I’ve finally finished the doco on my community. Breaking The Taboo has explored briefly on the evolution of tattoos, identified issues the community still encounters in today’s society and also the different perception Western and Eastern countries in particualr the Chinese viewed tattoos. It has been an interesting journey researching on the history of tattoos. I never knew it went through so much ‘ups and downs’.
Almost there.
I have just finished editing the History of Tattoo section of my doco and by far (apart from the images issue) was another area which i encounter problems. It was not technical problems that i encountered. It was the problem of choice. You see, it turns out, the history of tattoos goes way back to the bronze age (that was the earliest i could find) and it wasnt confined to just one locale and race. In fact, countries from all over the world practiced this ancient art form. So, the dilemma i had with this was choosing which history to incorporate into my doco. But im glad to say that i’ve sorted it out.
Tattoos and antisocial behaviour
It has long been perceived that tattoos are linked to antisocial behaviour. This notion has its origin from society’s history where it was marked on the bodies of slaves, criminals, prostitutes, primitive tribes and later on deviant sub-cultures. Hence, it is only natural that negative connotations were attached to the art of tattooing by the public. Moreover, studies have also been done to prove that individuals with tattoos are more at risk of being engaged in antisocial activities (such as the one done by Aldis Putnins in ‘At risks’ youths & Tattoos).
However, does having a tattoo(s) really mean you will commit some kind of antisocial activity in the future? Personally, i know a lot of people with tattoos and they don’t engage in such behaviours unless you count smoking, drinking and swearing to be it.
This lead me to wonder why are people with tattoos are being discriminated based on their looks?Why are they accused to be the most at risk in carrying out antisocial behaviour when there are also those without tattoos who does the same thing. Is it because tattooed people are ‘out there’ (in terms of appearance) whereas non-tattooed individuals are seen to be more normal that they become the scapegoat?
Images issue resolved
I finally solve the problem i was having with the use of images. Previously, i had a minor problem with who’s tattoo images to incorporate into my doco, fearing that i would suffer some form of repercussion if proper permission were not acquired. I decided to ask for some help from the tattoo community i joined (mind you, these are people i have not personally met, only through online communication) and they were generous enough to offer their pictures to help me out on their doco. So, im really happy that i have resolved my images dilemma in the end.
On different note: Tattooed people are not ‘hardcore, badass, dangerous’, etc (the classic labeling on these people) based on this experience alone. They are really helpful and passionate people.
Bridging and Bonding
In regards to the theory of bridging and bonding, i think the tattoo community i’m doing is leaning more on bridging. This i can confirm based on the experience i had from joining one of the tattoo community website (Tattoo Tv). Being a member of this community, i discovered that it is made up of different type of people (not homogenous).Yet, they are very generous and helpful in giving opinions and welcoming new members, sharing tattoo ideas and their experiences in getting tattooed. This is definately their way of bridging.
However, i think the theory of bonding can also be used in certain context such as when it involves members of elite gangs (Hells Angel). Members of this group normally possesses numerous tattoos and the community is very homogenous and closed.
Story telling
There really is an abundant of reasons why people get tattoos. Apart from the standard motivation such as “because it looks good”; being perceived as ‘cool’ and membership- tattoos are also used to tell a person’s life story.
Atte Oksanen and Jussi Turtiainen in ‘ A Life Told in Ink’ termed it as tattoo narrative whereby people get tattooed in order to plot their life. Its a symbol and link to an individual’s personal life history as well as an opportunity for subjective security.
However, the meanings of the tattoos (for those who acquired it based on the reason of story telling) are only known to the tattooee themselves as well as the people close to them. Strangers will normally perceive and interpret them in a different light.
This idea of tattoo being a “battleground of contradictory meanings” (mentioned by Oksanen and Turtianen) can be applied within this situation. The proverb ‘ dont judge a book by its cover’ can even be applied to tattooed individuals because strangers should not categorize or stereotype a person with tattoos without understanding the reason and motivation behind it first.
So Misunderstood
I came across this paragraph from an article by Michael Atkinson which i think portrayed how the act of tattooing is so misunderstood in today’s society.
“Deviant or not, tattooing is a deeply historical and unique form of human representation. As a species, we mark our bodies in order to signify our humanity, to express and communicate our sociality as we do through sculpture, architecture, painting, speech, dance, cinema or gesture. For too long sociologists has downplayed the (cross) cultural significance of tattooing, favouring depictions of the tattoo as a symbol of personal sickness, subcultural deviance, or social disrepute.”
Images dilemma
One of my concern at this point is figuring out who’s images i should use.Should i take pictures from people i know with tattoos (which is not alot) or online? Which source should i choose from?
The other issue of copyright and plagiarism is a huge worry of mine as it is easy to get images i want online with just a click on the mouse. It doesn’t help that there is countless pictures available without sources such as those found on google images. This is something i have to figure out soon.
Twitter excitement?not me.
Personally, i don’t understand why is everyone fussing over Twitter. There is nothing remotely interesting about it, except the fact that you’re updated instantly on what is happening with your friends, your favourite magazine, celebrities, etc- apart from that, twitter doesnt offer any other applications (unlike Facebook or MySpace). All it is, is just another social networking site that offers people the opportunity to ‘broadcast’ every single minute of their life (if they choose to) or promote stuff (celebrity twitter or magazines).
Contrary to how i feel about this ‘new and hip’ social networking site, i jumped into the bandwagon just to have a look. I mostly ‘followed’ people involved in tattoos (for my doco) and one or two celebrity (to see what they write about). The end result- i still stand by my original notion. There is one good thing which i get out of it- instand update on any new information, tattoo videos, etc in Tattoo TV ( a very informative tattoo community website).
Expression of individual identity
I’ve noticed that the trend in tattoos these days are more of an articulation in personal identity than those associated with the ‘negative’ perceptions. This is not to say that it does not exist- but there’s more to it now. Inking one’s skin is no longer about belonging in a group (although that is still one of the main reasons), but its also about marking a memory;a period of an individual’s life in ink.
