By utilizing my own photography, this blog will examine the powerful communicative role that images and art have in our society. Although the power of the image is a world-wide phenomenon, this blog will focus on the Omaha, Nebraska metro area. The first segment of this exploration will look at a medium that many may not consider art - or even an image: the tattoo. I hope to spend considerable time at local tattoo shops interviewing and photographing artists and those who wear the art on their bodies. This will help us understand the culture that surrounds tattoos, as well as the messages that tattoos convey.
Although I personally dabbled in getting tattoos before I met my current tattoo artist, Bob Parr (pictured below), it was not until I began speaking with him in 2006 that I began to fully understand the power and artistry of tattoos. Parr began as a traditional artist working on canvas after receiving his BFA in studio art from Iowa State University in 1998. However, after getting tattooed himself - he discovered his love for the living canvass instead. Parr grounds his respect for the medium in the long historical tradition that it has. No image, Parr says, can covey as much power as one that a human is willing to display on their bodies for life.
I find this to be a compelling argument, although I would have to argue that the power of art is a completely subjective concept. However, what I do not find to be all that subjective is the theory put forth by cultural theorist Stuart Hall, which states that all images are infused with meaning by the producer of that image. I think this is especially true in the world of tattoos. I will grant that not all tattoos have meaning - some are done for purely aesthetic reasons. Still, the majority of tattoos in one way or another are attempting to convey a meaning to those who wear it, and to those who view it.
I also believe that tattoos fly in the face of any philosophy which would state that art must reach a particular ideal to be considered true art. Tattoos, once delegated to the criminal and lower classes of society, have reached far beyond their origins and are now challenging that stereotype as they gain acceptance with even the most prominent professions. On another note, new media artist Douglas Davis states that digital reproduction of original works carries just as much artistic value as an original. I believe this can be seen not only in better digital reproduction, but also better tattoo technology. Through better designed tattoo guns, inks and needles, artists are more capable than ever to reproduce original artwork on the human canvas. As an example, I have provided a tattoo on my own body - which is a reproduction of a painting by Alex Grey. I find the work of Grey to be extremely moving - and to wear a work of his art means more to me than owning it in poster form.
I think Bob's comment about the power of someone being willing to put an image on their body is very interesting. It struck me as only partially accurate though. I find purposeful, meaningful tattoos very interesting. In fact, I've wanted to get one myself but can't bring myself to endure the pain I've been told it'd cause (the foot I want it on is covered in scar tissue). However, I know that far too many tattoos aren’t created with thought and intention. Too often they’re gotten in drunken, or otherwise altered, states and the tattoos are more about having fun getting it than what the image means. My question then is are those types of tattoos still art? And what type of message do they portray?
ReplyDeleteYour post also raised another question in my mind. One of the discussions I found interesting in class is that of ‘who is the producer?’ So I wonder, who really is the creator of a tattoo? Is it the person who comes up with the idea and is willing to let their body be a canvas? The person who actually creates the picture? Or maybe both? And if it is both, I wonder how the interaction between them influences the final appearance and its intended meaning.