Tattoos: A form of individual expression or a cattle brand?
(Jolie, tats and jeans, going cheaply)
On the whole, I am a great admirer of the BBC – especially, its various news services, so it almost pains me to say that, in my opinion, today’s most stupid statement did not come from the mouth of George Bush or the American Right’s love child Sarah Palin but from a BBC article on tattoos.
This one, to be precise:
In the past, tattoos used to be mainly a badge of belonging and were generally the preserve of armed forces personnel, bikers and tribes. But they are now used to express individuality and can range from the small dolphin on the ankle to huge montages of a fan’s favourite pop group, or even tattoos covering most of the body.
First, allow me to digress just a little bit. A few years ago, one damn jeans brand or the other based a whole, very well made but still quite stupid campaign around the gallingly brazen slogan, ‘Dare to be individual’. These ads, of course, were then shown in cinemas and on TVs, all over the world, reaching and speaking to all the millions and millions of people out there, with their eyes not merely glued but individually stapled to these screens.
They used to call it a ‘captive audience.’ That term is, obviously, as passé as those clunky, black and white TV sets. These days, those who watch do so willingly – almost automatically, as cows in the meadow, at certain fixed times, start to walk in the direction of the milking engine.
‘Dare to be individual’, my frigging arse, in other words.
Same with those tattoos.
Again, allow me one last digression. In the late 19th century a group of Dutch and Flamish writers started one of those (many) new art movements. They rebelled against the idea that art had to be made for the perceived good of the community and that art was, in fact, one of the functions of the community. So, this group of writers stated that art was and had to be ‘the most individual expression of the most individual emotion.’
Back to those tattoos – and they sure ain’t that: The most individual etcetera, I mean. Tattoos are still cattle brands. It’s just that the social background, the composition and the size of the various groups that (partly) express and define themselves through certain tattoos have changed.
So, tattoos are still as tribal as they always have been. It’s merely that these tribes themselves change, mostly superficially, over time. Beatlemania would have been instantly recognizable to all Hindu devotees of Krishna in the last thousand years, who, sometimes, during their yearly processions, got “crushed accidentally as the massive 45 foot tall, multi-ton chariot slipped out of control, with others suffering injury in the resulting stampedes.”
Also, it may come as a disappointment to her fans but the veneration of the Madonna is not exactly or exclusively a late 20th century phenomenon…
In other words, our Gods and our instruments may be changing, but the song and our expressions of adulation remain the same – and, as I already stated, that also goes for our ‘modern’ tattoos. Like those earlier mentioned jeans, they are not expressions of individuality. They are merely a method to identify whatever subgroup the wearer does, or aspires to belong to.
Branding these (mass) products as a mark of individuality is not merely stupid; it is positively insulting.
(The granddaddy of Beatlemania)
If you enjoyed this post, subscribe today to get free updates by email or RSS.
