Liz. Wolfe, in her article “Your tattoos are problematic”
published in Reason Foundation on
March 10, 2018, discusses why she thinks tattoos are problematic from different
aspects of this issue.
Wolfe discusses the history and origins of tattooing, it relates with
many cultures. Asia was one of the first
regions where tattooing was common. In Japan
Tattoos were associated with criminals and certain types of merchants, it was
outlawed for many years but was made legal again in 1948. In Mexico tattoos were used to honor a
relative who died. “About 90% of sailors in the 19th century sported
tattoos” says Wolfe. Most were nautical in theme, but some sailors adorned
themselves with Hula girls or “pin up girls to remind them of ladies back
home.” Sailors traveling around the
world was one method the art of tattooing spread. Some societies honored them while
some societies shunned tattoos. Twenty years ago, body art became more
acceptable in America. In 1993 the
magazine Playboy debuted its first
tattoo on one of its playmates. Even the
toy company Mattel “released an “inked” Barbie Doll in 2011.” Wolfe said that body art comes in many shapes,
sizes, and colors. People sometimes wait
for long periods of time before deciding what tattoo to have because they do
not want risk regretting their
decision. One person received a
Tasmanian Devil tattoo to honor the death of his father, who years before also
had a Tasmanian Devil tattoo to honor his father.
Wolfe also discusses some of the political issues about tattoos.
Many activists expressed opposition to tattoos that “steal” images from native
cultures. Wolfe calls this “Cultural appropriation.” She says that “Some
popular tattoos have historical lineages so tangled it’s hard to tell who is
appropriating whose heritage.” Quoting Salman Rusdie who said, “The idea of the sacred … seeks to
turn other ideas … into crimes.” Wolfe argues that prohibiting replicating an
idea misses the mark. She states
activists fail to see that replicating art from other cultures preserves it for
the future. She suggests that tattoos
are art and should be protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment
protects the right of free speech. She is
concerned the courts may rule on what can be tattooed and what cannot be tattooed,
and whether tattoos are art and thereby considered a free speech protected by
the first amendment.
Tattoos like any art form are subject to the likes and dislikes of
the individual. I personally do not like
tattoos. In my opinion and from articles I have read, tattoos are sometimes associated
with bad people and criminals. But while
I am personally opposed to tattoos I know people who do get them and who are
not bad people or a criminal. And like
any piece of art, some I like and some I do not like. It just like any other artist, a tattoo
artist should be required to tattoo someone or something he or she finds
against her beliefs.
Comments
Post a Comment