With the act of making oneself a work of art, the artist reclaims the body, an
especially powerful act for women.1
– Kim HewittIn their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and
displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so
that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness.2
– Laura MulveySubculture forms up in the space between surveillance and the evasion of
surveillance. It translates the fact of being under scrutiny into the pleasure of
being watched. It is hiding in the light.3
– Dick Hebdige
The practice of tattooing one’s body, and of body modification in general, is
one that stimulates reconsiderations of traditional conceptions of mind and body,
as well as notions of power with regard to self-expression and control over nature
/ the body. In recent decades tattooing has become a visible and popular aspect of
mainstream Western culture, while at the same time it remains, under certain
circumstances, a deviant, subversive, and empowering countercultural practice.4
As Victoria Pitts notes, “while various forms of body modification have become
hugely popular among youth and others, a significant portion of the body
modification movement could be characterized as outside the mainstream.”5 For
both women and men tattooing may be used as a means of individual expression
and differentiation, group identification and membership, ritual boundary
marking, and aesthetic ‘improvement’ or decoration of one’s body. While tattoos
represent a form of cultural capital for a vast number of people in contemporary
Western society who have had themselves tattooed, there are significant
differences between this popular Western practice and the practices of those in the
West who consider themselves members of communities based primarily around
heavy tattooing or extreme body modification practices. For these individuals,
tattoos represent not only a form of cultural or symbolic capital but are also
markers of lifestyle, and can be construed in terms of what Thornton refers to as
subcultural capital.6 This term draws on Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital and
refers to the distinction made between that which is disparaged as 'mainstream'
and that which is valued as 'alternative' by subcultural groups.
As with many subcultural groups, these communities utilize popular forms of
mass media such as magazines and the internet for the communication of group
values, ideals and trends. Thornton points out that such groups define and
distribute cultural knowledge through various forms of media.7 According to
contemporary academic research these extreme tattooing communities tend to be
relatively gender-neutral in terms of tattoo iconography, placement and size.8
However, an analysis of the media representations employed and consumed by
these communities reveals gender differences that may be interpreted as highly
traditional in terms of their representation of hegemonic feminine norms.
This paper will demonstrate the conflicts and contradictions of contemporary
extreme tattoo practices among women in the West, and the relationship of such
practices to the media representations of these women. Relying on the theories of
Frederic Jameson, Sarah Thornton, Raymond Williams, Judith Butler and Nikki
Sullivan, as well as on academic histories and analyses of Western tattoo practices,
I will examine contemporary tattoo magazines aimed at extreme body
modification communities in terms of their visual and linguistic representations of
women, and their relationship to the actual practices of the women who belong to
such communities and modify their bodies as expressions of power, control,
identification and aesthetic choice. As Sullivan shows, while communication via
tattooing practices is often “assumed to be a straightforward process of expression
and reception,” there tends to be a great deal of ambiguity, contradiction and
conflict in the multitude of approaches taken to such practices.9 Thus, any fixed or
concrete interpretation would seem to be impossible. The gap between women’s
practices and their representations in magazines such as International Tattoo Art
and Skin & Ink, as well as the multitude of potential ways to interpret these
representations, supports this claim.
As indicated in the introduction, not all tattoos or tattoo practices constitute
membership in a tattoo or body modification community. The vast majority of
tattooed individuals in the West have only one or two small tattoos and these tend
to be placed in such a way as to be easily covered for social or business purposes.10
These individuals are not included in such communities, and those who consider
themselves outside the Western mainstream perceive such tattooing as
conventional.11 Extreme body modification communities regard these tattoos as
lacking the empowering element of subversion that is attached to more extensive
tattooing and other extreme body modification practices. The formation of extreme
body modification communities is a relatively new phenomenon that can be
roughly traced back to the mid-1960s, and which had increased in popularity by
the 1980s.12 Before this time tattooing (the practice of permanently fixing images
onto the skin using ink and a needle or other sharp object) was performed
throughout the world, dating back to prehistoric human existence. According to
many historians, archeological work has uncovered cave drawings depicting
humans decorated with markings of various kinds, and well-preserved human
remains have been found which show signs of having been adorned in this way.13
There are a great number of historical accounts which trace the traditional body
modification practices of many cultures, including the Maori people of New
Zealand, the Tiv of Nigeria, the Nuer of Sudan and the Japanese. Although
Polynesian practices are often credited as having been responsible for introducing
tattooing into modern Western culture (through the voyages of Captain James
Cook), tattooing was practiced in Europe before this time (the term ‘tattoo’ was,
however, introduced to Western culture as a result of Western contact with
Polynesian cultures). Nevertheless, the tattoos of returning sailors and the
transportation of tattooed natives for purposes of display helped increase
awareness of tattooing in Europe.14 With some exceptions, tattoos were generally
regarded as deviant or debased throughout much of their early European history.
This is in stark contrast to non-Western cultures, many of which treated tattooing
as a sanctioned cultural practice important for identification and ritual, as well as
aesthetic adornment.15
In parts of pre-Christian Europe tattooing was an accepted form of adornment,
but the introduction of Christianity brought with it a prohibition of the practice:
tattoos were interpreted as opposing the Judaeo-Christian perspective that sees the
body as the sacred creation of God and, more importantly, the Christian teaching
of the body as the temple of God. As such, tattoos were regarded as defacing the
temple.16 Following the diffusion of Christianity, tattooing remained a non-
sanctioned body modification practice in the West. During this time members of
the military (especially sailors), incarcerated criminals, prostitutes and
institutionalized mental patients were the primary practitioners or recipients of
tattooing.17 While the naval practice of tattooing was partly a means of
identification (in case of drowning), it also carried important value as a means of
demonstrating individuality, group identity or membership and aesthetic
decoration. For others, especially institutionalized individuals, tattoos were a form
of personal aesthetic expression that was a means of individuation and
differentiation in an environment which stripped them of all other identity
markers.18 Though carrying positive value for many such individuals, the
association of tattoos with marginalized members of Western society combined
with factors such as the Christian view of the human body to encourage a view of
tattoos as a sign of moral decay.
Notwithstanding this general attitude towards tattoos, there were a number of
notable exceptions – cases of well-known or well-respected individuals who broke
with social stigma and tattooed their bodies in spite of tattooing’s generally
negative connotations for Westerners. Following the invention of the first tattoo
machine in 1891 (a development which greatly reduced the pain involved in
tattooing), tattoos were even a brief fad amongst the British aristocracy.19 It is also
commonly noted that Winston Churchill’s mother had tattoos, indicating that the
trend – like mainstream and extreme practices of today – appealed to and was
practiced by both men and women.20 The trend, however, was not long-lived, and
by the early twentieth century tattoos were seen at best as a curiosity, and often as
a sign of mental illness or criminality.21 Women in particular were put on display
for their tattooed bodies, often appearing in circus or carnival freak shows and
photographed for ‘pin-up’ reasons. Their popularity as tattooed subjects was much
greater than that of men because “women provided a sensational double whammy
onstage – a peep show within a freak show.”22 Clearly this form of display,
especially with its focus on women, can be and has been construed as an
exotification of the tattooed ‘other’. The use of photography at this time was
significant. Referring to Susan Sontag, Melissa Forbis points out that the
metaphorical power of photography is such that the camera may be seen as a
weapon with which one can ‘shoot’ the exotic individual and bring home a two-
dimensional trophy.23 The connection between tattoos and mental illness is also
interesting to point out here since mentally ill individuals were often subjected to
treatment that positioned them as curious ‘others’. A psychiatrist writing for The
Medical Times as late as 1958 argued that
The presence of a single meaningless tattoo mark suggests a prepsychotic or
psychotic phenomena [sic]…the appearance of multiple tattoo marks which
differ greatly in motivation, which have no symmetry, and which have no
apparent connection one with the other is always diagnostic of a severe
psychoneurosis…A study of the tattooed individual, the designs and the
obvious motivation behind each design is as valuable in determining the
emotional pattern of an individual as is a multiphasic personality test or a
Rorschach test.24
The diagnosis of tattoos as symptoms of mental illness should not be surprising,
particularly when connected to women’s histories, given that physical ‘otherness’
or misunderstood physical behaviour in women was often attributed to
psychological dysfunction (for example, the well-documented history of the
Freudian interpretation of female masturbation and orgasm as an ‘hysterical
response’). Though we now recognize these diagnoses as unfounded and
erroneous, the above quotation remains useful for its implications which connect
emotional expression to specific tattoo practices.
Tattoos have since become increasingly accepted by a significant portion (if not
the majority) of Westerners, and are now not uncommon among younger members
of the white urban middle class in North America.25 This shift is generally
attributed to cultural diffusions from the performance art of the 1960s and 1970s,
from changing notions about the relationship between the mind and body
influenced by trends in Holistic New Age philosophy, and more commonly from
the British punk movement of the late 1970s.26 In addition, Mark Blanchard
suggests that
the growing vogue of tattoo as a basic art form is actually a byproduct of the
development of photography: people could look at pictures of tattoos without
being confronted by the physicality of the body beneath the tattoo.27
Other factors behind the mainstreaming of tattoos include improvements in
technology and the increasing interest of practitioners in elevating tattoo practices
to the level of fine art. This drive led to an increasing specialization of technique,
with many practitioners now formally trained at universities, and an increasing
degree of importance placed on custom artwork and tattoo shops.28 These
practitioners are predominantly male, though their client base tends to be fairly
evenly split between male and female.29
As indicated earlier, studying Western mainstream tattoo practices can be
difficult because the majority of people who are tattooed have only one or two
small designs and they tend to be located in areas which are easily covered by
everyday clothing. However, Demerson’s study of contemporary tattooing
practices in Montreal does reveal some marked gender differences with regard to
tattoo size, placement and iconography amongst this heterogeneous group.
Women are inclined to select smaller designs and are more likely to choose a spot
which is easily hidden. Arm and leg tattoos are very uncommon amongst women
who receive only one or two tattoos. These women are more likely to have their
lower back, ankle, shoulder, hip or breast tattooed. Men who fit into the
mainstream category of tattooed individuals have a propensity to choose
somewhat larger designs and generally select the arms, back, shoulders and chest
for placement. These men, like their female counterparts, tend to prefer that their
tattoos remain invisible under most circumstances. Iconography also tends to be
gendered amongst this group, with women generally selecting ‘prettier’, more
feminine designs such as flowers, butterflies and hearts. In contrast, men tend to be
more likely to choose violent imagery such as skulls and daggers, or ‘masculine’
animal images such as panthers, wolves and dragons.30 Such differences tend to be
less visible in cases of extreme body modification or heavy tattooing.
According to Demerson’s study, gender differences with regard to placement,
size and iconography are difficult to discern amongst those who identify with
extreme body modification communities:
When a person has become heavily tattooed, their design choices tend to be
more varied. Heavily tattooed men sometimes have flowers and heavily
tattooed women sometimes have dragons and daggers. This is especially true
with people who have tattoos influenced by traditional Japanese imagery [a
popular choice within extreme body modification culture]. My own research
shows that design, placement, and size were directly affected by gender, but
the differences were not present among those who were more heavily
tattooed.31
As small, easily hidden tattoos are no longer considered particularly deviant by a
majority of the population (though, undoubtedly, there remain social arenas in
which this is still not the case), membership in body modification communities
requires that one’s tattoos be visible and that they cover a significant area of the
skin. In addition to size and visibility, uniqueness and meaning are further
mitigating factors for these communities. Flash designs, the sheets of standardized
images found on the walls of many tattoo shops, are often disparaged by these
communities, who tend to favour custom shops that do not offer flash and who
tend to select or design unique tattoos for their bodies. Flash remains a popular
option within the mainstream. This is often attributed to a lack of information on
the part of the casual tattoo client who may not know that anything but flash is
available. Indeed, in many shops flash is the only option.32 In addition, other forms
of tattoo culture – such as biker tattoo practices and prison tattooing – are not
generally accepted by the usually middle-class extreme tattoo communities.33
Other aspects of tattoo practices valued by these communities include the
privileging of tattoos ‘done’ in the absence of professional help (i.e. self- or home-
tattooing), a thematic or stylistic wholeness to large-scale tattooing (the degree to
which the tattoos are merged effectively into a single design or an organized
network of designs), and significance of meaning (tattoos that have strong personal
associations tend to be considered more valuable than those with largely aesthetic
value, which are considered shallow and without ‘real’ meaning). Furthermore,
there is an explicit emphasis on process and the experience of pain as an indicator
of labour, of ‘earning’ one’s tattoos.34
In both mainstream and extreme tattoo practices in the West, the motivation
behind tattooing and other body modifications is often expressed in terms which
recall the work of Frederic Jameson.35 Many tattooed individuals and tattoo artists
express the importance of tattoos in terms of a present-day loss of meaning and, as
a result, an increasing importance of personal expression.36 In a particularly telling
quote, one of Demerson’s participants stated that
Choosing and having control and carrying images, it’s powerful. Not much is
certain in our consumer society, nothing lasts and tattoos make it solid, it
grounds you and makes you real.37
Similarly, a tattoo artist quoted in Sanders asserts that
I do see many people get tattooed to find out again…to say, “Who was I before
I got into this lost position?” It’s almost like a tattoo pulls you back to a certain
kind of reality about who you are as an individual.38
Here, depth is replaced by surface and a “compensatory decorative exhilaration”
takes over due to the large-scale waning of affect characteristic of the
postmodern.39 Jameson describes the emergence of what he terms “depthlessness”,
and goes on to describe the death of the subject that accompanies these
phenomena. This death indicates the end of style, uniqueness and the personal as a
result of the absence of a feeling self.40 By tattooing one’s body, one may be rejecting
the postmodern absence of feeling; one is forced to physically feel her own
expression as it is etched into her skin. However, the tattoo as etching on the skin,
while potentially rejecting postmodern fragmentation, may also reinforce it.
Although the tattoo may hold many overlapping and shifting personal or cultural
meanings for the bearer, the observer sees only a surface of ink on skin, and can
only guess as to deeper intended meanings. The gap between encoding and
decoding here may be great, although many tattooed individuals go to some
length to reduce this distance. Ultimately however, as Sweetman makes clear, the
fixing of images by no means results in fixed readings of those images (or of the
individuals who bear them).41 In addition to this fissure, the tattoos of others carry
more meaning for individuals who also bear tattoos because the sight of another’s
tattoo reminds the tattooed individual of the process of her tattooing and the pain
and personal memory with which it is associated. This recognition and recollection
go a long way towards explaining the formation of communities around practices
of body modification.
With regard to this sharing of meanings and interpretations between the
bearer of the tattoo and the individual who observes it, it is commonly noted that
tattooed individuals tend to be characteristically eager to discuss and display their
tattoos to both tattooed and non-tattooed individuals. As Hewitt notes, the punk
movement’s challenge to hegemony was decidedly exhibitionist in nature. As an
extension of this subculture, tattooing is “performed in a social sphere that is
deliberately…meant to be witnessed.”42 Similarly, Demerson notes the social intent
of tattoos (that is, the fact that most people want others to see their tattoos – even if
only in certain contexts), and the overwhelming willingness of virtually all
individuals involved in tattoo practices (mainstream and extreme) to show off and
talk about their tattoos and their tattoo experiences.43 These examples correspond
to Dick Hebdige’s explanation of subcultural spectacularity as a form of “hiding in
the light”: that is, as a way of coping with the gaze that seeks to control the body
by turning that very surveillance – the experience of being looked at – into an
aggressive act by virtue of drawing attention to oneself through practices of
adornment and dress.44 As a mechanism of social communication, then, tattoos are
particularly effective when visible because they draw the attention of others and
encourage questions, allowing the tattooed person to guide others’ interpretations
of their own body art. Furthermore, this narcissistic penchant for display and
discussion emphasizes the tattoo’s status as Bourdieu’s cultural or symbolic
capital.
Pierre Bourdieu describes the processes by which “social spaces are written
into bodies.”45 He notes that differences function as distinctive signs and that acts
of representation – the act of having oneself tattooed, for example – constitute one
form of struggle with the perception of the social world. He notes that symbolic
power, partly characterized as the power to create groups, is one of the “profits of
recognition”.46 Symbolic power is achieved in part through the possession of
symbolic capital. In other words, the recognition of same-ness between those who
are tattooed and the desirable recognition of difference of the tattooed by the non-
tattooed individual (that is, the perception of intentional deviance or
transgressiveness associated with tattooing, especially in its extreme usage47)
affords social power to the tattooed person whose tattoos function as symbolic
capital written, quite literally, “into the body”.48 This notion is supported by
Sullivan’s suggestion that tattoos, in fact, constitute a form of “reiterative
performance” whereby one enacts particular shared codes and practices (rather
than, as many critics and supporters suggest, constituting an intuitive process of
the recognition of innate truths about the individual).49
Drawing explicitly on Bourdieu’s work, Sarah Thornton develops a notion of
subcultural capital which is perhaps more conducive to my argument. Like
Bourdieu’s model, Thornton’s concept places individuals within complex and
multi-dimensional spaces instead of constructing a vertical model of social
structure which places groups and individuals in strict hierarchies. However,
unlike Bourdieu’s concept, subcultural capital is largely unrestrained by class.
Members of particular subcultural groups tend not to be associated in “any one-to-
one way” with a particular economic class (but this is not to imply that class is
irrelevant for such individuals).50 This model corresponds more closely with
contemporary extreme body modification communities, in which individuals are
not intelligibly marked in accordance with class-specific tastes or values as
individuals in Bourdieu’s social groups tend to be. However, where class
distinctions tend to be obfuscated in these communities, gender differences are not.
This further corresponds with Thornton’s theory, which suggests that gender tends
to be a significant social difference along which subcultural capital is typically and
systematically aligned.51 However, what is most significant for this essay’s
purposes is Thornton’s observation that while subcultural capital tends to be based
upon an assertion of difference and deviance by those who possess it and work to
maintain it (a positioning that is often construed as subversive and therefore
progressive or anti-hegemonic), the inscription of such practices and viewpoints as
necessarily progressive is difficult to sustain.52 So while many may see women’s
extreme tattoo practices as overwhelmingly or intuitively progressive (in the sense
that they defy dominant standards of beauty and femininity), it may be equally the
case that these alternative representations uphold many of the dualisms and
assumptions that underpin more traditional Western perspectives of beauty,
though they may do so in ways that are less easily read as such.
In demonstrating symbolic power by talking about their tattoos, most people
tend to emphasize the meanings behind their tattoos, their reasons for acquiring
them, and the experience of having them done. Hewitt notes that an important
aspect of tattooing is the use of pain as a form of self-expression. Similarly, Pitts
cites Sweetman in her discussion of tattoo practices as “body projects”, and states
that the tattooed subject “gain[s]…a sense of accomplishment by enduring pain
and healing the body” which allows her to “experience subjectivity ‘to the full’”.53
Furthermore, Hewitt also points out that it is through the crossing and blurring of
boundaries of the body of what constitutes inside versus outside and through the
interaction with blood and sweat that tattoo practice achieves its primary
transgressive force.54 Connected to this is the notion of labour. This is a question of
some importance when examining tattoos as a cultural phenomenon. While many
may see the bearer of the tattoo as a passive recipient and the artist as a skilled
labourer, most members of tattoo communities tend to see tattoos as “earned”.55
Demerson states that the tattoo process is essential for social perception because
“meaning in body modification is associated with the experience.”56 The voluntary
experience of pain is seen here as a form of work that connects the tattooed person
to the work of art in the same way that the pre-industrial labourer is connected to
the product through their physical relationship to it. Thus it is partly through this
conception of the tattooed individual as an active labourer rather than a passive
recipient that we can understand Hewitt’s quotation cited at the beginning of this
essay, where the process of being tattooed is a “powerful” act of “reclaim[ing] the
body”.57 The analogy of the pre-industrial labourer is also useful when considering
the implications of flash versus original, self-designed images. All of these factors
contribute to a sense of authenticity with regards to an individual’s tattoos.
Interestingly, though the tattoo process tends to be a major focus of the
personal discourses surrounding body modification, tattooing subculture
magazines tend to efface this element most of all. The obfuscation of blood, sweat,
pain and labour is the first of many discrepancies between the practices of
tattooing amongst the heavily tattooed and the representational tendencies of the
media aimed at these same individuals.
Representations of tattoos in Western mainstream media grow ever more
pervasive, and it is not uncommon to see tattoos in ads for Guess jeans modeled by
celebrities (Pamela Anderson’s barbed wire armband tattoo, for example) or
represented in television programs (such as The Simpsons).58 In addition to these
pop culture representations, tattooing is represented by extreme body modification
communities and caters to these communities through specialty websites and
magazines. Unlike more popular media such as fashion magazines, which may
depict models with single small tattoos (an emergent trend that many extreme ‘bod
mod’ community members greet with concern59), these media depict images of
heavily tattooed individuals, male and female, and discursively emphasize many
of the values of tattoo practice outlined in earlier sections of this essay. Other
notable features of this media include the importance placed on custom work and
the denigration of flash, the visibility of tattoos as markers of an ‘extreme’ practice
which goes beyond or subverts the mainstream, the labour of both tattoo
practitioner and tattooed individual, the celebration of practitioners who are
formally trained artists skilled in other ‘legitimate’ arts, and the legitimation
carried out by cross-cultural interaction.
Despite the many commonalities between actual extreme tattoo communities
(as represented through ethnographic research) and the values represented by
their media, there are also many differences, particularly with regard to the
perception, representation and treatment of women. Raymond Williams’ model of
hegemony, specifically his discussion of the selective process of incorporation,
helps explain the presence of tattoo practices within social arenas that bear no
connection to the communities of individuals who identify as extreme body
modifiers. As Jameson notes, the “scandalous and intolerable external irritant is
drawn into the aesthetic process itself and thereby systematically worked over,
‘acted out’ and symbolically neutralized.”60 This can be understood as
paraphrasing a process that Williams sets out as an essential feature of the
hegemonic, whereby the dominant incorporates the residual and the emergent
through “reinterpretation, dilution, projection, discriminating inclusion and
exclusion.”61 Similarly, Henri Lefebvre declares: “That which yesterday was
reviled today becomes cultural consumer-goods, consumption thus engulfs what
was intended to give meaning and direction.”62 Clearly, this process has been and
continues to be a factor in the popular adoption of tattoo practices as well as the
appropriation and adaptation of non-Western tattoo motifs and practices by
extreme body modifiers. In representing members of these communities, even in
contexts where they themselves are the only intended consumers of a media
product, many aspects of the tattoo practices on which these communities are
based are reinterpreted, diluted and excluded. An example of this dilution or
exclusion is the representation (or lack thereof) of the tattoo process.
Although academic writers and researchers have found that the process and
pain of tattooing constitute a central component of its expressive and identificatory
impulse, tattoo magazines such as Skin & Ink and International Tattoo Art rarely
depict images of this process, except for the odd case in which men are depicted
having their bodies tattooed. In the magazines I examined there were no images of
women in the process of being tattooed, and there were no written accounts of this
process by either women or men.63 Similarly, it is rare for the popular media to
represent the tattoo process and even less common that this process is represented
in connection with tattooed women.64 Examples of celebrities being tattooed do
occasionally enter the mainstream media, usually as promotional tools. New Kid
on the Block Donnie Wahlberg, for example, was photographed having his
shoulder tattooed in 1991, an attempt to demonstrate his “badness” in order to
maintain the loyalty of his aging fan base. Similarly, Steve-O from MTV’s Jackass
agreed to have his arm tattooed while riding in a jeep on bumpy terrain. His arm is
revealed to the camera once the tattoo is ‘complete’ and the sight of his blood and
irritated skin remind us of how ‘rebellious’ and ‘crazy’ those Jackass guys really
are. These kinds of demonstrations are extremely uncommon for women.
Women’s tattoos are almost never shown as anything but completed works of
art.65 As noted above, the pain of tattooing constitutes one element of its
expressiveness. It may be an empowering process, but a process that is perhaps
denied female representation because it draws attention to body boundaries that
play an important role in gender formation. It also reminds us (through the
intentional transformation of the body) of cultural constructions of the body,
sexual desire and gender roles, and thus points to hegemonic processes of gender
formation. By denying this representation, these media exclude elements which are
uncomfortable (or, in Jameson’s words, “intolerable”) for us because they question
the dominant norms of femininity.
In considering this effacement of process it is interesting to note that Sanders
refers to the process of having oneself tattooed as implicitly sexual.66 Sullivan also
cites early twentieth century perspectives on the tattoo process which saw it as
inherently sexual.67 Sanders notes that popular (mis)conceptions understand
tattooing as a process that involves an active person and a passive person,
mirroring traditional formulations of heterosexuality where women are perceived
as passive and men as active. Thus, in accordance with Thornton’s formulation of
subcultural capital, tattooing’s potential progressiveness cannot be said to be a
fixed association or reading. Furthermore, despite its subcultural capital, it may
remain culpable in the reinscription of traditional binaries (active / passive, male /
female).
The absence of women’s tattoos in-process within the magazines analyzed
could be interpreted in a number of ways. Discourses of female empowerment are
overtly expressed as important to the community of body modifiers who constitute
the readership of these magazines. The perceived eroticism of the process itself,
particularly when a male tattoo artist performs it on a female subject, can be read
as suggesting passivity. This could be seen as reinscribing traditional conceptions
of sexuality in terms of a male / active, female / passive dichotomy. In this way, it
may be considered offensive to the ‘feminist’ sensibilities of some readers and / or
contributors. Conversely, others may read images of women undergoing the
tattooing process (where such an eroticism is perceived) as excessively expressive
of women’s sexuality. That is, rather than being interpreted as something being
‘done to’ women, such images might suggest to some an overwhelming expression
of female sexual desire that is deviant or subversive.
Feminist accounts of representations of women’s bodies have tended to
occupy one of two polarized positions. Many theorists, particularly those
associated with Second Wave feminism, viewed dominant Western
representations of women as objectifying, exotifying and fetishizing. For example,
Laura Mulvey discusses the representation of women in film according to a
“straight, socially established interpretation of sexual difference” that is pervasive
and “which controls images, erotic ways of looking and spectacle.”68 The
scopophilic impulse (outlined by Freud as a component instinct of sexuality
whereby individuals are subjected to a controlling and curious gaze) was clearly at
work in the carnival displays of tattooed women in the early twentieth century,
and is viewed as the impetus behind popular representations. Mulvey states that
in fragmenting the female body and physically positioning female models in
passive, submissive or sexualized ways, media images are coded to convey a sense
of “to-be-looked-at-ness”.69
Many critics of Mulvey’s work have noted the denial of female spectatorial
agency and object to the notion that women are inherently restricted by media
representations of themselves to a few, very narrow subject positionings. This
argument implies that women are able to interpret media representations of
femininity in a multitude of creative and subjective ways. Judith Butler notes that
“the subject of feminism is produced and restrained by the very structures of
power through which emancipation is sought.”70 In other words, by negating the
possibility of women having positive interpretations or identifications, we may be
restraining alternate or variable conceptions of femininity and empowering ways
in which women may use these media. While Mulvey’s formulation remains useful
in terms of understanding the overt coding of patriarchal images of women within
tattoo magazines, it is also important to consider the women who act within the
target communities and the ways in which they might negotiate these same images
in connection with their own ideals, values and beliefs associated with femininity,
tattoo practices and the communities which surround these overlapping identities
and practices. Women readers might, for example, be reminded of the empowering
process of their own tattooing through the images of other women with tattoos,
particularly if the imagery or placement is similar to their own. Though the process
is effaced in these representations, it cannot be effaced from the memories of those
who have experienced it. Furthermore, women may identify with the few men
depicted ‘in-process’ on the basis of the experience itself, rather than failing to
identify simply because of a difference of sex or gender.
In contrast to Mulvey’s theory and other theories which view(ed)
representations of women as necessarily objectifying and subordinating, feminists
associated with more recent movements often view sexually connotative
representations of women as appealing to the freedom of sexual expression which
was denied women previously. By baring their bodies, women may be seen as
taking control over their physical selves and controlling the direction of the gaze.
This corresponds to Hebdige’s suggestion that girls participating in subcultures
related to sexuality and sexual expression use their bodies through posing and
decoration to “turn being looked at into an aggressive act.”71 Furthermore, when
women who do not perfectly fit within Western heteronormative standards of
beauty are depicted (thin, white, large breasts, long blond hair, flawless skin, etc.),
such representations are frequently seen from this viewpoint as automatically
progressive because restrictive conventions of femininity are being denied or
subverted. This perspective is very common in contemporary discourse on women
and tattoos that celebrate the practice of tattooing and the representation of
tattooed women as inherently progressive. Ruth Barnes and Joanne Eicher assert
that the alteration of visually gendered cues is an essential feminist project.72
Citing Barnes and Eicher, Forbis observes that it is “important … [to] creat[e]
alternative visual images that don’t subscribe to the standard.”73 Tattooing the
body disrupts the ideal of flawless skin and is thus seen as one such alternative.
Similarly, Christine Braunberger argues that by “making one’s body into the
seductive and scary and strange combination that is monster beauty… [t]attooed
women [can] revel in their freakiness, enjoy the act of display, and delight in the
tease of their tales.”74 Pitts explains more explicitly:
Proponents stress how body modification has subversive potential,
particularly for women, whose bodies are so often pressured by cultural norms
of beauty or are the victims of sexual or physical abuse. In these cases, they
argue, women can reclaim their bodies from physical or symbolic victimization
by creatively and ritually modifying them. Piercing, branding, scarification,
heavy tattooing, and the like challenge conventional beauty ideals…75
In relation to tattooing and other forms of ‘bod mod’, this type of interpretation is
often espoused by proponents of the movement known as “Modern Primitivism”,
a subset of the larger extreme body modification subculture.76 This movement
tends to be the most extreme in terms of its conception of body modification as
inherently progressive and linked to ‘natural’ expressions of personal identity.
The representations of women found in Skin & Ink and International Tattoo Art
can quite easily be interpreted according to either (or both) of these perspectives,
depending on the desires, intentions and cultural positioning of the reader.
Sullivan’s work relies on ethical theory to situate her claims of contingency as
integral to ‘reading’ tattoos. She notes that “whilst the concern of ethics is most
often thought to be moral principles and judgments, it is nevertheless also to do
with location, position, and place.”77 She quotes Rosalyn Diprose, who suggests
that ethics “is about being positioned by and taking a position in relation to
others.”78 This discussion and an exploration of Foucault’s conception of power /
knowledge lead to an understanding of the tattooed self (as well as those who look
upon the tattooed individual) as unable to extricate herself from within the
matrices of power and discourse that surround us all. Essentially, we can only ever
‘read’ tattoos, or representations of tattoos, through the discourses available to us.
This does not mean that we cannot see tattoos and / or representations of women’s
tattooed bodies as empowering or subversive, nor does it mean that we can see
them as necessarily or unproblematically so.
Skin & Ink and International Tattoo Art are intended for both men and women
in Western tattooing communities and do not make any overt claims as to an erotic
or pornographic function. In the case of Skin & Ink, however, such a function is
implied at the level of political economy. Until recently the magazine was
published by Larry Flint Publications, a company best known for its pornographic
publications (Hustler and Barely Legal, for example), and was bought by another
pornography publisher, Magna Publishing Group (known for their magazines
Swank and Ripe). Although these companies publish other magazines not
specifically deemed pornographic, they do restrict themselves to publications
discursively aimed at Western heterosexual males in particular (extreme skate
magazine Big Brother, for example, is published by LFP and Sports Preview is
published by Magna).
Within the magazines themselves many strategies are utilized to downplay
any overt hetero-male focus and the potentially pornographic function of much of
their content. For example, women are employed as writers for these magazines
and are foregrounded in features that depict or discuss the working environment
behind the scenes.79 Also, pieces about female tattoo artists are occasionally
featured in an attempt to represent the women who labour within these
communities as artists and community figureheads.80 While these strategies may
be read as empowering for female readers, these magazines depict women in ways
which are ambiguous and cannot be solely understood as coming from feminist
perspectives (such as the view that tattoos on women’s bodies inherently
contradict or subvert traditional beauty standards).
Both Skin & Ink and International Tattoo Art almost always feature women on
their covers. Of the eighty-two magazine covers I examined, only ten featured men
alone on the cover (these men had notably ‘cross-cultural’ tattoos; three others
featured a man and a woman together in a romantic pose). All of the women
photographed for these covers are young, thin and generally have large breasts
(often the models are bare-chested, and use their hands to cover their nipples).
Their faces are never tattooed. Many of the poses are reminiscent of pornography
cover art (particularly ‘high class’ or ‘gentlemen’s’ porn such as Playboy), and are
only significantly differentiated by the presence of large areas of tattooed skin.
These approaches to posing are followed through in the inner pages of the
magazines.
Clearly, magazines about tattoos must reveal bodies and skin. This is true for
both the men and women whose photos are featured. In these magazines, the male
tattoo models never smile. Their pecs are flexed, their arms are folded across their
chests or behind their backs, or else their hands are planted firmly on their hips,
and they look directly at the camera.81 Female models, on the other hand, point
their chins down so that their eyes look up at the camera (that is, at the reader),
they hold their hands together at the wrists, coyly leaning forward to show off
their cleavage (often justified by the presence of tattoos on the breasts), or press
their hands against their bare breasts. The women smile or look wide-eyed as they
pull down their pants to reveal tattoos on the pelvic bone. Visual representations
of normatively attractive women are also incorporated into the tattoos themselves
as many of the male models sport artwork which features sexualized ‘pin-up’ girl
imagery.
While many of the female models depicted on the inside pages are not
necessarily idealized in terms of popular conceptions of beauty (i.e. they may be
slightly heavier than models in traditional magazines or have small breasts in
comparison to porn stars), they continue to fit general categories of standardized
Western beauty conventions in terms of size, facial features and age. In addition,
focus remains on fetishized parts of the body such as the breasts, hips or lower
abdomen / pelvic bone. The men, however, tend to be outside popular
conceptions of the ideal male form to a much greater extent (i.e. they are often
extremely over- or underweight and many of them are middle-aged or older). This,
too, is reminiscent of heterosexual pornographic conventions where women are
exaggerated, hyper-real versions of femininity in opposition to ‘real-looking’ guys
(the best known and most extreme example of this is Ron Jeremy, possibly the
world’s most famous heterosexual male porn star, also known as The Hedgehog
for his short, fat, hairy stature).
The strategic focus of photographic representations of tattoos located on parts
of the body traditionally fetishized in Western representations of feminine beauty
may encourage a sexualized connotative effect within a reader’s interpretations.
One could read these images in terms of Braunberger’s statement: “Even here at
this permeable limit of body aesthetics, women are expected to maintain their
bodies within larger social codes of size and shape.”82 In addition, as Forbis notes,
the conventions of portrait photography in Western media possibly influence
choices made by both the photographers and the models themselves during the
shooting process, even if only subconsciously.83 However, while it may be easy to
interpret the women depicted (as well as the tattoos themselves) as fetishized in
Mulvey’s terms, an understanding of Sullivan’s approach prevents this claim from
being made too simplistically.
The women represented in these ways are active members of the tattooing
community by virtue of their heavily tattooed bodies, their participation in
community events (such as the Texas Tattoo Jam) and their familiarity with the
‘codes’ of the social group. In spite of this, they are often visually depicted in
sexualized and fetishized ways that relegate them to the status of passive objects.
This form of representation (i.e. the traditional, heteronormative qualities of their
photographs), coupled with the effacement of female labour (i.e. the lack of images
of women experiencing the pain and pleasure of the tattoo process), could
encourage a reading of these magazines as simple attempts to interpolate male
members as active participants, ignoring the identificatory needs of female
members of these communities. Furthermore, in this sort of formulation the tattoos
themselves are often read as fetish objects. An extreme example of this type of
interpretation is figured in Braunberger’s work, which demonstrates that those
who denounce tattooing on feminist grounds do so because they perceive tattoos
as “symbol(s) of bodily excess.”
When a woman’s body is a sex object, a tattooed woman’s body is a lascivious
sex object; when a woman’s body is nature, a tattooed woman’s body is
primitive; when a woman’s body is spectacle, a tattooed woman’s body is a
show. It would seem that whatever manifold meanings women attach to their
tattoos are culturally written over to simply and only punctuate meanings
already attached to their bodies within a larger cultural domain.84
However, it is unlikely that this reading would be so uniform and unequivocal for
all individuals, male and female, who read (and are represented in) these
magazines. Textual features of these magazines do indicate a female readership
that is active and that regards these publications in a positive, non-oppressive
light. Letters to the editor, for example, tend to be submitted by both men and
women. In the two magazines discussed here, women had submitted
approximately one third of the letters. These letters indicate their authors’ loyalty
to the magazine as an extension of their community and emphasize the “first-class
information” within, as well as the “enthusiasm” and “good attitude” of the
writers. The talents of specific tattoo artists are celebrated (particularly in response
to female tattoo artists and their work) and submissions of personal artwork are
included. One letter is actually a poem entitled “Ode to a Tattoo” which witnesses
the author’s dedication to protecting her new tattoos, her excitement about the
beginning of her “life with inked beauty”, and her pride and confidence in
response to critiques of tattooing that focus on the ageing body.85 Several women
also send in questions: one inquires about industry standards and tattooing
pregnant women. Most of the letters from male readers focus on similar issues, but
a significant number of these also mention the sexual appeal of cover models, and
some request more images that focus on tattoos on certain body parts considered
exceptionally ‘beautiful’. These two types of letters are equally dominant,
suggesting that male readers interpret the magazines in differing ways – there is
no one ‘masculine’ or ‘male’ reading.
These women’s letters demonstrate that tattoo magazines can be (and are)
interpreted in multiple and complex ways by their female readership. The
influence of women in the magazines through active participation as writers,
administrators and art staff also attests to the variety of subjective ways in which
such publications are perceived. While men hold the highest-ranking positions and
the majority of the writers are male, a female presence is visible since women do
work as art directors, copy editors, writers and sales managers for these
magazines. While many of the female writers are assigned stories that focus on
male talent (the majority of stories overall, due largely to the high ratio of men to
women working as tattoo artists), they often acknowledge their own gender and /
or sexuality within their writing (by commenting, for example, on the physical /
sexual appeal of the men with whom they interact).86 This could be understood as
a reversal of the gender hierarchy which, Butler declares, stems from the Western
philosophical tradition and is produced, maintained and rationalized by a
masculine / mind, feminine / body binary framework.87 It also potentially
demonstrates an openness to the expression of female sexuality that many female
readers may find extremely empowering. Other female writers deliberately
employ what might be typically considered masculine discourse, often leading to a
sense of surprise for the reader upon realizing that the author is in fact female.88 In
pointing out the reader’s own assumptions about gender, it is possible for these
discursive approaches to effect a denaturalization which can, according to Butler,
have a subversive function. However, Butler also notes that in cases where this
denaturalization occurs without being problematized, an augmentation, rather
than subversion, of the heterosexual hegemony may in fact be the result in that it
reassures readers of their own political righteousness and creates an illusion of
equality and / or subversion.89 Clearly, none of these issues are strictly delineated,
supporting Sullivan’s perspective that there is no straightforward relationship
between expression and reception90 (if, in fact, there can even be said to be a
straightforward expressive intention in the mind of those who write, pose and
shoot for these magazines).
Finally, while the photographs of women within these magazines may fit
stereotypical ideas of heteronormative Western conceptions and representations of
femininity to a significant extent (as denounced by Second Wave feminist theorists,
like Mulvey), this does not mean that they are not pleasurable for the women
whose bodies are featured in them, or for the women who consume them. The
implication that only men gain pleasure from images of female bodies is very
narrow in terms of an understanding of human sexuality in general. Although the
lack of diversity of body types inevitably means that some women are excluded
from representation as well as pleasurable consumption (which is undoubtedly
problematic), to denounce the representations available through these magazines
also excludes some women. The women who do gain pleasure from such images –
whether by posing for them, or looking at them – should not be denied such
pleasure simply because it does not fit yet another standard of what ‘should’ be
pleasurable or acceptable for women. Such rigid parameters represent yet another
means of relegating certain types of femininity or feminine expression to the
domain of the ‘bad woman’.
In the mainstreaming of tattoo practices formerly considered deviant or
immoral we can identify the hegemonic process at work as it selectively
incorporates certain elements of cultural practice while continuing to exclude
others. That is, by the popular acceptance of certain kinds of tattooing – practices
which involve one or two small, relatively hidden pieces – the general public
experiences increased tolerance as a feature of contemporary life in the West. This
popularization means that those who wish to remain marginal have to go further,
tattooing larger areas of their bodies in order to be considered exceptional or
subversive by virtue of their tattoos. The presence of individuals and communities
of individuals who are heavily tattooed undermines the perceived openness of
popular culture by pointing out our continuing anxiety about the practice of
tattooing in certain non-sanctioned forms. Of course, these communities also
operate within the larger culture, and the values and beliefs that are privileged by
them are negotiated through the same processes. They are no more able to extricate
themselves from the matrices of power and knowledge than are individuals who
identify with what might be referred to as the mainstream. Certain traditions or
aspects of traditions may be revered here while others, such as biker tattoos and
jailhouse tattoos, are discredited. Individuals operating within these communities
demonstrate a certain degree of gender neutrality from the perspective of process
and lived experience (that is, the process remains the same for both women and
men, and the experience of being tattooed and living with tattoos is expressed in
non-gendered terms). The media representations of and for these communities
complicate the ideals of gender equality expressed in literal terms elsewhere (i.e. in
conversation and practice). In this light, Western extreme tattoo communities may
support Jameson’s contention that countercultural forms “are somehow secretly
disarmed and reabsorbed by a system of which they themselves might well be
considered a part since they can achieve no distance from it.”91 However, this is
not to suggest that they can have no subversive effects. It is of the utmost
importance, I hope this paper has shown, to consider representations of tattoos –
and women’s tattoos specifically – in terms of a multiplicity of contingent and fluid
readings that are enacted by individuals in individual contexts, interconnected and
mutually informed as many of these may be.
Notes
Kim Hewitt, Mutilating the Body: Identity in Blood and Ink (Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Press, 1997), 103. Return
Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16.3 (Autumn 1975): 750. Return
Dick Hebdige, Hiding In The Light: On Images and Things (London: Routledge, 1988), 35. Return
Melissa M. Forbis, “‘This is My Body’: Gender, Tattooing, and Resistance in the United States,” MA thesis (Temple University, May 1994 [accessed 29 November 2004]), 13. Available from http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/wava/forbis/forbis-title. Return
Victoria Pitts, In The Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 2. Return
Sarah Thornton, “The Social Logic of Subcultural Capital,” in The Subcultures Reader, Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton, eds. (London: Routledge, 1997), 202. Return
Thornton, 203. Return
Elizabeth Demerson, “After the Pain, Beauty Remains: Identity and Aesthetics of Body Modification in Montreal,” MA thesis (Montreal: Concordia University, 2001), 64. Return
Nikki Sullivan, Tattooed Bodies: Subjectivity, Textuality, Ethics, and Pleasure (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001), 4. Return
Demerson, 67. Return
Paul Sweetman, “Anchoring the (Postmodern) Self? Body Modification, Fashion and Identity,” in Body Modification, Mike Featherstone, ed. (London: Sage, 2000), 55. Return
Pitts, 7. Return
Michael Thevoz, The Painted Body (New York: Rizzoli, 1984), 20; Demerson, 7; Pitts, 5; Sullivan, 2. Return
Demerson, 7-8. Return
Clinton R. Sanders, Customizing the Body: The Art and Culture of Tattooing (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), 10. Return
Demerson, 7. Return
It is also worth noting that certain types of tattooing have been associated with the idea of branding rather than adornment. The Nazi tattooing of Jews, for instance, is an example of tattoos as symbols of punishment, ownership and incarceration. Return
Sanders, 40. Return
Pitts, 5. Return
Margot Mifflin, Bodies of Subversion: A Secret History of Women and Tattoo (New York: Juno, 1997), 33; Demerson, 8. Return
Pitts, 17; Sullivan, 13. Return
Mifflin, 18. Return
Forbis, 13. For a discussion of the sexual exotification of tattooed ‘others’ in early ethnographic photography, see also Christian Klesse, “‘Modern Primitivism’: Non-Mainstream Body Modification and Racialized Representation,” in Body Modification, Mike Featherstone, ed. (London: Sage, 2000), 26. Return
J. Briggs, “Tattooing,” in The Medical Times 87 (1958): 1030-1039; quoted in Sanders, 37. Return
Pitts, 3. Return
Demerson, 9; Hewitt, 97, 100 and 5; Sanders, 19. Return
Mark Blanchard, “Post-bourgeois Tattoo: Reflections on Skin Writing in Late Capitalist Societies,” Visual Anthropology Review 7.2 (1991): 16. See also Marcia Tucker, “Tattoo: The State of the Art,” Artforum (May 1981): 42-47. Return
Demerson, 62; Sanders, 19. Return
Demerson, 68. Return
Demerson, 64-65; Sanders, 47-48. Return
Demerson, 64. Return
Demerson, 59. Return
Demerson, 61; Sullivan, 79. Return
Demerson, 3. See also Samuel M. Steward, Bad Boys and Tough Tattoos: A Social History of the Tattoo with Gangs, Sailors and Street-Corner Punks, 1950-1965 (New York: Haworth, 1990) and Albert Parry, Tattoo: Secrets of a Strange Art as Practiced Among the Natives of the United States (1933; repr., New York: Collier, 1971). Return
See Frederic Jameson, “Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” New Left Review 146 (July-August 1984): 53-92. Return
Demerson, 172. Return
Demerson, 70. Return
Sanders, 43. Return
Jameson, 61. Return
Jameson, 60. Return
Sweetman, 63. Return
Hewitt, 100-101. Return
Demerson, 158, 50. Return
Hebdige, 29. Return
Pierre Bourdieu, “Social Space and Symbolic Power,” In Other Words (Cambridge: Polity, 1990), 128. Return
Bourdieu, 128. Return
Sweetman, 56. Return
Bourdieu, 128. Return
Sullivan, 25. Return
Thornton, 202-203. Return
Thornton, 204. Return
Thornton, 209. Return
Pitts, 32. Return
Hewitt, 104. See also Parry, 2 and Steward, 41-42. Return
Demerson, 69. Return
Demerson, 168. Return
Hewitt, 103. Return
Sweetman, 52. Return
A number of Forbis’ respondents “expressed dismay that tattooed women in fashion magazines are viewed only as ‘sexy’ and said they hope this doesn’t cause people to treat them more sexually.” Forbis, 86. Return
Frederic Jameson, “Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture,” Signatures of the Visible (1979; repr., New York: Routledge, 1992), 18. Return
Raymond Williams, “Dominant, Residual, and Emergent,” Marxism and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 123. Return
Henri Lefebvre, Everyday Life in the Modern World, Sacha Rabinovitch, trans. (New York: Harper and Row, 1971); quoted in Dick Hebdige, “Subculture: the Meaning of Style,” in The Subcultural Reader, Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton, eds. (London: Routledge, 1997), 131. Return
The magazines examined were inclusive runs of the monthly publication International Tattoo Art (New York: Mavety Media Group, January 1999-December 2004) and Skin & Ink: The Tattoo Magazine (New York: Fox Run Publications, March 2002-November 2004). Return
Historically this was not necessarily the case. Nineteenth century tattooed women who performed in carnival ‘freak shows’ often told tales of their tattoo process, usually in terms of having been subjected to it by force. These verbal and textual accounts of ‘tattoo rape’ allowed for a gap between the (titillating) notion of tattooed women as ‘bad girls’ and the conception of such women as victims or ‘good girls’. See Mifflin, 18-20, and Christine Braunberger, “Revolting Bodies: The Monster Beauty of Tattooed Women,” NWSA Journal 12.2 (Summer 2000 [accessed 29 November 2004]). Available from http://iupjournals.org/nwsa/nws12-2.html. Return
On the other hand, some academic texts do depict other forms of body modification – such as breast implants – if not in process, at least shortly after the completion of the process when sutures and bruising remain visible. See Pitts, chapter 3 (photo inserts). However, I have not seen any media representations of the modification of women's bodies in process (or of women's bodies that bear the evidence of process, such as bruising, bleeding or sutures) outside of academic texts, and none where tattoos specifically are shown in process on women's bodies, even in academic texts. Return
Sanders, 38. See also Steward, 41-42. Return
Sullivan, 15. Return
Mulvey, 746. Return
Mulvey, 750. Return
nd Judith Butler, “Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire,” in The Cultural Studies Reader, 2 edn, Simon During ed. (London: Routledge, 1993), 342. Return
Hebdige, 29. Return
See Ruth Barnes and Joanne B. Eicher, eds., Dress & Gender: Making and Meaning (Providence, Rhode Island: Berg, 1992). Return
Forbis, 21. Return
Braunberger, n.p. Return
Pitts, 15. Return
For a lengthy discussion and criticism of Modern Primitivism see Klesse, 15-38. Return
Sullivan, 50. Return
Rosalyn Diprose, The Bodies of Women: Ethics, Embodiment and Sexual Difference (London: Routledge, 1994); quoted in Sullivan, 50. Return
See Holly Tuesday, “Backstage at Skin & Ink,” Skin & Ink: The Tattoo Magazine 22 (January 2004): 50-57. Return
See Tim Coleman, “Kari Barbra Celebrates 20 Years,” Skin & Ink 22 (January 2004) and Miz Jo-d, “Luang Por Bun, Chaang, Falang, Mahouts and Sak Yan: Tattoos from Phuket to Chiang Mai,” International Tattoo Art 23 (February 2004): 70-77. Return
At this point it seems prudent to note that an analysis of the potentially homoerotic nature of these depictions of men – as well as the magazines’ representations of the fetishized, eroticized (and sometimes non-Western) male body – would certainly be feasible and informative. However, this lies beyond the scope and concern of this essay. Return
Braunberger, n.p. Return
Forbis, 91. Return
Braunberger, n.p. Return
“Letters,” Skin & Ink 22 (January 2004): 8-9. Return
See Saralynne Lowrey Precht, “That Rock Poster Guy: L.A.’s Brian Ewing,” Skin & Ink 22 (January 2004): 14. Return
Butler, 350. Return
See Sherri Cullison, “Hell City,” International Tattoo Art (February 2004): 14. Return
Judith Butler, “Critically Queer,” in Identity: A Reader, Paul du Gay, Jessica Evans and Peter Redman, eds. (London: Sage, 2000), 110. Return
See Sullivan, 4. Return
Jameson, “Postmodernism,” 87. Return