(no subject)
Was reading about piercings on smokingbuddha's page.
Well here's a very interesting writeup by someone else. Talks about people's perspective thoughts against tattoos. Personally, i love this one alot and its been with me for awhile now.
haa And this was how i escaped endless preachings from my parents...
“For we live in a world of ‘cultural relativity’
and the whole furniture of earth and choir of
heaven are to be described and discussed as they
are conceived by men. Caviar is not a delicacy to
the general [population]. Cows are not food to
the Hindu. Mohammed is not the prophet of God to
me. To an atheist, God is not God at all.”
(Faris, 1937: p. 150 - 151)
Impression is a matter of interpretation.
Picture this heavily-inked entity ostensibly
minding his own business at a corner.
The very first thought that indubitably springs
to the mind of many a non-tattooed layperson
would be that the man is a criminal. If he is not
already one, he must surely possess the
propensity to perpetuate crime.
The plausible possibility that the man is, in all
actuality, a very successful tattoo artist -
scrupulously particular both in the discipline he
enforces on his lifestyle and work ethics - would
not strike the non tattooed layperson’s mind.
So, tattoos are BAAAAD. Naturally, tattoo artists
must be BAAAAD. Right? Now hold up just a minute!
To demystify the enigma that is the community of
tattoo artists, it must be understood that
understanding their shared and individual
identities, lived realities and values are
central towards the differentiation between
deviance and mere difference. A tattoo artist
embodies free expression and individualism as the
perpetuator of the craft in tattoo artistry,
considering that he experiences mixed emotions in
his daily job scope. Tattoos go through both
societal reception and rejection: to people
without tattoos, conforming to the common
perception of the tattoo artist’s role as one
with a basis in decadence and flamboyance is
almost ubiquitous; to the tattooed population,
however, the tattoo artist plays a role that
carries fundamental significance to the entirety
of tattoo artistry itself.
While the nature of his job requires working
against expectations of social norms, the tattoo
artist derives job satisfaction ultimately from a
piece well done. Pride in the artistry of his
trade is paralleled by the ability to outperform
the label(s) imposed on tattoos. To highlight, it
is through a barrage of obstacles, latent or
otherwise, that the average professional tattoo
artist earns his or her title and status.
Difficulty encountered both via the obtainment
and duration in the tattoo artist’s
apprenticeship; the subsequent obligatory bond
with the mentor (who is almost surely the owner
of his apprentice’s workplace); different and
differing day-to-day dilemmas in potential
conflicts between tattoo artists themselves and
between the artist and his clients; the actuality
of being subjected to societal stigmatization and
scrutiny as the perpetuator of this alleged
deviant profession; the stressful maintenance of
tact and diplomacy in dealing with a myriad
variety of clients; and generally coupled with
the usual problems faced by the average
Singaporean. Upon these issues and the immense
pressure and gruelling challenges generated
henceforth, it is perhaps justifiable only to
call them deviant because they do not live with
what the legitimate society come to recognize as
tolerable emotional strain. Apart from the
seeming deviance in bearing with such stress -
suppressed or otherwise - in their lived
realities, it is to be argued that they are
merely different from the social audience who
labels them in adherence to the notion proposed
by moral entrepreneurs.
From its primitive origins of indicating identity
and status in the tribal community, tattoos have
since moved on to be often seen as indicators of
criminal deviance. There is visibly no direct
crime involved with tattoo artistry itself; in
the unlikeliest of all cases, if the act of
marking one’s skin is to be subjected to lawful
prosecution, tattoo artistry will at most suffice
to be a victimless crime.
It is through a temporal transition of gradual
labelling that tattoos come to be coloured with
closely knitted connections with criminality.
Akin to this erosion of branding, tattoo artists -
being the primary central to tattoo artistry -
end up being perceived as being connected to
criminality too, either through the tattoos they
wear or the art they tattoo, or even the parlor
they work in. The tattoo artist, by perpetuating
the tattoo, is by no way involved in the tattooed
individual’s actions in the legitimate society.
The artist is merely practicing his craft; the
tattoo has no life on its own to influence its
bearer’s action. It is the tattooed individual
who is responsible for his/her own actions.
To put it but simply, the primary source of
labelling comes from legitimate society which may
be influenced by its elitist moral entrepreneurs.
It is from here that the tattooed population are
conferred a label whose nature is chiefly based
on the ownership of tattoos; the act of wearing
ink on one’s skin, as suggested in the aforesaid,
is in itself considered deviant due to common
association of tattoos with crime. To the average
tattooed person, his or her tattoo artist appears
to them as a different breed altogether.
The common trait that most artist share in their
perchance in the acquisition of much more tattoos
than their average clients has led to the
consequent and consequential labelling by the
latter. This practice can be traced to the
artists’ individual indulgence in the passionate
pursuit of their own craft, or the will to mark
themselves apart from the average tattooed person
in respect for their position.
The social world of tattoo artists centres on the
production of a unique cultural context. The
artistry, the passion behind it, the tattooing
process and the product of it all contribute to
the formation of this particular genre of self-
expression.
Well, perhaps it would be most apt to reiterate
the idea of "tattooed people not complaining
about non-tattooed people’s lack of skin
decoration" - in that it cast a light on this
following (friendly) reminder to all those
ignorant muthafu#kas out there who thrives on an
anti-ink policy: STOP HOLDING STRONG FU#KING
OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU FU#KING KNOW FU#K-ALL
ABOUT!!!
Well here's a very interesting writeup by someone else. Talks about people's perspective thoughts against tattoos. Personally, i love this one alot and its been with me for awhile now.
haa And this was how i escaped endless preachings from my parents...
“For we live in a world of ‘cultural relativity’
and the whole furniture of earth and choir of
heaven are to be described and discussed as they
are conceived by men. Caviar is not a delicacy to
the general [population]. Cows are not food to
the Hindu. Mohammed is not the prophet of God to
me. To an atheist, God is not God at all.”
(Faris, 1937: p. 150 - 151)
Impression is a matter of interpretation.
Picture this heavily-inked entity ostensibly
minding his own business at a corner.
The very first thought that indubitably springs
to the mind of many a non-tattooed layperson
would be that the man is a criminal. If he is not
already one, he must surely possess the
propensity to perpetuate crime.
The plausible possibility that the man is, in all
actuality, a very successful tattoo artist -
scrupulously particular both in the discipline he
enforces on his lifestyle and work ethics - would
not strike the non tattooed layperson’s mind.
So, tattoos are BAAAAD. Naturally, tattoo artists
must be BAAAAD. Right? Now hold up just a minute!
To demystify the enigma that is the community of
tattoo artists, it must be understood that
understanding their shared and individual
identities, lived realities and values are
central towards the differentiation between
deviance and mere difference. A tattoo artist
embodies free expression and individualism as the
perpetuator of the craft in tattoo artistry,
considering that he experiences mixed emotions in
his daily job scope. Tattoos go through both
societal reception and rejection: to people
without tattoos, conforming to the common
perception of the tattoo artist’s role as one
with a basis in decadence and flamboyance is
almost ubiquitous; to the tattooed population,
however, the tattoo artist plays a role that
carries fundamental significance to the entirety
of tattoo artistry itself.
While the nature of his job requires working
against expectations of social norms, the tattoo
artist derives job satisfaction ultimately from a
piece well done. Pride in the artistry of his
trade is paralleled by the ability to outperform
the label(s) imposed on tattoos. To highlight, it
is through a barrage of obstacles, latent or
otherwise, that the average professional tattoo
artist earns his or her title and status.
Difficulty encountered both via the obtainment
and duration in the tattoo artist’s
apprenticeship; the subsequent obligatory bond
with the mentor (who is almost surely the owner
of his apprentice’s workplace); different and
differing day-to-day dilemmas in potential
conflicts between tattoo artists themselves and
between the artist and his clients; the actuality
of being subjected to societal stigmatization and
scrutiny as the perpetuator of this alleged
deviant profession; the stressful maintenance of
tact and diplomacy in dealing with a myriad
variety of clients; and generally coupled with
the usual problems faced by the average
Singaporean. Upon these issues and the immense
pressure and gruelling challenges generated
henceforth, it is perhaps justifiable only to
call them deviant because they do not live with
what the legitimate society come to recognize as
tolerable emotional strain. Apart from the
seeming deviance in bearing with such stress -
suppressed or otherwise - in their lived
realities, it is to be argued that they are
merely different from the social audience who
labels them in adherence to the notion proposed
by moral entrepreneurs.
From its primitive origins of indicating identity
and status in the tribal community, tattoos have
since moved on to be often seen as indicators of
criminal deviance. There is visibly no direct
crime involved with tattoo artistry itself; in
the unlikeliest of all cases, if the act of
marking one’s skin is to be subjected to lawful
prosecution, tattoo artistry will at most suffice
to be a victimless crime.
It is through a temporal transition of gradual
labelling that tattoos come to be coloured with
closely knitted connections with criminality.
Akin to this erosion of branding, tattoo artists -
being the primary central to tattoo artistry -
end up being perceived as being connected to
criminality too, either through the tattoos they
wear or the art they tattoo, or even the parlor
they work in. The tattoo artist, by perpetuating
the tattoo, is by no way involved in the tattooed
individual’s actions in the legitimate society.
The artist is merely practicing his craft; the
tattoo has no life on its own to influence its
bearer’s action. It is the tattooed individual
who is responsible for his/her own actions.
To put it but simply, the primary source of
labelling comes from legitimate society which may
be influenced by its elitist moral entrepreneurs.
It is from here that the tattooed population are
conferred a label whose nature is chiefly based
on the ownership of tattoos; the act of wearing
ink on one’s skin, as suggested in the aforesaid,
is in itself considered deviant due to common
association of tattoos with crime. To the average
tattooed person, his or her tattoo artist appears
to them as a different breed altogether.
The common trait that most artist share in their
perchance in the acquisition of much more tattoos
than their average clients has led to the
consequent and consequential labelling by the
latter. This practice can be traced to the
artists’ individual indulgence in the passionate
pursuit of their own craft, or the will to mark
themselves apart from the average tattooed person
in respect for their position.
The social world of tattoo artists centres on the
production of a unique cultural context. The
artistry, the passion behind it, the tattooing
process and the product of it all contribute to
the formation of this particular genre of self-
expression.
Well, perhaps it would be most apt to reiterate
the idea of "tattooed people not complaining
about non-tattooed people’s lack of skin
decoration" - in that it cast a light on this
following (friendly) reminder to all those
ignorant muthafu#kas out there who thrives on an
anti-ink policy: STOP HOLDING STRONG FU#KING
OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU FU#KING KNOW FU#K-ALL
ABOUT!!!