I don't think that's the case really. I'm 43, so not a vast amount younger than you, and me and most of my friends have tattoos, they're just not in obviously visible places in the most cases.
That's fair enough then. It's difficult enough making any kind of judgment on how widespread they are in the street if the tats are concealed. Either that or the craze started in the four years between our ages.
That's fair enough then. It's difficult enough making any kind of judgment on how widespread they are in the street if the tats are concealed. Either that or the craze started in the four years between our ages.
I think there's probably more of a trend for an outwardly visible tattoo at the moment, the full sleeve etc. When I got my tattoo I got it on my right shoulder, somewhere which could be visible if I chose it to be but which could also be easily covered up.
My friends have theirs on the back, inner wrist (again a small one which isn't obvious unless you know it's there), on the ankle, foot or upper thigh, all places which are either easily covered or the tattoo itself is pretty small.
Also most of ours are simple black ink, there does seem to be more of a trend towards coloured tattoos at the moment and to more of a "picture" style.
Have thought of having a couple of small ones done but the thing in my mind is 'What will I feel like with them in a couple of decades' time'? Saw a young girl, recently, all dressed up like a doll (kind of Paloma Faith style) but with fresh tattoos covering most of her arms and legs. She was about 20 and looked very 'arty'. They kind of looked fresh and vibrant and complimented her youth, in some way. All the same, if she feels differently in 20-30 years, it would be painful and expensive to get them removed.
The bf has a couple of decent-sized ones on his arms but each of them means something very significant to him and they really 'go' with who he is.
I'm not a great fan, and have only toyed with the idea of having them done but am not-anti tatts either. All the same, don't some of them fade over time? I've been put off by seeing some that just look like mucky marks, from a distance. Do they need to be kept up to, to keep their 'colours'? Bf says he will have to have one of his 'topped up' in a few years, because it is likely to fade.
Have thought of having a couple of small ones done but the thing in my mind is 'What will I feel like with them in a couple of decades' time'? Saw a young girl, recently, all dressed up like a doll (kind of Paloma Faith style) but with fresh tattoos covering most of her arms and legs. She was about 20 and looked very 'arty'. They kind of looked fresh and vibrant and complimented her youth, in some way. All the same, if she feels differently in 20-30 years, it would be painful and expensive to get them removed.
The bf has a couple of decent-sized ones on his arms but each of them means something very significant to him and they really 'go' with who he is.
I'm not a great fan, and have only toyed with the idea of having them done but am not-anti tatts either. All the same, don't some of them fade over time? I've been put off by seeing some that just look like mucky marks, from a distance. Do they need to be kept up to, to keep their 'colours'? Bf says he will have to have one of his 'topped up' in a few years, because it is likely to fade.
Coloured ones can fade yes, another of the reasons why mine are simple black and shaded ink.
There's going to be a generation of sad old women covered in ink. It seems every decent looking (and beastly) girl these days is covered in tacky drawings.
I would wager a large proportion of them don't particularly like tattoos but they are such pathetic sheep that they are prepared to destroy their skin to look cool and current.
Have thought of having a couple of small ones done but the thing in my mind is 'What will I feel like with them in a couple of decades' time'? Saw a young girl, recently, all dressed up like a doll (kind of Paloma Faith style) but with fresh tattoos covering most of her arms and legs. She was about 20 and looked very 'arty'. They kind of looked fresh and vibrant and complimented her youth, in some way. All the same, if she feels differently in 20-30 years, it would be painful and expensive to get them removed.
The bf has a couple of decent-sized ones on his arms but each of them means something very significant to him and they really 'go' with who he is.
I'm not a great fan, and have only toyed with the idea of having them done but am not-anti tatts either. All the same, don't some of them fade over time? I've been put off by seeing some that just look like mucky marks, from a distance. Do they need to be kept up to, to keep their 'colours'? Bf says he will have to have one of his 'topped up' in a few years, because it is likely to fade.
Yes, colours need to be touched up. The irony is having your tattoos showing means they are exposed to the sun and bleach out quicker. This is why originally tattoos, if not on the warrior caste, were on the back, on the buttocks, thighs and down to the knee so they could be covered with robes and so only the truly worthy or trusted could dare ask to see your tattoos. Mine ink cannot be seen unless I show you, even wearing a T shirt they are obscured.
Sadly the culture of tattoos is not as respected as it should be which is why half of the people over 40 in Essex have Tweety Bird on their calves, barbed wire on the biceps and dolphins by their belly buttons if they are female, leaping panthers and bad tribal tattoos if they are male.
There's going to be a generation of sad old women covered in ink. It seems every decent looking (and beastly) girl these days is covered in tacky drawings.
I would wager a large proportion of them don't particularly like tattoos but they are such pathetic sheep that they are prepared to destroy their skin to look cool and current.
I doubt people would want a tattoo if they are that against it plus when you are old you are more likely to be worried about other stuff then a tattoo
Yes, colours need to be touched up. The irony is having your tattoos showing means they are exposed to the sun and bleach out quicker. This is why originally tattoos, if not on the warrior caste, were on the back, on the buttocks, thighs and down to the knee so they could be covered with robes and so only the truly worthy or trusted could dare ask to see your tattoos. Mine ink cannot be seen unless I show you, even wearing a T shirt they are obscured.
Sadly the culture of tattoos is not as respected as it should be which is why half of the people over 40 in Essex have Tweety Bird on their calves, barbed wire on the biceps and dolphins by their belly buttons if they are female, leaping panthers and bad tribal tattoos if they are male.
Interesting stuff, Declan. From the assortment of people I've seen with tattoos, some peoples' definitely look better than others. One of the most interesting 'works in progress' I saw was a guy I knew who was having a William Blake painting done all down his right arm. He kept running out of money to get extra bits done but I never saw it finished because he changed jobs.
When I got my 6th one done 2 weeks ago, my particular tattooist had a fully booked diary, he is the best around here and the love he puts into each tattoo is obvious. There is a difference to a reputable tattooist and just a tattooist.
I had my first when I was 15, next one when I was 17, then 18. 21, 24 and my latest one at 26.
I love my first tattoo as much as I love my last one. Chances are I will get more but for now I'm happy with what I have. I don't make the decision to get a tattoo lightly a lot of thought and consideration goes into what I want to get, why I want to get it and where I will get it.
Most of mine are in places I can show off if I wish but also cover up as well. I have one on my wrist and the inside of my other wrist visible with my uniform on but it has caused no problems for me.
Interesting stuff, Declan. From the assortment of people I've seen with tattoos, some peoples' definitely look better than others.
Well prominent tattoos were originally meant to be intimidating. The higher castes had them hidden. I have a fairly large coffee table book on the history of tattoos as well as a collection of the world's notable current and former artists. I feel if you are going to do something which requires such serious commitment, you'd better invest the time and money in knowing what you are dealing with first. Just like cooking, painting or any real for of art, I think respecting the roots and understanding the masters that lay the groundwork for the culture is important. Everything from the placement to the design should matter if you are serious about the art form. Just like you shouldn't wear tartan of a clan you don't belong to or wearing symbols of cultures you don't represent, I don't think you should have tattoo designs of tribes you aren't descended from or related to by blood.
I personally find getting another person's face or an existing logo/character of a band or brand is undermining your own status if you're basically providing free life long advertising on your body without being compensated. I think the idea of having something someone else has down to the smallest detail because you've no creativity and just picked something of a wall is just sad. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their own body but I think any form of art should be an expression and extension of yourself, your beliefs, your history and your culture. Unless you're a Warner Bros trust fund child, having Tweety Bird makes no sense to me. Unless you're part of the navy or sea rescue, I don't understand having an anchor tattoo. It might look nice but what does it really mean?
Well prominent tattoos were originally meant to be intimidating. The higher castes had them hidden. I have a fairly large coffee table book on the history of tattoos as well as a collection of the world's notable current and former artists. I feel if you are going to do something which requires such serious commitment, you'd better invest the time and money in knowing what you are dealing with first. Just like cooking, painting or any real for of art, I think respecting the roots and understanding the masters that lay the groundwork for the culture is important. Everything from the placement to the design should matter if you are serious about the art form. Just like you shouldn't wear tartan of a clan you don't belong to or wearing symbols of cultures you don't represent, I don't think you should have tattoo designs of tribes you aren't descended from or related to by blood.
I personally find getting another person's face or an existing logo/character of a band or brand is undermining your own status if you're basically providing free life long advertising on your body without being compensated. I think the idea of having something someone else has down to the smallest detail because you've no creativity and just picked something of a wall is just sad. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their own body but I think any form of art should be an expression and extension of yourself, your beliefs, your history and your culture. Unless you're a Warner Bros trust fund child, having Tweety Bird makes no sense to me. Unless you're part of the navy or sea rescue, I don't understand having an anchor tattoo. It might look nice but what does it really mean?
So because you don't understand it, it's automatically a fail!? You'd not understand any of mine, most people don't, but that doesn't mean I should think twice before getting them done. Perhaps the girl with the tweety bird treasures it because it means something to her, perhaps it doesn't, what business is it of yours?
Really wanted a tattoo in my 20s - went as far as visiting the tattoo parlour to flick though their ideas books and discuss bespoke design costs.
Really glad I didn't go though with it (I was only 99% certain I wanted one...you have to be 100% imo). Looking back it was just a fashion thing, I wanted to have a physical mark of my individuality. But of course...that comes from within.
Okay, but do you feel an employer which refused to employ someone with visible tattoos was being equally shallow and judgmental?
It depends on the reason, if an employer refuses to hire the best candidate for no reason other than the fact they have tattoos then I'd not want to work for someone like that, and he's it's shallow and judgemental. However if the business is built upon customer service and thier clientele as likely to be put off buy a tattoo covered individual then I don't have a problem with that, it's a risk I took when getting visible ink.
In my current role my two wrist tattoos show, but the others are covered, however in the heat we were allowed to wear vest tops etc, which meant a few big pieces were on show, I checked with the boss that it was ok, before strolling into work with them all exposed. She was fine with it as they are non offensive (ie no girls with boobs showing etc!) apvht had she of had a problem I'd of kept them covered. I likened it earlier to hair, and it's the same thing, I go from pink to purple to blue colours on my hair, but I would never do so if a client didn't like it, I fact at my interview I stressed that I would dye it back normal colour if needed, which it wasn't, but I don't see any difference, or any more offence needing to be taken if tattoos need covering.
It really isn't. My personal feeling is that it depends on the employer and that tattooed people have no automatic right to be selected for a job for which they feel the visible tat would conflict with the physical image or appearance they want their employees to portray.
Also that people complaining under such circumstances have little comeback if they complain about unfair treatment. My issue is really with this second group of complaining people rather than tattooed people or even tattooed employees in general.
[EDIT]bazaar1 puts it better than I did in the post before mine.
When I got my 6th one done 2 weeks ago, my particular tattooist had a fully booked diary, he is the best around here and the love he puts into each tattoo is obvious. There is a difference to a reputable tattooist and just a tattooist.
I had my first when I was 15, next one when I was 17, then 18. 21, 24 and my latest one at 26.
I have to ask what kind of tattoo artist performs on a 15 year old? Surely, that's illegal? Doesn't sound very "reputable" to me.
Not at all. Whilst the legal age is 18, if you have written consent from a parent then you can get tattoos at a lower age.
1. That's not true at all.
2, I'd question the parent(s) of a 15 year old child who allows him/her to get a tattoo.
The Tattiooing of Minors Act 1969 (and not updated) makes no mention of parental consent. It is 18 years old which leads me to believe your tattoo artist is certainly not reputable.
Not at all. Whilst the legal age is 18, if you have written consent from a parent then you can get tattoos at a lower age.
Since when? I doubt it tbh. Even if that's true what decent tattooist is likely to agree to tattoo a child? I got my first at 16 and lied about my age, of the three of us that went I am the only one that does not regret their tattoo, mainly because I'd been thinking about it for a while, and the other did it on a whim, but in general 15/16 is far too young to be deciding what tattoo to get.
How old do I have to be to get a tattoo? 18 is the minimum age for a tattoo, with or without parental consent. It has been like this since the 1960s and the law is very clear. Anyone (or any studio) that tells you that you can be tattooed at 16 with parental consent instantly falls into the “dodgy” category. If they are slack with this law what else will they be slack with? Sterilisation? Be patient!
Comments
I think there's probably more of a trend for an outwardly visible tattoo at the moment, the full sleeve etc. When I got my tattoo I got it on my right shoulder, somewhere which could be visible if I chose it to be but which could also be easily covered up.
My friends have theirs on the back, inner wrist (again a small one which isn't obvious unless you know it's there), on the ankle, foot or upper thigh, all places which are either easily covered or the tattoo itself is pretty small.
Also most of ours are simple black ink, there does seem to be more of a trend towards coloured tattoos at the moment and to more of a "picture" style.
The bf has a couple of decent-sized ones on his arms but each of them means something very significant to him and they really 'go' with who he is.
I'm not a great fan, and have only toyed with the idea of having them done but am not-anti tatts either. All the same, don't some of them fade over time? I've been put off by seeing some that just look like mucky marks, from a distance. Do they need to be kept up to, to keep their 'colours'? Bf says he will have to have one of his 'topped up' in a few years, because it is likely to fade.
Coloured ones can fade yes, another of the reasons why mine are simple black and shaded ink.
I would wager a large proportion of them don't particularly like tattoos but they are such pathetic sheep that they are prepared to destroy their skin to look cool and current.
Yes, colours need to be touched up. The irony is having your tattoos showing means they are exposed to the sun and bleach out quicker. This is why originally tattoos, if not on the warrior caste, were on the back, on the buttocks, thighs and down to the knee so they could be covered with robes and so only the truly worthy or trusted could dare ask to see your tattoos. Mine ink cannot be seen unless I show you, even wearing a T shirt they are obscured.
Sadly the culture of tattoos is not as respected as it should be which is why half of the people over 40 in Essex have Tweety Bird on their calves, barbed wire on the biceps and dolphins by their belly buttons if they are female, leaping panthers and bad tribal tattoos if they are male.
I doubt people would want a tattoo if they are that against it plus when you are old you are more likely to be worried about other stuff then a tattoo
Interesting stuff, Declan. From the assortment of people I've seen with tattoos, some peoples' definitely look better than others. One of the most interesting 'works in progress' I saw was a guy I knew who was having a William Blake painting done all down his right arm. He kept running out of money to get extra bits done but I never saw it finished because he changed jobs.
I had my first when I was 15, next one when I was 17, then 18. 21, 24 and my latest one at 26.
I love my first tattoo as much as I love my last one. Chances are I will get more but for now I'm happy with what I have. I don't make the decision to get a tattoo lightly a lot of thought and consideration goes into what I want to get, why I want to get it and where I will get it.
Most of mine are in places I can show off if I wish but also cover up as well. I have one on my wrist and the inside of my other wrist visible with my uniform on but it has caused no problems for me.
Well prominent tattoos were originally meant to be intimidating. The higher castes had them hidden. I have a fairly large coffee table book on the history of tattoos as well as a collection of the world's notable current and former artists. I feel if you are going to do something which requires such serious commitment, you'd better invest the time and money in knowing what you are dealing with first. Just like cooking, painting or any real for of art, I think respecting the roots and understanding the masters that lay the groundwork for the culture is important. Everything from the placement to the design should matter if you are serious about the art form. Just like you shouldn't wear tartan of a clan you don't belong to or wearing symbols of cultures you don't represent, I don't think you should have tattoo designs of tribes you aren't descended from or related to by blood.
I personally find getting another person's face or an existing logo/character of a band or brand is undermining your own status if you're basically providing free life long advertising on your body without being compensated. I think the idea of having something someone else has down to the smallest detail because you've no creativity and just picked something of a wall is just sad. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their own body but I think any form of art should be an expression and extension of yourself, your beliefs, your history and your culture. Unless you're a Warner Bros trust fund child, having Tweety Bird makes no sense to me. Unless you're part of the navy or sea rescue, I don't understand having an anchor tattoo. It might look nice but what does it really mean?
So because you don't understand it, it's automatically a fail!? You'd not understand any of mine, most people don't, but that doesn't mean I should think twice before getting them done. Perhaps the girl with the tweety bird treasures it because it means something to her, perhaps it doesn't, what business is it of yours?
Really glad I didn't go though with it (I was only 99% certain I wanted one...you have to be 100% imo). Looking back it was just a fashion thing, I wanted to have a physical mark of my individuality. But of course...that comes from within.
It depends on the reason, if an employer refuses to hire the best candidate for no reason other than the fact they have tattoos then I'd not want to work for someone like that, and he's it's shallow and judgemental. However if the business is built upon customer service and thier clientele as likely to be put off buy a tattoo covered individual then I don't have a problem with that, it's a risk I took when getting visible ink.
In my current role my two wrist tattoos show, but the others are covered, however in the heat we were allowed to wear vest tops etc, which meant a few big pieces were on show, I checked with the boss that it was ok, before strolling into work with them all exposed. She was fine with it as they are non offensive (ie no girls with boobs showing etc!) apvht had she of had a problem I'd of kept them covered. I likened it earlier to hair, and it's the same thing, I go from pink to purple to blue colours on my hair, but I would never do so if a client didn't like it, I fact at my interview I stressed that I would dye it back normal colour if needed, which it wasn't, but I don't see any difference, or any more offence needing to be taken if tattoos need covering.
Also that people complaining under such circumstances have little comeback if they complain about unfair treatment. My issue is really with this second group of complaining people rather than tattooed people or even tattooed employees in general.
[EDIT]bazaar1 puts it better than I did in the post before mine.
I have to ask what kind of tattoo artist performs on a 15 year old? Surely, that's illegal? Doesn't sound very "reputable" to me.
Sadly these and a few other points are the bases of most tattoo threads
1- Tattoos look ugly and make you look like a criminal
2- You'll regret that when you're older
3- Ohhhh you'll never get a job
And never forget they know how you feel about your tattoos more than you do.
People should just start worrying about things that affect them.
Not at all. Whilst the legal age is 18, if you have written consent from a parent then you can get tattoos at a lower age.
1. That's not true at all.
2, I'd question the parent(s) of a 15 year old child who allows him/her to get a tattoo.
The Tattiooing of Minors Act 1969 (and not updated) makes no mention of parental consent. It is 18 years old which leads me to believe your tattoo artist is certainly not reputable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattooing_of_Minors_Act_1969
Since when? I doubt it tbh. Even if that's true what decent tattooist is likely to agree to tattoo a child? I got my first at 16 and lied about my age, of the three of us that went I am the only one that does not regret their tattoo, mainly because I'd been thinking about it for a while, and the other did it on a whim, but in general 15/16 is far too young to be deciding what tattoo to get.
18 is the minimum age for a tattoo, with or without parental consent. It has been like this since the 1960s and the law is very clear. Anyone (or any studio) that tells you that you can be tattooed at 16 with parental consent instantly falls into the “dodgy” category. If they are slack with this law what else will they be slack with? Sterilisation? Be patient!
From http://modernbodyart.co.uk/info/faq-tattoo/