A 2011 Net Cotton Content post on tattoo attracted more reader comments than any other post.
(Later "This Old Heart" broke that record.) With regard to tattoos, here is the original post, "Skin Deep."
When I speak with anyone under 90 on the subject,
I discourage them from getting a tattoo.
My opinions — and, even more strident, my recommendations — draw complaints of my cultural incompetent and prejudice.
These accusations have merit. I admit that — when I see a tattoo, I think I know something about the person. What I think I know is surely inaccurate, or at least incomplete. I instantly write a narrative about the person based on the tattoo rather than the more substantial aspects of their character and experience. That's prejudice. I'm guilty.
If you want to read some of these complaints, here is "Tattoo, redo," a follow-up post on the comments.
But this isn't about that.
Another Bottle Washes Up On Shore
This is just my same old message in a bottle: don't get a tattoo.
Why this message again now?
This week's story in The New York Times, "Cycling: A Reminder Of Personal Connections, Not Tarnished Brand," is a clear argument for — and, no doubt, for — tattoo. (It's also a great use of the word "brand," drawing on its every meaning.)
Sports reporter Mary Pilon offers a soulful story about intelligent, articulate, highly motivated people who wear various tattoos of LIVESTRONG. They have inked the highest legacy of Lance Armstrong into their skin.
Now, of course, the stain of doping and his lifelong disqualification and ban is blended with the ink.
LIVESTRONG = Worthy Message
Is "LIVESTRONG" a valid, meaningful, important message? Of course it is.
But this isn't about the LIVESTRONG message. This is about the medium.
Two questions:
- Would anyone get a LIVESTRONG tattoo today? I'm not asking: is LIVESTRONG a wonderful message? I'm asking: would anyone get a LIVESTRONG tattoo today? Really?
- Would you want to start every conversation for the rest of your life — once your tattoo is spied — with a quick review of the fall of the world's greatest sports hero?
The main reason to delay your tattoo by one day — perpetually delaying the tattoo by another day — is this: everything changes.
Still thinking of getting a tattoo?
Wait another day.
Even if you already have one. Or 100. Wait another day.
The meaning of any name, word or icon will change. Stay flexible. Avoid the ink.
Great article is there any chance I can take it and copy it onto my own blog
Posted by: Shardy | March 05, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Seems like an overly cautious approach to life. I don't have any tattoos or financial leverage or extreme sporting hobbies, but that's just me. I spent enough time in Iraq to have all the excitement I need out of life, but if someone gets some color in their skin, it's harmless except maybe possibly for a conversation occasionally.
Buddy of mine likes the idea that pain is just information. He's been thinking about it for a while and got 'pain' tattooed in a square of binary on his leg. Very cool I thought. A square of 1s and 0s should create a conversation and it looks good and makes him look smart. (also math doesn't change.)
My mom, her sister, and her cousin got a celtic knot symbolizing a number of things - 3 generations mainly. It helped them commemorate and cope with two quick deaths in our family. (also, death doesn't change.)
I would agree that 'don't get a tattoo' is generally good advice, but there are cases where a tattoo is entirely justified.
Posted by: Jason | February 24, 2013 at 09:16 AM
Artie,
The Lance Armstrong story is perfect for illustrating your point about tattoos.
It takes a certain type of person to get a tattoo and I am certainly not that type. It’s the ultimate commitment, even stronger than marriage. It’s really till death do you part, and the separation at that point is the soul from the body, not the tattoo from the body.
Plus I hate pain. What if I chicken out half way through the process?
-Diana
Posted by: Diana Schneidman | February 24, 2013 at 02:11 AM