Skyla asked: Do you think the body is a blank canvass for self-expression or should people respect their natural selves and leave expression to painting, writing, sculpting and other forms of creating tangible art objects?
I think this is an issue entirely dependent on cultural setting.
If one could somehow travel back to Victorian England, it would be unheard of, obscene, even, to tattoo one's body if one were a member of the royal court. Tattooing would have been seen as unclean, heathenistic. Those most commonly tattooed in this time period were those who were members of freak shows or the like.
Tattoos in our society today have almost strictly a cosmetic or sentimental value, but historically they have been used for many other purposes. Tattoos commonly marked life achievements or landmarks: coming of age, successful big-game hunts, fertility, etc. They also were thought amongst some peoples to bring luck to their bearer. They have also been used to mark convicts or exiles, or, even more perversely, as means of identification, such as during the holocaust.
Tattoos, in all forms past and present, are a form of communication. The bearer of the tattoo has a piece of information to be shared, and this is shared via their tattoo: "love me, stay away from me, look at my originality, see my religious zeal, understand the extent of my love for another, et al."
My Question: Because of this double nature, the art and the communication, are tattoos stronger in their artness? Is the message of the tattoo irrelevant in weighing its success as a piece of art?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment