Tip for Tats

IS A TATTOO ART?

: “I don’t give a shit about ‘celebrity’ tattooers, tattoo shows or mud wrestling… Maybe next year we could try promoting, celebrating and inviting exceptional international artists?” Fuck your festival

: “Art, n. skill, esp. human skill as opposed to nature; skilful execution as an object in itself; skill applied to imitation & design, as in painting etc.” Concise Oxford Dictionary

: “tattoo, n & v – a mark on skin made by inserting indelible pigments in punctures.” Concise Oxford Dictionary

Is a tattoo art and the tattooer thereby an artist? Clearly, the poster doesn’t think so. He equates it with “mud wrestling,” a low, crude activity and contrasts both with the work of exceptional international artists. But he gives no reasons for his dismissal of the tattoo. On what grounds does he make the claim? The issue calls for an exercise in conceptual clarification. What, then, are the criteria of art and does the tattoo satisfy them and so win the accolade?

There can be no question that the tattoo is an artifact, an object not found in in nature but rather one which is the product of human activity, a skill of some sort. But does the skill involved in producing a tattoo rise to the level of art? In other words, assuming that all skills do not embody art – one thinks, for example, of the “skilful plumber” – at what point does a skill become an art?

There is an obvious sense in which the tattoo, conceived as an object in itself, can well be the product of a skill applied to imitation and design as in a painting. Indeed, as in the case of modern art, the tattoo can go beyond mere imitation and design and embody the tattooer’s imagination, a non-representational depiction of his take on reality itself. So far there seems to be no reason why the tattoo, at least potentially, should not be considered art and the tattooer not an artist. However, one hesitates to quickly award the accolade. Why is this so?

The tattooer tattoos another person. While the tattooer’s tattoo conceived as an object in itself might win the accolade, one must also factor in the tattooed, the person whose skin has been punctured by those indelible pigments. In effect, he (or she) is little more than the tattooer’s canvas, a passive recipient of the artist’s skilful efforts. The tattoo must not be conceived in isolation, simply as an object in itself. Rather it must be conceived as a comprehensive entity, as a product considered jointly both as an object in itself and as the medium in terms of which that object is displayed. This bi-focal, comprehensive conception of the tattoo entails reflection on the quality of the tattooed, the kind of person whose skin has been punctured by those indelible pigments.

Perhaps the poster’s mud wrestling analogy was not far off the mark. Generally speaking, the tattooed is a low, mindless idiot, one who possesses little in the way of reflective awareness. In a childish fashion, he is delighted with the design on his skin in the same way that a child is delighted with a coloured ball. If one were to ask him why he got the tattoo in the first place, he would be unable to reply in any meaningful fashion simply because he does not act on the basis of reasons. In his stupified way he can only say that his tattoo is “beautiful”. He fails to understand that this can never be the case. By definition a tattoo is not beautiful but rather it is a disfigurement, a blight on the skin on the tattooed and so it fails to win the accolade of being an instance of art properly conceived.

My guess is that the tattoo is to be found most commonly among the lower orders of society. Places like the Halifax Underclass, of course, come immediately to mind.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Actually, I’ve always preferred Pimms #1 Cup.