it wasn’t a problem. I think I was annoyed by the negative comments from people about the personal choices of others. It seemed so intolerant.
I liked tattoos when they were still a bit 'alternative', daring, not the done thing, and wanted one myself. I've gone right off them since they've become so ordinary. I wouldn't say they're fashionable so much as utterly conventional now. I still don't find them ugly, in fact I like the look of many and certainly understand the motivation to get one, but am very glad I never got round to getting any as it feels much more unconventional *not* to have one now, especially as a woman with kids in her early 50s - I'm not sure I know many others who don't have one!
The 'they look ugly on older skin' thing is pretty irrelevant now they're so ubiquitous though - in a few years when almost every old person has one, they'll just be a fact of life and wrinkly tats will be the same as grey hair or stiff knees.
I genuinely wonder why some folk almost cover their faces in tattoos then complain that nobody will give them a job.
All choices have consequences.
It means something to him but to me it is a very good greyscale drawing that happens to be on a guys arm. Put the image on a canvas and you'd pay a fortune for it in a gallery.
However, not many tatto are that nice to look at. They all have meaning to the owner of the body part but that is the whole point it's not about showing a meaning or symbolism to John Q public. It's a meaning to the person perhaps their closest people. Everyone else can jog on I think the vernacular goes.
I never want a tattoo because the last time I read the leaflet at a blood donor session you can't give blood at least for a long period of time if never. Plus I dislike the idea of giving myself pain for potentially a dodgy body art. You never know how it'll turn out.
I also dislike appropriation of cultural tattoos. Anything with symbolism as part of a foreign culture I find offensive for that culture even though not my place to feel affront. I also think Chinese or Japanese script on someone without link to those countries is a bit poor form too. Plus you really won't know if the finished product says good health or tiny weener!!! Or some other insult. Plus aiui the characters need to be precise or their meaning changes.
However it is their choice to have whatever they have. We can be critics if they're on show as far as decency allows. You're not OK to tell someone bluntly they're far, camp or whatever so comments about tats need the same consideration over feelings and offence. Not easy to do on a forum at times.