Let's talk about tattoos. Or rather, about why they are trying to do them and how they do it. I hope today no one needs to explain that tattoos have never spread to prisoners, sailors and prostitutes alone, but originate, like most of the cultural phenomena we use today - in Egypt.
If we discard the top layer that immediately comes to mind (namely, the trends that we use every day, regardless of our desire), it is visualized in the ugliness, pop culture and eating with them. And with this group of people, everything is very clear, I do not think it is necessary to explain anything here. But, as in any other phenomenon, tattoos have at least two characteristics that, in turn, stimulate its appearance on human skin. As you can already understand, I want to talk about the second type of people, those who perceive tattoos as a form of realization of modern art.
To fully answer the question of whether tattoos can be perceived as art at all, we need to answer another question - what can we perceive as art in general? If we talk about art as an academic phenomenon, then tattoos will fit into these laws of the genre. And the fact that you still manage to break through there, in the wall of the conservative community will wear a remark of purely aesthetic.
If we expand the boundaries by compiling ideas, where there will be a place for any design - from architectural to game, then of course tattoos will fit very organically. Taking a step away from the aesthetic and visual, as the primary perception, we immediately fall into a fairly definite, semantic segment. Such visualization, which still manages to combine conceptualism and artistic decision, clearly falls into the genre of performativity. It is a constant attempt to interact with the viewer, through provocative attacks on him, with endless possibilities of content and references to cultural heritage. In this case, the tattoo remains in the subject (physical) field, which further emphasizes its object, and, consequently, retains its exhibit properties. Despite all these arguments, there is no unequivocal opinion as to whether tattooing can be considered a full-fledged art, and there are various discussions about this.
So what's up with the people themselves? Their motivation for such an acquisition is easier to explain than to try to decode the meanings embedded in such a tattoo by the author. As you can already understand, they are definitely trying to emphasize their position with tattoos. Moreover, this position is not always postulated by the direct, readable content of the image on the skin. Absolute nonsense is quite common. For the right attitude to this requires, as well as everything, you need a background. In this case, it is necessary to get acquainted with the work of expressionists, abstractionists, Dadaists, etc.
The most significant, in my opinion, is the presence of a certain opinion, position and / or attitude, regardless of whether it suits (tattoo) what will be observed. The very fact of the courage to express one's opinion is unprecedentedly important, not only in tattooing or art, but in all areas of activity of the subject.
