Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Tattoo Views

I'm not sure it's 'older people' olleyjp. Where I live there are 'older people' (i.e. my age ) covered in tats & piercings who clearly have no problem with it. I hesitate to use the "C" word, but my perception is that it's more of a "Class" thing. Look at the "Ruling Class" (Politicians etc). How many openly display tats (or piercings)? And yet in my nearest town, and in Sheffield, the majority of people seem to be adorned.
There - another DaveW ramble.

its funny how things have changed... the tattoo fad in england was started when the prince of wales in 1862 got a tattoo of a cross on his arm. suddenly there were tattoos popping up all over the english aristocracy. and yet now - as dave pointed out - its been completely turned on its head

I can tell you studied History Young one, nice facts.
For me I got Tattoos out of my system as a lad during the 50's craze for wearing transfers. Very colorful and everyone below teenage wore them on the arms and face mainly. I wore mine on the forearms where dad had his rope and anchor and submariner tatts. I got a clip round the ear at school if yesterdays transfers had not washed off by the next day. I tried the self tattoo love heart with school pen nib and ink but they never lasted and were always a mess.
I have to say I was fascinated watching the Tattoo artist at work on Clarence Pier Southsea, mostly sailors and the occasional tattooed lady of pleasure.
Like smoking, I never wanted to join, I became a beatnik rebellious of everything and anything others were doing. The Haka would not be the same though without some body art.
When asked for identifying features, mine is a large hidden scar so I don't need anything else. Lastly, the mention of tattoos and I am reminded of the 'Wendy' joke to bring a smile to my face.

Indeed you are right, tattooing was the reserve of the aristocracy and the upper classes as they were the only ones that could afford it.

Now tattooing has become very open to everyone, but i personally dont think class has anything to do with it, as i do know many people that are upper class and high middle class that are tattoo'd and from my experience in tattoo parlours themselves there are a lot of people from this class range that inquire and then get tattoo'd.

The reason i put forth my suggestion that it is age related is . . .
a, due to tattoo views and what they represented from the 1950's to the late 80's is very different to what it is now. They were still very much associated with criminals and social delinquints.

b, Different styles of tattooing have become displayed meaning people have more access to designs and styles such as japanese/mauri/tribal/black and grey/portrait. These have greatly evolved from the initial "flash art" that so many people have come to regret.
This has also come with the evolution of tattoo artists having a technical and artistic background which enables the artist to give an even more detailed and intricate design.

As for this common "fad" of tribal, it is generally a design that is free handed (drawn straight onto the skin by the artist) to give a totally unique and individual design. This style has its roots that lie in french polynesia with the Mauri. This style of bold lines represented many different things and depending on what the client wants will depend on the design and generally its placement. It is becoming quite common now but it is a very simple basis that can create many amazing designs.

http://www.motionbox.com/videos/0a9ddbb6...w.beboframe.com

There's a video of my leg being done a couple of years ago. Will see if i can get some photos of my back which is done in full japanese style.

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.

Simon, thats a very sound and good response. Thank you for your insight.

Threads like this are great as it is open to people all over the world with the open oppertunity to read and comment on everyone elses opinions and with this it then evolves onto other points that weren't initially thought of.

I definately agree with your three categories. And indeed now with these programs (not so much london ink because its rubbish haha) it does show more reasoning behind why people get tattoos and what they represent and now how popular the art is becoming!

Will definately keep updates of my dissertation in this thread and will see if i can make an electronic version available once its finnished (dont hold your breath, i've got til christmas haha)

But if i can get the help of people later on (month or so's time, i will be conducting interviews and questionnaires (can be done by e-mail) That would be very muh appreciated!

Olly, I have been asking myself, what is wrong with tattoo's then?
I see you have a few yourself, so we have to tread carefully.



I am off one one, bare with me please. I think getting tatood and wanting it to be "accepted" could be a bit at odds with eachother. I cant see that stigma changing much. It might not be exactly a class thing but a group thing. Isn't society all about belonging to a certain group and distinguishing yourself from other groups. Whether that is good or bad, it must be embedded in our genes from when we were living in trees. Not surprising then maybe, that people who dinstinguish themselves from the mainstream with obvious tattoo's will be viewed with a bit of reserve by the the rest? It is not like you are wearing odd socks.

So why is it often not very positive vibes? I asked around a bit here at work (all middle aged men)to get a general opinion (and to hide in the crowd a bit) Using Simons useful groupings;

The "rites of pasasage" group.
Maybe with exeption for the drunken sailor with an anchor and his mothers name on his arm, these types of tattoos are usually associated with less adapted groups of people and they appear to be saying "I am different/brave/tough/bad" For them, the stigma you want to get rid of is part of the reason to get tattood.

The fashion group;
Copying the celebs, generally regarded "a bit silly, maybe even sad" And concens, "what will it look like in 10/20/30 years". p.s. I was told Kelly Osbourne is just comming out with regrets and asking her fans not to get tattoos? p.p.s The tattoo programs on TV dont do anything to change my views. I saw an episode with an emotional story about loved ones or lost ones and that is justification to get some big tatto done? That is fine, everyone has their own reasons, but it does give out that "message".

The art group;
When it is small and discrete and of high quality, no negative vibes.

Hope this mini-poll helps. Good luck with your work, JJW

Cheers JJW and thank you for putting in a wee bit of leg work!
I personally have never wanted tattoo's to "belong". i have always appreciated the art and due to being a "metal head" at school the groups i was exposed to were all tattoo'd rockers. This just furthered my interest in tattooing as a medium (as well as being a huge art fan and love drawing/designing etc)

So although i have a few large designs, they are all personal to me.
I do think that the views are changing and it will be good to get peoples opinions across ages to see what they think, then again this will always be influenced on what the person has been influenced to.

Very interesting thread, I must say. I think Simon has summed things up very well.

In New Zealand, I live in a society where a significant number of people are tattooed because it is traditional - the Maori hhave been doing it very a 1000 years. In their case, tattoos are often the story of their ancestry. Many older women wear moko - markings on their chin.

For more details see http://www.maoriart.org.nz/noticeboard/te_uhi/faq

These styles of tattoo are very accepted in NZ, as are other polynesian forms around arms or legs.

IMHO, males with face tattoos are following a warrior tradition and are trying to intimidate - usually very successfully (usually gang members).

If think the gang use of tattoos has influenced most people's reaction to tattoos in general, and creates a negative response. Often this occurs as part of our instant judgement of someone, even before we get to review the 'art' of display.

Another aspect for the general negative response to tattoos may well be that they mark someone as being 'different' and outside to norm - something most people are uncomfortable with and tend to avoid being associated with.

I look forward to your results.