Tattoo News Review
The tattoo news this week has no love for the hippies. Guns, gangstas, ghouls topped the headlines with some juicy body art bits so let's get right to it:
The biggest headline: Rihanna get's a new tattoo -- guns on each side of her rib cage by East Side Ink's Bang Bang. And it turns out it was the tattooist's idea:
"I'm a big advocate of guns. So I said, 'How about a gun?' I printed out a picture of a gun that I thought would look good, and she loved it. We were thinking of putting it on her finger next to her wrist, or on her shoulders. She loved that, but it took away from her face, and you know, she's a CoverGirl, so we couldn't do that! So we put it under her ribs and she loved it. It took about 15 minutes. She didn't complain while I did the tattoo."
C'mon, this has nothing to do with wanting to bust a cap in Chris Brown's ass? Bang Bang says the singer stayed quiet:
"We didn't talk about why she specifically got it. She's a rock. She's just thinking about having a great time now." [Thanks to Jenni for the links!]
In the best tattoo story written by a business mag: Forbes profiles Paul Booth. And it's not bad. I'm not a fan of "The King of Creepy" headline but the article itself was fairly devoid of the usual cliches, and discussed Booth's other projects including plans for a "dark arts" bed and breakfast, preferably at an old Victorian in the woods. Another cool aspect to the article -- albeit very Forbes-ish -- is the photo gallery of Paul's work, which lists the occupation of the wearer and how much he or she paid for the tattoo.
Ed Hardy is also featured in a article and podcast centering around his solo exhibition of his original paintings, prints and drawings at the Sylvia White Gallery in Ventura, CA. Hardy's famed "Dragon Scroll" is the show's centerpiece: a 500-foot-long scroll painting of 2000 dragons in honor of the millennium and Chinese Year of the Dragon. Interestingly, the article says Hardy "distanced himself" from the clothing brand that bears his name [good thing to stay quiet in light of the law suit] but did say "For me not to have to tattoo and to focus the majority of my time on my personal art -- that to me is like my golden retirement." And well deserved.
Going from the masters to the messes ...
The biggest tattoo "FAILS": The six pack fail and the spelling fail. [Thanks, Brayden.]
In fact, there were a number of spelling fails in the news this week, some with nasty consequences like this one: a Connecticut man pulled a gun on his tattoo artist who misspelled a tattoo then refused to fix it.
Meanwhile, another tattooist who misspelled the name of a couple's son is refusing to fix the mistake, claiming they signed a release. While the release may protect the studio legally, maybe it should take head of the previous story.
[I just wanna know why the tattooers aren't willing to fix their mistakes, guns and law suit threats aside. What happened to responsibility and just not being an asshole?]
In the dumbest thing to tell you can tell your kids about tattoos: A new book has come out in New Zealand called Adolescent Reputations and Risk that proclaims teenagers who get tattoos and piercings are "trouble-makers -- and that means parents are perfectly justified in panicking." It advises parents to tell their kids that they'll be considered "slags," criminals, and won't get a job. *sigh* If, indeed, they want to be considered "nonconformers," as the author says of tattooed teens, then such arguments won't work. In reality, the best way to address tattoos is via pay offs and vanity. Good tattoos are expensive and bad tattoos are ugly. Why not bribe your kid by asking to hold off on getting that tattoo until the age of 21 (or whatever age over 18 you prefer) and then offer to pay for a stellar artist -- that is, if they still want it by then.
Or you can pull out a knife and threaten to cut the tattoos off like this principal did.
But I'm not a mom, so what do I know? I do know the law, so let's get to those headlines:
One town in NJ tried to impose a $1,000 licensing fee on tattooists but that's been dropped especially after one artist threatened to sue. The new Council ordinance also lumped tattoo studios with sexually oriented businesses. While this is not uncommon, I don't know how local legislatures can even get away with this argument. They are begging for a law suit and wasting tax payers money.
In Mesa, Arizona, a tattoo studio's application to open up shop was denied as that city council debated "whether such businesses tend to follow or create a declining neighborhood." That question alone automatically assumes tattoos=undesirables. How do you argue against an idiot premise?
In Illinois, our buddy Larry Brogan is quoted in the Chicago Tribune about the changes in city ordinances, which will make it easier for other tattoo and piercing studios to open up.
Here's a controversial case...
Did Middlefield go too far in shutting down a studio for tattooing a 16-year old (an aspiring model no less!)? The tattooer's argument isn't very strong saying that "Liquor stores sell to minors and they're still open." A hangover isn't for life, buddy. Still, I think a hefty fine would've sufficed.
And in Singapore, a tattooer is sentenced for 2 years and 10 months for helping his friend "brand his wife's breasts, abdomen and forearms for alleged infidelity. His sentence for outraging the woman's modesty is just two months less than the husband's jail term." And like the husband, he'll get "six strokes of the cane." I'd prefer permanent markings of their own. Have the punishment fit the crime.
Now for some quick and dirty link time: