Mark Uttech wrote:
Tattoos have always made me think of children who write and draw on themselves when they first discover ink pens or magic markers. It is a vain attempt to keep something; like when a photographer takes a photo of lightning or a sunrise or sunset; or of anything, for that matter. In aikido we have "ichigo,ichiei": this one moment will not come again.
This is a fairly limited view of art. I dont have any tats, nor do I have the inclintaion to get one (I am too cheap and lazy to care), but cant this argument be extedned to say that painters are just like kids who write on walls, and scluptors are like kids who play with play dough? This would be a very ungenerous comparison I think. I personally dont like art (by art I mean speciffically painting/photography/sculpture/the theatre/etc atlthough I do not include music in this list). It doesnt get me off, but I dont sweat other people who do get off on it, or get off on mediums that I dont understand. Just seems like a jerk off thing to say Mark. Also, I used to run with a crew who had tats all over their bodies, yeah faces too, and they werent trying to be vain nor were they trying to "keep" something that has passed the instance in time that is NOW . I would like for you to clarify your position for I do not buy that photographers are trying to "keep" something that happened in an instant in the past. I would argue that they are meerly trying to use mechanical reproduction as a means to create 'art' (and no I am not currently prepared to define that term, although it may become necessary later).