Today’s class was the second, and last day, of our research presentations. I really liked these past two classes with these research presentations. I thought it was really interesting to see the different approaches that people took and how varied our topics were. I was curious about Julia’s because it took a psychological and neurological approach that I didn’t expect, but it was precisely because I didn’t expect it that I found myself absorbed in it. I had never thought to consider the possible reasons as to how our brains work to maybe influence our perceptions of face tattoos. I was also interested by Layla’s. We talked in length about people’s perceptions of tattoos and their relations to gangs, but I never really stopped to consider how tattoos really worked within these gangs. Also, speaking of presentations that made me reconsider things, Rohit’s presentation made me think again about the tattooed characters I have seen in media. It made me reconsider tattoos as a storytelling device and how these tattoos are used in different ways to tell and contribute to these stories.
Author: Grace Yang (Page 1 of 2)
Most of my time in preparation for the next class was spent preparing for my presentation. In the beginning, I was scrambling a bit because, after the annotated bibliographies, I changed my claim, slightly changing the type of articles that I was searching for. I ended up changing my claim to explore the relationship between the South Korean tattoo industry and K-pop idols instead of with self expression and identity. This topic came a lot easier to me considering my interest in both Korean tattoos and entertainment culture. I am a bit worried because as I was doing my research, I found myself encroached in trying to prove my points through other areas of study, but in the end I think I am pretty happy with what I was able to achieve. More into the topic of my presentation, I think it was definitely interesting to try and find the connections between K-pop idols and tattoos in South Korea. One of the things that ended up being mentioned the most was parasocial relationships. I was always aware of, what I call, the twisted relationship between a K-pop idol and fan, but doing research for my paper really made me realize how those relationships can push someone into doing a lot of things, even getting a tattoo. For instance, if a K-pop idol can convince their fans to get plastic surgery, who’s to say that they can’t convince their fans to get tattoos which can be seen as just another form of body modification.
Mifflin’s article reminded me of all the times I have heard the people around me say that tattoos aren’t art. It’s interesting because what separates tattoos from the traditional art we see is the canvas. The idea is the same. The image was still made from someone that put in time and dedication to improver their art. The only difference is that the art of tattoo artists get put onto people meanwhile traditional artists place theirs on some form of paper. Despite this little difference, it was interesting to read about the different people that try to find ways to make tattoos be accepted in what I would consider the “fine art community.” The article stated that one of the main reason’s for people’s aversion to the inclusion of tattoos is because it is unclear how they should go about being displayed. Some promise their skin upon death and others signed a contract that would require them to be exhibited. It’s definitely shaping up to be an interesting dilemma with no clear answer.
In addition to reading Mifflin, I created a presentation on Kim Joon, a South Korean artist mentioned in Mifflin’s article. I did some external research on him and I found that he sees tattoos as a way of representing the internal in art. In other words, he saw tattoos as a way to externalize the identities of the figures he makes. Seeing his works and how he described the meaning of the tattoos he draws, I started to think more on how tattoos could be displayed without the physical tattooed bodies being present.
Although there were many interesting things throughout the readings, I found myself particularly drawn to Braunberger’s writing. This was because it was tiring to read. Not tiring in the sense that it was long and I was tired, but I found myself emotionally out of it by the end of the reading because there doesn’t seem to be any winning for women, as per usual. Body politics is so prominent and women’s bodies in particular are always being controlled and this reading just seemed to further that idea. Tattooed women are described as bringing up thoughts of groups of people like bikers and prostitutes and that is a perception that, for a while, held weight to the larger society. For instance, Braungberger notes of a rape case in which they decided that two men that raped this one girl were innocent because she had a tattoo on her leg. These are images and perceptions that we cannot change on our own no matter how much we want to. When I think about what I have heard about tattooed women, I often hear that they are “trying too hard to look tough,” hence the biker image. I also often hear of tattooed women being sexualized, hence the image of a sex worker. In addition to this, I also hear about women who get looked down upon within tattooing communities if they have “too feminine” of a tattoo. This can be interpreted as a lack of a safe space for tattooed women to escape the perceptions of the general public. So much of this reading goes into bodily ownership and we have discussed before the idea that getting a tattoo doesn’t give you ownership of your body, but I feel like this is doubly true for women.
It was also just interesting to read these articles while doing more research for my annotated bibliography because from what I understand, tattoos in Korea are perceived to be more feminine than masculine. This is because historically, it was primarily men that had tattoos that had negative meanings such tattoos as signs of gangs. Meanwhile, women historically had tattoos of their lover’s name. But this difference in history still influences their perceptions today as they also see tattoos as a form of body decoration. Interpreting tattoos this way makes many Koreans see tattoos as feminine because decorating the body is something that women place more importance in than men.
The readings for this class were interesting to read considering how tightly intertwined tattooing and subcultures are. By getting a tattoo, you are immediately categorized into a tattooing/tattooed subculture. I feel like Michael Atkinson’s “Tattoo Enthusiasts” embodies this idea perfectly. They get accounts from people, whether they are tattooed or are tattoo artists, and many of them speak of how the way people reacted to them and interacted with them changed after they got a tattoo. There was this category of other that these people were placed into, regardless of whether or not their reaction was positive or negative. Even when reactions were positive, it was understood as a big deal to get a tattoo and they were met with amazement and questions. I also just thought it was interesting to read about Straightedge tattooing because it was new to me. I knew and understood that subcultures existed within tattooing, but never knew about how deep they could really go. The idea that this tattoo is pretty much a declaration of their lifestyle is insane to me, insane in that I never even considered it. I mean, people always make assumptions about the lifestyles of heavily tattooed people, saying that they are criminals or affiliated with gangs, but I had never considered the possibility of a singular symbol being an indication of a specific lifestyle. Speaking of ideas that were insane to me, in “Legitimating the First Tattoo,” Irwin references journalists who have wrote that tattooing is so “thoroughly middle class.” In a way, I thought this to be really ironic. This is because tattoos are still not seen as acceptable by many people and more importantly, by many professions. They are often deemed unprofessional or an aesthetic and subculture that they do not want to be affiliated with and can lead to being fired and so much of that workforce with these values is made up of the middle class. So it’s this idea that tattoos are a thing of the middle class but in actuality, many can not have tattoos or as many as they want wherever they want because these restrictions within America’s mainstream culture exists.
I also just did a lot of mental comparisons to my research topic because tattooing as a subculture is so important in Korea because there is legitimately no space within the mainstream culture for them to be accepted. Even celebrities are forced to cover their tattoos with clothes or skin colored tape when on tv. Because of this, identifying other tattooed people and finding a community within them is so important in Korea. In America, you could at least say that tattooing is being more accepted by the younger generations, but in Korea, many of the younger generation do no like tattoos either, holding onto the ideas and beliefs that tattooed people are affiliated with gangs, are delinquents, or are going against the word of God by “defiling” their body. It is because these perceptions are still so prominent and there really is no space for them to be prideful about their tattoos that the idea and existence of a subculture is so important in Korea. In fact, from what I have found, it is because of them being forced to seek out one another for positive words about their tattoos that many of the tattoo artists in Korea seem to know each other or are at least familiar of one another.
In preparation for Wednesday’s presentation, I started by doing some research on the styles that are in circulation today. In doing so, I was simply reminded of how many different styles of tattooing there are. Because of my interest in tattoos and my hopes to one day get one, I was aware of the tattoo styles that existed, but looking back on it, I never really bothered to categorize the tattoos and artists I like into styles. For this presentation, I looked through all the images of tattoos I have saved and started to categorize them in my head into both preexisting categories and categories I named on my own. In the end, I ended up choosing a tattoo artist that I didn’t think fit into one of the larger tattoo categories that are well known.
For my presentation on contemporary tattoo styles, I decided to describe and focus on the tattooing of a Korean tattoo artist named Gong Greem. I chose this tattoo artist, partially because I really want to get a tattoo from them, but also because I thought looking into them would give me some insight for my research. The first thing I noticed was that the didn’t have a website. Everything was done through Instagram and email, and this was actually common for a lot of the Korean tattoo artists that I like. In addition to this, they do not go by their name, but rather a pseudonym, Gong Greem. It seems like because of the illegality of their tattooing, anonymity is something they strive for. I also found myself intrigued by the fact that their tattoo studio seems to be their house, which also doubles as a gallery for their art. By using their space in such a way, it allows their studio to be in a place that is easier to find. I have also found that because the tattooing community in Korea is all underground, none of them really have any connections to any one tattoo studio. Rather, most seem to travel as visiting artists at other tattoo studios instead of staying in Korea and joining one there. Looking into Gong Greem for this presentation really just made me realize how different Korea’s tattooing community is and how our, America’s, ability to be so open with it is thanks to the changing public perception of them.
The reading for this upcoming class was honestly devastating. I was always aware of people getting tattoos as a reaction to a traumatic event in their life, but I see now that I underestimated the number of forms that could take. I always saw them as personal, something close to the tattooed person, and while that is true, it is not all there is to it. The reading on Hurricane Katrina tattoos showed that tattoos meant to symbolize a traumatic event can be shared as well, that there is a community stored within these tattoos. In the reading, a tattoo became a shared point of remembrance as it became a gateway for people to share their own stories as they recognized the symbol that was on the man’s leg. From there comes a community. Even without explicitly saying anything, there are people that will understand what a traumatic tattoo holds from just the mark itself and I believe that even just knowing that someone understands can create a sense of community.
In terms of the presentation for this week’s class, I decided to find tattoos that aimed to cover up self harm scars. These scars represent something traumatic to the vast majority that have them, a reminder of a time when they were in a darker mental state. Because of this, some choose to cover them with tattoos. These tattoos also made me think of the reading in that the pain of the tattoo is a necessary part of the healing process, that something had to be done to the spot that represents the trauma for it to be overcome in a sense. In addition to this, I also thought of my research topic. This was because one of the tattoo artists I found that did a self harm cover up tattoo is based in South Korea. It was interesting to think about the interplay of these two things, tattooing and self harm scars, that are supposed to fall under medical jurisdiction, yet fail to find anything of value there. What I mean is that tattooing in South Korea requires a medical license, but most do not, instead going underground and using other methods to book clients and have spaces to tattoo and it is interesting to see this version of tattooing be intertwined with something pertaining to mental health, which is also supposed to fall under the jurisdiction of medical professionals, but fails to gain validity as an actual issue in South Korea.
In preparing for the National Traditions presentations tomorrow, I had to research the styles and functions of Marquesan tattooing. I learned some really interesting things. One of the things that I found most interesting was the reasoning behind why Marquesan women typically only had their hands tattooed. From what I found, it seemed the tattooing practice was primarily centered around men, with rituals being based around the eldest son and male warriors being the primary focus of a lot of papers. On the other hand, it seemed as if women were only really obligated to tattoo their hands. One passage I found stated that women were obligated to tattoo their hands at around 12 years old because of their beliefs about what the tattoos held. The tattoos held special properties that would allow the girls to then be able to make certain foods that the tattooed men can eat. The idea that tattoos on the hands of women also served as a protection from the energy of the afterlife was also intriguing to me. I never thought that the Marquesans would remove the tattoos from a man’s body when they die and that it was the wife’s job to rub them off. However, considering the ideas that the Marquesans had about death and the afterlife, it makes sense why women sought to protect themselves by markings. Overall it was just interesting to see how a culture so different from what I know utilized tattoos.
Though I read Schildkrout first, I wanted to talk about Rubin first in that it gave an interesting history to tattooing in America. The origins of certain styles and their emergence in America was not something I ever really thought about so it was interesting to read. Rubin, to a certain extent, made tattooing in America sound like a political game, and it was to some degree. It made me think about tattooing in America specifically and what it came from, and it made me appreciate how the culture is changing today. Rubin’s writing also gave tattooing and those with tattoos a lot more agency. They felt more like individuals that had control over their own bodies and choices. His writing made tattooing this culture that stands adjacent to art, something that is meant to be appreciated.
Schildkrout, on the other hand, wrote about tattooing in a way that took away any agency from tattooing. I found an interest in their references to body politics and Foucault specifically. I had to read some of Foucault’s writing for a class before and from what I understood, he talked about how politics and society aims for control over the body and that gaining said control leads to power. Body politics has sadly always been relevant and it still is today and it made me really reconsider the idea of agency in relation to tattooing. With the way that Schildkrout was writing, it really seemed like even those who get tattoos to stand against society and fight back against governments seemed like toys in the hands of a higher power. Tattooing as a way of reclaiming the body after punitive tattooing works in the perspective of the individual, but they still stood as a way to mark them as an other or a criminal in the eyes of society, their crime still defining them. There are also those that tattooed themselves to adjust their life paths but in doing so, you are leaving your body at the mercy of the higher power that you are trying to take divine power from. It seems tattoos can never truly be untangled from its connection to the body and the attempts to control the body.
I grew interested in Chapter 10 early on in the way Caplan describes how the central focus of some earlier investigations on tattoos was not focused on criminals. Rather, they placed an emphasis on the significance of tattoos as a form of “individual identification and differentiation” (Caplan 157). Caplan then quickly moves onto what people in 19th century Europe, more specifically, Britain, thought about tattooing. It was also baffling that Lacassagne, who Caplan also references, wrote that men tattooed themselves as a manifestation of vanity and of a need to display their supposed primitive and criminal natures. He also called it a way for them to defeat boredom. Like I said earlier, I find this baffling, because while it may be possible that some had tattooed themselves for vain reasons or to display a part of the crime the had committed or because they were bored, how were they so quick to write this off as the reason for every single person in a prison to get a tattoo. It just feels like they were overeager, in a way, to write these people and their tattoos off as savage to further their own narrative and opinions without even stopping to consider other possibilities.
Chapter 11 reminded me of the chapter on prisoners that were sent to Australia. These Russian and Soviet convicts were using tattoos as a way of fighting against the government that sought to mark their bodies as a form of punishment. Their tattoos were seen as a way of fighting back and forging their own identities within a type of punishment that seeks to take it away. It is also just terrible that prisoners were branded similar to how people in Russia would stamp their “inanimate property with initials and other seals” as a way of marking ownership (Schrader 179). These marks only serve to further push people into the “other” category, however, it is interesting how others used these brands as a way to prove they were part of a community and how those brands were supposedly proof of experience.
Chapter 12 was an interesting read in that I guess I never thought about how tattoos really came to be popular in America. They were so normalized to me throughout my entire life that I had never stopped to consider it. To realize that the tattoos became popular in America because of the general public’s fascination with what they called the “exotic” was a surprise. It was also interesting to see how tattoos also seemed to play a supporting role despite some of these tattooed people being known by their fully tattooed bodies. What I mean is that people were also greatly interested in the story these people had to tell that was supported by their tattoos and tattooed bodies. It makes me consider how tattoos are a form of stories and storytelling today as well and how such ideas could have existed for a while now.
Chapter 13 just felt like a reminder of how much I’ve never thought about tattooing before. For instance, I never considered that people were thinking about tattoo removal as early as 1891. I had thought that the idea of removal was a much more recent concept and idea. I thought it was also interesting that tattooing had ben considered acceptable during the Civil War as a way of expressing loyalty to the country. It’s also surprising that the earliest record of a professional tattoo artist’s shop was in 1846. That feels somehow both earlier and alter than I had expected. I expected earlier primarily because of what we learned from previous chapters about how tattoos garnered a lot of public fascination starting early one. But at the same time, I thought it would be later considering how much tattoos were stigmatized and seen as something done by “savages.” It really brings into mind the idea of civilized versus uncivilized that was talked about in a previous chapter.
Chapter 14 discusses the contemporary opinion on body modification and while reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but think of my own experiences. The author describes these body modifications as having a type of power to them and that despite things like tattoos and piercings being different types of body modification, they are perceived differently. In my personal experience, I’d say that there is a power in body modification. I don’t have any tattoos but I have piercings and each one has given me a feeling of power, of, in a way, fighting against the control that my parents seek to have over my body. It’s very minimal in the sense that I have gotten all my piercings with the permission of my mother but the idea is that she was only accepting of them because they were not tattoos and that they were still something that helped me get closer to the type of body that I want. She views the permanence of tattoos as something bad and reasons that piercings, despite their ability to leave a scar, are less permanent, and therefore more acceptable.