One of the most fascinating things to me about this class is thinking about the skin and tattooing as the act of inscribing the skin. I really liked what Schildrkout had to say about this in relation to feminist theory and the emphasis on the body and embodied experiences, a topic we have been addressing a lot in my feminist theory class. I have been drawing a lot of connections between these two classes because of the ways they each emphasize the body as a physical representation of identity. In the case of my feminist theory class, identity is present in the body through the ways it is expressed but also the ways in which the body can sense when things are wrong, which is tied to identity. For example, there’s the classic image of women tensing up when walking alone at night. They might not know in their heads that they feel unsafe, but their body does. Our bodies are a language. Our bodies communicate. In the case of tattooing, tattoos can reflect so many aspects of our identity — group membership, our values, etc. I absolutely loved the way Schildkrout summarized this concept, saying that “the body, as a canvas, is not only the site where culture is inscribed but also a place where the individual is defined and inserted into the cultural landscape. Tattoos, scars, brands, and piercings, when voluntarily assumed, are ways of writing one’s autobiography on the surface of the body” (Schildkrout 338). I think the idea of tattooing as a way of telling one’s story, as an autobiography, is really powerful because it means the person themself is the writer of their own story. They can reveal what is most important to them, document stages of their life, and reclaim their bodies. The Rubin article had so many pictures that demonstrated the art of storytelling on the body. I appreciated the emphasis on tattooing as a high art that takes significant focus and attention to do well. People’s autobiographies are a big deal, so it is the responsibility of tattoo artists to portray them well and assist people in telling their stories.
Category: AR474 (Page 8 of 10)
In preparation for this class session, we read two articles: Enid Schildkrout’s “Inscribing the Body” and Arnold Rubin’s “The Tattoo Renaissance.” Schildkrout’s article presents an overview of anthropological scholarship on tattooing, covering a wide range of topics under the tattooing umbrella. I enjoyed reading about Ahmed and Stacy’s concept of “dermographics,” or “how the skin becomes…meaningful in different cultural contexts” (320). I think it is interesting to imagine the skin as meaningful even when undecorated; the canvas itself has meaning and potential devoid of the artwork placed on it. I also liked the word “dermographics.” Later, Schildkrout made an important point regarding the larger amount of scholarship on piercing versus tattooing. Tattoos become a part of the skin, so when the skin decomposes, tattoos disappear with it. Piercings, due to being metal, outlast a decomposing body, leaving evidence of modification behind. Schildkrout also briefly mentioned tattooing for medical purposes; in addition to talking about Simon Forman, who we learned about in Caplan’s book, he wrote that on certain mummies’ bodies, “correlations can be made between the placement of inscriptions and arthritic joints” (326). Additionally, I learned that in most polytheistic Polynesian cultures, though the people were tattooed, the gods were not. Thus, tattooing can be used to separate humanity from divinity. Schildkrout also cited scholars who researched the effects of tourism on tattooing customs in areas such as Papua New Guinea and North Africa. I found the example of the Nuba men interesting; though Schildkrout talked about body painting rather than tattooing, these men began to paint themselves with the most eye-catching designs they could rather than with traditionally meaningful designs for the purpose of better photography.
After finishing Schildkrout’s article, I moved on to Arnold Rubin’s “The Tattoo Renaissance.” Rubin walked through the career moves of several early influential tattoo artists, whom he divided into two “Renaissance generations.” I loved Rubin’s extensive inclusion of pictures of the work he was discussing. I think my favorite pictures to look at were those of Ed Hardy’s back pieces. They are all so massive and so detailed; I cannot imagine how long and painful they were to complete. I would also love to see how some of these pieces look today, assuming some of the people they are on are still alive. The Bicentennial Backpiece was interesting because of how different it is from a lot of Hardy’s other works. The proportions on the woman feel a little strange, but it is otherwise super well executed. Finally, I was drawn to Leo Zulueta’s Indonesian/Punk design arm tattoo as well – it is super bold but also simple. It reminds me a lot of a more classic version of the modern “cyber sigilism” tattoo trend.
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.
In this class, we talked about Chapters 10-14 of the Written on The Body. In Caplan’s article, ‘National Tattooing’: Traditions of Tattooing in Nineteenth-century Europe’ we contrasted Cesare Lombroso and Lacassagnes’ perception of tattoos, and this led to a thought-provoking discussion on nature vs. nurture. We also discussed cultural appropriation and how the phrase is commonly used today. I believe that this discussion was very helpful for me to put some issues into perspective. I have been thinking about tribal and traditional tattoos, which people are entitled to or “allowed” to get them, and how should we think about cultural appropriation when it comes to tattooing.
We also talked about contemporary Russian prison tattoos, which I found very fascinating. When it comes to prisoners, there is a striking contrast between the punitive function of tattoos and tattoos that prisoners get willingly in order to establish themselves, and to some extent, to take pride in their past. Also, in contemporary Russian prison tattoos, we could observe an established visual language, with specific imagery meaning specific crimes or themes such as “freedom”, that the prisoners developed within their community.
I also thought about how tattoos fit in with the concept of femininity at different ages during this class, especially when we were discussing tattooed entertainers in America and Germany, and 1846-1966 changing perceptions of tattoos in America. The conversation around the idea of “tainted women”, why this perception especially arises when it comes to tattooed women in certain communities, is still very relevant today.
As I continued to read through the chapters there were some similarities throughout different chapters. We see that people of the Western world trying to understand tattoos and studying them but also putting their own interpretations and ideas into tattoos and tattooed people. Chapter 6 mentions the curiosity of the European people that lead to the exoticization of people like Omai.
In Chapter 7, talking about the Godna tattoos in India. We see people whose culture didn’t stigmatize tattoos, get colonized and have part of their culture used as punitive measures. Godna tattoos were originally caste related and in a sense similar to the symbols in Chapter 4. The tattoos were believed to help their next life in a similar way that some believed that the symbols could change their fate outside their current realm. But as India was colonized, the meanings and usage of tattoos changed. The British thought tattoos were directly related to caste and eventually many places in India adopted the use of tattoos as markings for criminals.
Chapter 8 has parallels to the Christians in chapter 2. To prove your devotion to your religion with pain and something permanent is shown in chapter 2 and 8. As someone who grew up very Christian household, I was always taken aback by the way pain is glorified.
In chapter 10 (pg 158)
“The aim of the research was to contribute to the debate about the pathology of the criminal; but the data itself more often bore witness to fact that tattooing was also a popular habit among the male working class and could not be readily identified with either ‘atavism’ or ‘degeneracy’”.
This quote stuck out to me because it underscores the negative narrative tied to tattoos and the confirmation bias – the research was aimed to examine the pathology of a criminal. Chapter 10 later suggests “tattoo can be considered, to use the medico-legal term, as a professional characteristic”. This made me think about how in a way, (visible) tattoos are another piece of data another individual takes into account when they make their first impression of you (consciously or subconsciously).
It’s interesting to think about how tattoos have been linked to showing agency (having control over your life and body) yet its also established that the stigmatized nature of tattoos make people with face tattoos less likely to be hired (limiting their potential possibilities). In chapter 13, the author cites the US Navy’s statement stating that “indecent or obscene tattooing is cause for rejection, but the applicant should be given an opportunity to alter the design, in which event he may, if otherwise qualified, be accepted”. This is so peculiar to me because I truly don’t understand this ubiquitous distaste for tattoos all around the world – I’m interested in learning more about the psychological underpinnings of this disapproval of tattoos.
More specifically, chapter 13 also emphasizes society’s overall disapproval of underage tattoos, mentioning a law passed in 1933 that makes it a misdemeanor to tattoo a child under the age of 16. Obviously, I’m not encouraging underage tattoos. I’m wondering, what about tattoos makes them so repulsive? From a psychological standpoint, why do humans (from all over) dislike tattoos? It’s just so interesting to me because I frankly don’t understand the controversy.
I focused a lot of my attention on chapters 13 and 14 this week because I’m doing presentations on both of them, and I found both of these topics to be very interesting.
For both chapters, I’m particularly intrigued by the way culture around tattooing and piercing has changed over the years, especially how socioeconomic status has been perceived and also how different groups have claimed trends of tattooing and piercing. Chapter 13 documents how tattooing was perceived as exotic and seen as something worthy of a show in the circus. But tattooing began to lose its appeal in the circus as it became more widespread. I also thought it was interesting how people started moving to the suburbs in the post-war era and focusing on middle-class life and materialistic culture, excluding tattoos in this lifestyle and deeming them something to be looked down upon. Piercing also has negative connotations surrounding class, and the quote that really put it into context for me was “The guy with the $10,000 tattoo and a few thousand dollars worth of body jewellery is no different than the guy in the Italian designer suit wearing a Rolex” (Benson in Caplan 244). There is so much stigma around tattooing and piercing that people have neglected to honor both art forms as the sophisticated, expensive, high art forms they are. Even though tattoos and piercings might cost the same as a fancy suit and watch, they aren’t always perceived as having the same style or quality.
In preparation for this class session, we finished Jane Caplan’s Written on the Body. Chapter 10, written by Caplan herself, discusses data collection and ensuing theories surrounding tattooing in 19th-century Europe. I thought it was interesting that a lot of information about tattooed people was collected by physicians and criminologists with the hope of finding a link between tattooing and atavism. As a side note, I learned that atavism means “a tendency to revert to something ancient or ancestral” – I had not heard the term before. One of these 19th-century researchers, Cesare Lombroso of Italy, came to the conclusion that criminals were more similar to “savages” than the average white European, because they could handle the pain of getting many tattoos. My favorite part of Caplan’s chapter was her inclusion of images to demonstrate the types of tattoos Lombroso and other researchers would have seen on the people they wrote about. I especially liked the little skull and crossbones on page 166, which was a German prison tattoo.
In Chapter 11, Abby Schrader discusses convict tattooing in Russia, specifically as it intersects with vagrancy. Apparently, a large number of Russians attempted to flee state control by going to Siberia. At the same time, the Russian state decided to begin exiling criminals to Siberia, depending on their crime. I was really interested in what were termed “seasonal exiles,” or the convicts who would escape during the warmer months and return to prison for the winter (178). Schrader writes that around 1846, the Russian government began consistently branding exiles and vagrants; instead of discouraging these convicts from running away or taking on a new identity, this branding ensured that the vagrants were seen as the most powerful criminals. The more brands a convict had, the more he was respected. The vagrants even tattooed themselves, further separating them from the rest of society and creating a hierarchy within the prison system.
Stephan Oettermann looks at tattooing in the worlds of the German and American fairgrounds in Chapter 12. He discusses the common lie some of the tattooed sideshow characters would tell – that they were abducted by any number of indigenous groups and forcibly tattooed. With the advent of P. T. Barnum’s circus, “the tattooed man or tattooed lady became a profession” (200). I found it interesting, given that before this course I thought tattooing was uncommon in the late 19th century, that the tattooed person sideshow was so normal, and even became boring to some people. Oettermann makes a compelling connection between the tattooed lady’s show and an erotic performance because she has to take off some of her clothing to show her tattoos.
In Chapter 13, Alan Govenar goes through the history of tattooing in the United States from the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries. Govenar notes that much of the limited research done on tattooing around 1900 was focused on the armed forces; over time, as tattoo designs became more “obscene,” military leadership upheld stricter policies about tattoos. Govenar spends a lot of time talking about Gus Wagner, a heavily tattooed American tattoo artist. Though the electric tattoo machine had been invented by the time Wagner started tattooing, he did not use it. According to Govenar, “the repertory of designs” drastically expanded at the beginning of the 20th century – probably due to the new possibilities of the electric tattoo machine (219). Unlike Oettermann’s erotic sideshow woman, Govenar describes modestly-dressed tattooed circus women, with “highly detailed and modelled” tattoos (225). I was surprised to learn that tattooing became significantly less popular in the 1950s, but it makes sense as a response to the end of World War II. Middle-class America villainized tattooing, and I think the effects of that villainization are still apparent today in the negative way that many people view those who are tattooed.
The final chapter, written by Susan Benson, discusses piercing as well as tattooing. Benson identifies both practices as “statements of the self,” expected to represent the inner self to the best of one’s abilities (244). I was slightly disturbed, however, to read Benson’s assertion that the “vision” of one’s body with piercings “often draws upon an aesthetic of penetration and subjection…reinforces this sense of a body to be mastered” (250). Maybe this is a generational difference, or the result of the normalization of piercings, but as someone with nine piercings, I have never looked at them in the context of subjection or mastery. I just like how I look with shiny things in my nose and ears; the associated pain and the holes are a byproduct of this desire rather than an integral part of my appearance as a pierced person.
Jane Caplan’s Chapter 10 of Written on the Body discusses specific investigations and studies of tattooing in Rumania, Spain and Belgium. Caplan uses the international criminology debate stemming from France and Italy-based investigations made by criminologists Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909) and Alexandre Cassalagne (1843-1924). Caplan’s essay focuses on three different studies conducted by Belgian criminologist Louis Vervaeck, forensic anthropologist and criminologist Nicolas Minovici, and criminologist Rafael Salillas. These studies further support the conclusion that European tattooing as a practice has repeatedly been denied to come from indigenous transport or influence. Moreover, these criminologists underlined the degree to which foreign influences led to the development of European tattooing. While Caplan states these points, she concludes her essay by asserting how the tattoo has become an emblem for cultural exchange, regardless of whether people have chosen to realize it or not. Caplan insinuates that the cultural transmission of European tattooing as a present practice comes not from “traditional” cultures, but from the survival of “savage” cultures and reminds us of the survival of the meaning of inscription in tattooing.
Abby M. Schrader’s Chapter 11 of Written on the Body recounts how Russian officials utilized branding as a way of preventing fugitives from opposing the status system that held the infrastructure of the Russian state. Body marking quickly became a marker for self-control and the ability to construct identity. This ultimately led to the development of a tattooing culture among criminals in Russia and the Soviet Union. Schrader’s essay leans on to the notion that bodily inscription was a form of self-construction and criminals’ ability to forge their own identities, but only when concerned in the official practices of status-ascription. Schrader continues this through conveying the status groupings process initiated by Peter the Great. His goal was to structure a well-ordered police state and anyone who defied the expectations of said system was “a rejection of Russian authorities’ power,” which resulted in officials developing new politics to address or correct these inadequacies (Schrader 177). Two types of exile in contemporary Russia: the first type of exile comprises those who committed serious crimes like murder, arson, robbery, brigandage, etc. The state stripped these individuals of their property, declared them dead civilly and exiled them to Siberia. Prior to the eighteenth century, those, of all social groupings, convicted of hard labour exile were subject to facial punishments like knouting. The second type of exile consists of those facing punishments for less serious crimes. These were people convicted of lesser crimes and those deemed troublemakers in communities.
Stephan Oettermann’s essay on tattooed entertainers in America and Germany appears in chapter 12 of Written on the Body. Oettermann refutes a common lie told by many of the tattooed individuals appearing in shows. I found it interesting that these entertainers would mislead people into believing that these entertainers were abducted by Indigenous peoples and forcibly tattooed. The understanding that tattooing in the nineteenth century was common amongst entertainers provides me with more questions as to what other reasons these people would resort to the conception that they had been abducted.
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.