Feminism & Tattooing: Let’s Talk!

 

 

 After a long time in the reading, planning and thinking phase, I’m now in the early stages of my empirical research – I have been in contact with a small number of tattoo artists via email, and have had some amazing and interesting responses to my questions, inciting some exciting discussion and dialogue.

I am always really humbled when I receive responses within my research – people giving up their time to write to me, or talk to me about their experiences and sharing personal stories and opinions never ceases to inspire me and I am forever grateful.

The most recent response really stood out to me – this artist was the first artist to self identify herself as a feminist (in her email); and within her response it is clear that her feminism is really important to her, and a huge part of her identity. My next set of questions to her will be about her feminism, and how (if) it intersects with her art, her professional identity as a tattooer and her personal identity as a tattooed gender-queer (self identified) woman.

I was really excited by this for many reasons, but mainly I think because I too identify as a feminist and this is a huge part of whom I am, and what my research is about. But until now, I haven’t thought about talking directly to the participants about if they identify as feminists, and if they do, how this might affect their work as tattoo artists, and them as tattooed women.

 

 When I think about this, it seems like a completely obvious subject to broach within my research and I’ve began contemplating why I haven’t thought about this before.

Surely feminism and tattoos lend themselves to one another? Reclaiming the body, subverting beauty norms, taking ownership, and creating an alternative identity – all feminist issues and ideals, right?

I myself am a feminist, carrying out ‘feminist research’ – I endeavor to ensure my research methodologies are feminist, so why aren’t I capturing this in the empirical research and the subject matter itself? Many of the participants talk about setting up women-friendly spaces, or all-women studios and negative attitudes to women tattooers. So why aren’t I asking a direct question about feminism and whether the artists think of these practices as Feminist?

One of my key themes within my research and literature review will be a discussion on feminist aesthetics and so my subsequent analysis of the data will no doubt include a link between these seemingly feminist practices carried out by the artists and feminism/feminist aesthetics.  It now seems like a ludicrous and glaringly obvious omission to not ask the participants about feminism.

Perhaps I was avoiding the subject?

Perhaps I was avoiding the F word?

I wonder if I felt that striding on in there with the big ‘Are You A Feminist’ question might put people off taking part in my research? Not that I think it should, but more that I think there is a risk of this happening. Especially when you are conducting research via email – it is much more difficult to convey what you mean in a succinct and clear fashion. Talking face-to-face is easier in many respects and I hope to broaden my research with face-to-face interviews soon.

Are people put off by the word Feminist still? Or am I making presumptions because of personal experiences, recent media reports and comments in public on-line spaces?

Maybe my initial concerns were about ‘putting people off’ – but as a feminist, conducting feminist research, I should be embracing this challenge and striving to redress this issue within my work.

I am so inspired and relieved (!) to have received the latest participant email; the artist, in effect has given me ‘permission’ to talk directly about feminism with the research participants and I’m looking forward to the discussions ahead….

Please get in touch with your tales of feminism and tattoos!

 

Women Artists Making Their Mark

 

Always happy to see some positive coverage of tattoos in the mainstream media, imagine my delight when I saw this blog post on the Guardian site, about women tattoo artists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/fashion-blog/2012/oct/05/female-tattoo-artists-make-their-mark?commentpage=7#start-of-comments
I have used the term ‘women artists’ and not ‘female artists’ because any use of the word ‘female’ in relation to any discussion surrounding the human race and not the animal kingdom makes me cringe.

My first observation was that the blog appeared in the ‘fashion blog’ section, which made me think why not the society section, or art, or culture? I’m not sure if the placement of the blog depends upon the person who writes the post, or who makes the decision – the author or the editor. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting point that the placement happened to be in ‘fashion’. I think, especially as the post is about ARTISTS, I would have preferred it to be placed within the art section, or culture at least.

The sub-heading states that the increase in women artists is “changing the business” but doesn’t really go on to explain why or how within the post. I mean, I would like to know – how exactly are women changing the business? Yes there is a noticeable increase in women artists – and this is indeed, brilliant of course. But, how is this changing the tattoo business?

The article also asks why women artists are so popular. Why wouldn’t they be? This is a valid question, I suppose – the women mentioned in the article are well known within the industry and are the ‘hot names’ at the moment, which is why they have waiting lists years long, but this happens to male artists too. It does pose the question, do people go out to find a woman artist specifically? Or when looking for a tattoo artist, does one look at the art work first, and gender second? Would you choose a woman artist over a man *just* because you want a woman artist?

Do women really make ‘different’ art to men? Is there a feminine aesthetic? Surely we are past the idea that men create ‘masculine’ art and women create ‘feminine’ art….. aren’t we?

One statement in the blog post really caught my attention: “with 20 million of the 62.6 million of us in the UK inking our bodies, the aesthetic of beauty is shifting”. CUE MY PhD! I love the idea of a shifting beauty aesthetic, and the fact that tattoos are a part of this. This, has it happens, is a major focus within my PhD.
So although I began by saying I was pleased when I saw this article, I seemed to have moaned about it a little, and questioned it somewhat, and perhaps I’ve ended up with more questions than answers. But questioning, and critiquing is a good thing, surely.

And, the post does point out that the tattoo industry is a “hugely progressive industry in terms of gender equality”.

Hoorah!

 

 

 

 

Tacky or Tasteful? – An ITV ‘Debate’

ITV’s This Morning decided it was time to bring the tattoo debate to the masses, with the anticipation of being made extremely angry; I began watching this with trepidation:

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/are-tattoos-tacky-or-tasteful/

To my genuine surprise, it didn’t annoy me quite as much as I had expected, but there were a few things (of course) that I found myself shouting at my MacBook as I watched:

·      The Psychotherapist said that everybody she knows who has been tattooed, regrets them and therefore she knew her daughter would regret hers too. Nobody I know regrets their tattoos – and I happen to know a lot of tattooed people. I’m glad Jodie Marsh was able to say she doesn’t regret hers; this is such a common misconception by non-tattooed people – it almost always goes hand-in-hand with the age-old “what will you do/think when you’re older”. Aaaargh! Of course some people regret their tattoos, but not everybody will, as this woman predicts.

·      I was really annoyed with the psychotherapists claim that “everybody with tattoos is impulsive”. Really annoyed. I am probably the least impulsive person I know. I have never rushed into getting tattooed; I have never rushed into anything, for that matter. So she wouldn’t employ anybody with a full sleeve because it shows they are impulsive? Does she know how long it takes to complete a sleeve?! It may not be as impulsive as she thinks. Of course some tattooed people are impulsive – just as some non-tattooed people are impulsive. News Flash! Not every tattooed person is the same. Crazy, I know! If she’s going to use tattoo as an indicator of impulsiveness, and something to avoid, how does she recognize impulsiveness in the non-tattooed? How does she avoid employing those people? (What’s wrong with being impulsive anyway?)

·      I thought it was a real shame that Jodie Marsh didn’t question the fact that tattoos may not mean you are an impulsive person – and Holly W went along with the presumption too. There was no question that this might not be true.

·      The other key issue to be ignored/not bought into question correctly was that of Legal Age. It was mentioned that the legal age to get tattooed is 18 – but the psychotherapist admitted that her daughter was younger than this when she was tattooed and Jodie Marsh said she was younger than this when getting her first tattoo. It was agreed that young girls are getting hold of fake ID and getting tattooed – which of course does happen, but this really grated with me. Why was it not clearly stated that any tattoo artist tattooing under-age kids are not the kind of tattoo ‘artist’ you want to be associating yourself, let alone your skin with? I know fake ID cards can be convincing, but please? This discussion made it sound as though poor young children are in danger of having their lives ruined by these irresponsible tattooists on an under-age tattooing rampage. Jodie Marsh really didn’t help this…

Phillip Schofield asked “What about when you have children?” (Another age-old and equally annoying question). He then went on to ask if Jodie would let her children get tattooed, Jodie replied, “If they were old enough”. To which Phillip asked, “What’s old enough?”

18! 18! That’s the correct answer! Not “well, 16, 17, 18, but I’d give them a talking to first”.

Nobody picked up on the fact that it is illegal to tattoo a person under the age of 18. And actually, a parent allowing their child to get tattooed knowingly under the age of 18 is putting the tattooist in a pretty awful position.

Over all, I think ITV missed an opportunity to have an intelligent, in-depth discussion around tattoos – to dispel some of the myths and preconceptions of tattoo and tattooed people. Jodie Marsh did manage to touch on the issue of personal narrative within tattoo, but far more could have been covered, how about the issues of tattoo as art? Aesthetics? And the reclaimation properties that so many tattooed women speak of?

The psychotherapist didn’t upset me as much as I thought she would, she did say that just because a person is tattooed wouldn’t necessarily mean she disliked them, she just doesn’t like tattoos – which is fair enough. She did say that she would be put-off employing a heavily tattooed person – she has her reasons, and although this is annoying for any tattooed person, I’m not sure I would want to be employed by somebody who I knew had these opinions anyway.

Oh, and by-the way, good news everyone! This Morning conducted their very own all-encompassing piece of research (a telephone vote, no less)…. The results?

Tattoos are Tasteful – 61%

Tattoos are Tacky – 39%

Phew! I for one am relieved 😉

It’s Skin Deep

This began as a post merely recommending an article in a magazine, and as if by magic, has developed into a post of two halves…

I was delighted to find a great article on Women and Tattoos in Issue 202 of Skin Deep magazine, How timely! How convenient! Given my rant in my last post, this find was quite pleasant. It’s always pleasing to discover an interesting article amongst the pretty pictures, especially one that reaches out to you on a personal level.

“Only Women Bleed” provides an over-view of the history of Women’s relationships with tattoos, and a commentary on Women and tattoos today.

The article discusses a wide-range of women & tattoo-related subjects; from body projects (such as lip and eyebrow enhancement) using similar technology to tattoo but refusing to use the term ‘tattoo’, to tattooed circus side-show attractions and Egyptian Mummies.

The article even tackles the Tattooed Woman = cute or sexy dichotomy, stating that “Popular Culture persists in giving tattooed women very narrow margins to exist within”. It also discusses tattooed women as commodities and uses Suicide Girls as an example of this trend.

It all makes for a very interesting, and thought-provoking read. If you haven’t seen it, and would like to, back issues are available to buy here:

http://www.skindeep.co.uk/back-issues

Anyway, I promised this post was one of two halves. So what’s the other half?

After reading “Only Women Bleed”, I decided to write to Sion Smith, the editor at Skin Deep and tell him that I thought the article was good, refreshing, etc. I of-course didn’t let the opportunity of a little self-promotion pass me by, and I included a link to my previous post – The (tattooed) Beauty Myth. I was really hoping Sion would read it, it’s always good to get differing opinions – especially as so many of the reader-comments were aimed at Tattoo Magazines, and let’s face it, the ‘issue’ so many women have with them.

Well, Sion did read the post and the comments and he took time in replying to my email. He said he’d be happy for me to use his comments in a follow-up post, so I’ve jumped at this chance.

Drum Roll

Sion Smith, editor of Skin Deep said:

“Basically, I can’t address the sins of the tattoo mag industry in a single issue. It is a long process that requires me never to explain it. More to take it for granted I think. The Only Women Bleed article is the tip of an iceberg that needs addressing. Fact of the matter is though, I get at least 12 emails a day from heavily tattooed models looking to be in the magazine. 99.95% of these women are what most would call ‘attractive’ and they are more than ready to be feature with fun outlooks and a wealth of stories. These are things I can work with in a magazine but combine it with the fact that they also spend a lot of money on photo shoots to approach us, shows just how serious they are. They know the business. Conversely, I also get some people who want to be in the mag who have taken pics of themselves in the back garden with a phone camera. Not good for a magazine that has the production values that we have.

That’s the business end of the stick.

When I took over the magazine, I was aware of all the critics and agreed with some of them. I cannot change the covers of the magazine (not yet) although we are working on it! (See issue 200) because what people on the outside don’t see is how we have to work with distributors and stores across the country and how they take us into their stores based on whether they THINK they can sell it. It’s complicated. So leaving the covers aside for a second, inside the mag, things are changing as you have noticed, but it has to be a stealth change. There is thought and there is art. There are also people. Male and female. All that remains now is to try and de-sexualise it and make it all about the art – which after all is what we are. But I reckon it will take years to do this. It’s a long process of educated readers as to what I actually want and then getting them to provide it – but the magazine still needs to cater to the majority. I’m still feeling my way with it, but we’re getting there. It’s just one little issue in a sea of a lot of little issues!

What I find ironic is that those who don’t buy the mag because of the cover even though they might enjoy what is on the inside are entering into the very behaviour they so abhor by judging the content based on the art presented on the skin. I think it’s ironic… it may be sad, funny or something way above mental process also! I can’t decide”

I was really happy to get a response from Sion. We have continued the conversation via email since this initial reply and it has given me a real insight into the business end of the world of Tattoo Magazines, and has allowed me to think more broadly on the subject I suppose. I know that this response will trigger some more comments and I’m sure Sion will be glad (or at least interested) to read them – as will I.

I was glad to hear that Sion is not in anyway saying that he doesn’t see a problem in some of the content of magazines. He is fully aware of the criticisms, and is actually working on addressing these. Which is good to know, right?

This has been an interesting little side step for my PhD subject and me. I have to keep reminding myself that it isn’t my sole focus, although to be honest it’s a huge topic and probably could be….Watch this space 😉

The (Tattooed) Beauty Myth

I have been pondering upon tattoos, women and gender performance for some time now.  I wanted the subject to feature heavily (if not exclusively) within my PhD research; through reading, thinking and a very recent personal experience, my thoughts have developed somewhat.

“Women… must always be seen as women and not as impressive Persons with definite presence”

Rosalind Coward, 1984.

This quote just about sums up my feelings around how heavily tattooed women are judged, perceived and regarded by some members of the non-tattooed community.  The quote isn’t actually written about tattooed women, but it really does, in my opinion, translate to the issue of women and tattoos.

Tattooed women are certainly ‘impressive persons with definite presence’ and this can be threatening to a society that wants it’s women to be ‘women’ – feminine, girly and adhering to the long-standing norms of what it is to be a Woman.

So how do heavily tattooed women feel they are perceived by society? How are heavily tattooed women perceived by society?

Are heavily tattooed women judged less harshly if it is visibly evident that they are adhering to other gender rules? After all, a woman refusing to conform to the dominant discourse is surely quite a threatening force. Could this be excused with the help of some ‘feminine’ make-up, a ‘feminine’ hair-do or a frock? Can a heavily tattooed woman get away with being tattooed if she proves that, she isn’t really that bad?

The levels of gender performance played out by heavily tattooed women in their everyday lives really interests me and will make up a substantial part of my project. As a fan of Judith Butler, I love the idea that we all perform gender to some extent each and every day. Gender is not something we are, but something we become through various acts and behaviors, rituals and repetitions. With this in mind, I want to explore what difference (if any) being heavily tattooed makes to this performance, and how (if at all) the performance is affected by being tattooed.

Do tattooed women feel they have to over-compensate to be accepted? Does this change day-to-day, or place-to-place? Is the supermarket performance different to the school run, or the night in’s performance different to the night out’s?

Of course, some heavily tattooed women, myself included, like the idea and indeed the aesthetics of how the tattooed skin looks against a back-drop of stereo-typical femininity. It’s the juxta-position of conformity and rebellion in one neat little package.  Subversion of the feminine ideal, shall we say? It is a well-known fact within body modification communities, and in feminist circles that many tattooed women began their tattooed journey with a wish to subvert and challenge societal norms and expectations: a big 2-fingers up to what women ‘should be’, maybe. So perhaps this gender performance includes a little sarcasm, and a little irony along the way. The combination of a full-sleeve and a pretty dress & make-up can work wonders in conveying the “I’m doing this my way, like it or lump it” message to the possibly judgmental majority.  As the French feminist & philosopher, Luce Irigaray suggests, to undo the effects of a phallocentric discourse, women need to ‘mime the mimes men have imposed on women’: we need to throw the images back, over-ride and out-do them (Tong, 1992).  Again, this was not originally spoken about tattoos, but my goodness, it sounds like a great basis for some serious subversion of the ideological feminine norm.

So, what part does the tattoo sub culture play in the presentation of heavily tattooed women? To begin with, this seemed a straightforward question to me – the tattoo community loves a heavily tattooed woman, and that’s that. But then I started to consider tattoo magazines, and the images of tattooed women they choose to portray.

I emailed a successful, widely available tattoo magazine to ask what somebody has to do to get featured in the publication. I explained that I am studying for my PhD and gave a brief over-view of my project & subject focus.

The editor replied, asking me to send photos of some of my tattoos and one that showed my face. The photos didn’t have to be of professional quality, just snap-shots.

No mention, at all, of my PhD.

Anyway, I sent some (not very good) photos off – showing most of my ink and one that clearly showed MY FACE.

I heard nothing back.

Before I continue, I don’t want this part of the post to sound like “they didn’t like my photo and therefore I am bitter and angry”.

I am not.

I am slightly concerned that my photos were received and laughed at – but that’s my insecurities playing out and I’m trying to quash them.

What I am a little disappointed about is that the editor of a tattoo magazine didn’t take the slightest bit of interest in my PhD subject. I thought that a tattooed academic ‘doing academia’ on tattoos may be of some interest? Maybe I am being a little naïve here – maybe the editor gets emails every other day about people writing their PhDs on body modification? Maybe it’s old news? Ok, I wasn’t expecting, “great, let’s do a whole feature on you and your studies” but I think I’d have quite liked, “oh, your PhD sounds interesting”.

Alas, tattooed academics are Just. Not. Sexy enough to sell magazines.

And this is when I started to question the role of the tattoo subculture, and in particular, tattoo magazines, in the representation of tattooed women. Yes, tattoo magazines feature A LOT of tattooed women, but which tattooed women? I look back on old, old copies of magazines that feature a wide range of tattooed individuals – women & men with differing style and image. I’m not sure if this can still be said of today’s editions.

Are (some) tattoo magazines merely reinforcing society’s attitude that says, “It’s ok to be a tattooed woman, as long as you’re pretty/sexy/stereo-typically feminine”?

I really hope not.  But it’s an interesting question, and one that I will be including in my research. For someone who has been buying tattoo magazines for the past 10 years, this is a question that makes me feel quite uncomfortable. It feels as though I doubt the sub culture and the things associated with the sub culture that I have grown to love, and actually, that are still an important part of my identity and me. Buying a tattoo magazine always makes me feel part of something, and re-affirms my place within a supportive and inclusive community.  Hopefully the tattooed women I come to interview will feel the same. I can’t wait to ask them….

Books referenced within this post:

Coward, R (1984) Female Desire: Women’s Sexuality Today, Paladin: London

Tong, R (1992) Feminist Thought, Routledge: London

*The photo above is of me, *performing* “Woman on her way to a Vegas-themed party”…

***UPDATE: For a response from Skin Deep Magazine to this post & your comments – please see my next post, “It’s Skin Deep” ***