What an interesting thread.
James, perhaps when you've finished your dissertation you can give us a précised version.
I'll add my comments, as a 38-year old man, to this thread: -
Imho, tattoos fall into 3 very vague and stereotypically led camps: - old, 'fashion' and art.
Old - tattoos that were done before ink technology was as good as it is today - therefore they blur and loose colour as the body tries to break down the ink. These seem to be most prominent on older members of the forces, merchant navy, 'hard men' and people who have done time inside. I view these as a rite of passage, a mark in time and/or a symbol of belonging. Like many things vintage, I am very interested in what these images represent and the stories behind them.
Fashion - the best example I can think of is tribal art - in particular just above the trouser time on the lower back for women. I actually wonder whether they had a factory conveyor stamping these on 20-something women at a point in time. I dislike these tattoos because it is less about individuality and more about fitting into a certain mould. They remind me of the story of McDonalds and the entrepreneur Ray Kroc - along with the McDonald brothers they wanted to rebel against the restaurant industry and revolutionise food; however, in time, the rebels became the icon of normality: dull, corporate and about as far from counter-culture as you could get.
Art - These tend to be more modern tattoos. The artistic quality of the piece being made possible by advances in needle machines and the quality of the ink. I have seen some pieces that have had as much thought and talent go into them as any piece of 'fine' art that is hung on a wall. (It is important to note that many tattooist also seem to be painters or artists in another medium). These pieces also seem to have a lot of thought that has gone into the subject matter (by the recipient as well as the artist).
That, I believe, is the crux of it for me... if there is a strong meaning behind the tattoo, I can appreciate it for what it is; however, when it is a ubiquitous 'statement', I cannot.
I do believe that people can be prejudiced against people who have them and judge them (stereotype) the person because of it; however, the same could be said for the way people dress, the style (colour) of their hair. I have people within my company who have client facing roles and they have tattoos; however, most are covered and when showing would be quite subtle and restrained. Again, I believe people will judge the content of the tattoo before forming an opinion of the person. A negative reaction would come from having LOVE/HATE on your fingers, where as a small butterfly on a woman's wrist wouldn't have the same reaction.
Programs like Miami Ink / LA Ink have opened the industry up to a much wider audience. Both programs help to explain the motivation/stories behind many of the images and again, I think this goes a long way to breaking down perceptions of the 'owner'.
There is my rambling response.
