
The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman - fremden
https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/june-2019/the-rise-of-the-indelibly-illustrated-everyman/
======
lolc
A lot could be said about tattooing but this article falls short of providing
anything of interest to me.

I was wondering when we'd get to the part where the author explains why
tattooing is bad. Turns out there's no reason against tattooing except
cultural premises as far as the article is concerned. Also people who get
tattoos have a personality problem according to the author.

If you want to feel smug about not having a tattoo this piece provides!

~~~
tieze
fun fact: the name Britain comes from 'painted people' or 'tattooed people'
given by Ceasar as he descended upon the UK:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_\(place_name\)).

That author is just not aware of his heritage.

~~~
lolc
Hey now I was just complaining when I'm unexpectedly getting something
interesting back :-)

Do we know how they painted themselves back then?

~~~
lallysingh
Half-face painted blue?

~~~
lolc
Is that a joke? I don't know enough about the topic.

~~~
DoreenMichele
[https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=mel+gibson+face+half+bl...](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=mel+gibson+face+half+blue&FORM=HDRSC2&PC=EMMX20)

Braveheart was (loosely) based on real events.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Very loosely - some names were shared and that's about it. One of the most
historically inaccurate films of all time, and completely mutilates Wallace's
memory. There's an extensive inaccuracy section on Wikipedia. I wouldn't dare
mention it to my Scottish friends. :)

------
hprotagonist
_It was obvious that tattooing was undergoing a change: it was becoming
professional and increasingly skilled. The increasing skill of it appalled me,
for what should not be done at all is all the worse for being done well._

Well, fuck you too, friend!

We've found ink on the bodies of priests, shamans, warriors and kings going
back as far as there have been humans. Both sexes. Nearly any culture you'd
care to name.

Why the visceral hate?

~~~
oddeyed
Pretty typical for Standpoint. It's a Britsh, culturally conservative
magazine, so the default position you might expect is that anything that Her
Majesty wouldn't approve of is morally abhorrent

~~~
mprev
While Standpoint is culturally conservative, the way you've worded it implies
that because it is British it necessarily mean that it is culturally
conservative. A version of this could equally have appeared in a publication
from any English speaking nation.

However, the author -- Theodore Dalrymple (not his real name) -- is a
particularly interesting character.

He is almost exclusively pessimistic about humanity, with a particular dislike
of anyone less fortunate than himself. He seems to believe that everyone ends
up in life where they deserve, taking to an extreme the idea of personal
responsibility, and draws on his experience as a prison doctor to try to
excuse his writing career of finding ever new ways to look down on others.

~~~
thom
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, I see no misinformation here.

~~~
InitialLastName
> He seems to believe that everyone ends up in life where they deserve

This is posed as a bad thing, but there are lots of people on this site who
tell themselves this very thing.

~~~
thom
Then I very much hope they do indeed get what they deserve.

~~~
badpun
A world where everybody gets what they deserve is a just world - is that so
bad?

~~~
InitialLastName
I'd say that depends very much on who decides who deserves what.

Justice is inherently malleable and subjective. It's a thing we humans (as a
society) decide to do to one another. As far as I can tell, it tends to lag
the scales we're operating at.

~~~
badpun
I'm assuming it would happen automatically - i.e. people would be judged by
all-knowing and impartial external parties (angels, aliens etc.) - otherwise
of course it cannot happen, i.e. of course people alone can never implement
true justice.

As for defining what is just - this is obviously a huge subject studied by
philosophers - but I'm assuming that, if we had these all-knowing judges, they
could just assess (by scanning thoughts of people) how hard everybody is
trying to do good to others. And this way, we would be living in a just world.
To repeat my question - would that be so bad?

------
georgeecollins
Everyone seems negative about this article but it struck a chord with me.
Particularly:

>> It seems obvious to me that if a person feels he has to tattoo himself in
order to “express” his difference from others, he must have some difficulty in
individuating himself, perhaps indicative (when this difficulty is on a mass
scale, as it clearly is) of an individualistic society without individuals.

Young people are almost always the ones who get tattoos. I think because they
want to define themselves. One problem is that it is a pretty superficial way
to do it. I never thought someone was thoughtful, artistic, caring.. etc.
because of their tattoo. The other problem is that you often outgrow how you
see yourself as a teen. There is something to be said for being comfortable in
your own skin.

But hey-- if you have a tattoo I have no problem with that.

~~~
bluntfang
>if you have a tattoo I have no problem with that.

You literally said there were 2 problems, even using the word problem, with
having tattoos in your previous paragraph. It's ok to have an opinion, you
don't have to add in this shit to try and make people feel better or to make
you seem worldly, open, or woke.

~~~
georgeecollins
I meant I have a problem with tattoos for me. Not everyone agrees with me and
I am often wrong about things and change my mind. So while I have my own
opinions about tattoos I don't hold it against someone who disagrees.

------
Isamu
The author needs to maybe get over it? He goes through the typical complaints.

>They think that by having themselves tattooed they are shocking the
bourgeoisie à la Baudelaire; and in so far as their parents don’t like it, and
are in effect silencing them by a fait accompli of which it is useless for
them to complain, they are exercising power over them.

>It seems obvious to me that if a person feels he has to tattoo himself in
order to “express” his difference from others, he must have some difficulty in
individuating himself, perhaps indicative (when this difficulty is on a mass
scale, as it clearly is) of an individualistic society without individuals.

But in large part people get tattoos because they like them, nothing much more
than that. It's just a skin mod, not a big deal, not worth wringing hands
over.

It sure is nice that people don't usually get beaten up anymore for having
weird hair or modifications.

------
apo
> What has also struck me about this modern fashion (which goes along with
> that for self-mutilation by piercing) is that it is almost free of any kind
> of criticism: on the contrary, there is an almost obsequious acceptance of
> it, as if to say that you found it aesthetically hideous and deeply savage
> were to declare yourself an Enemy of the People. ...

Trends with little to no mainstream opposition are fascinating. I'm thinking
of things like smoking, disco, the real estate bubble, the dot com bubble, and
hairbands. Suddenly, everywhere you look it's been normalized. Given enough
time, they're all repudiated - strongly and viscerally.

I wonder if the tattoo will join their ranks.

~~~
KUcxrAVrtI
For health reasons if nothing else. Everything foreign that people have put in
their bodies which isn't food or drink turns out to be poison over a long
enough time frame.

------
flotzam
The thing that strikes me about these decline narratives is that they seem
unwilling to give even the slightest inch to the "other side". Has the author
really never seen (in this case) a beautiful tattoo? Nor asked other people to
show them their favorites, or to explain it to them so that they might see as
well?

~~~
zaat
I'm pretty sure there is no tattoo that will be perceived as beautiful by mom.
Some people only see the deformation of the skin under it. Some of them can
even be found right here in the comments.

------
ciphershot
Hey fellow hackers, I think you need to work on your sense of humor.

As someone who is inked, I not only found this hilarious, but interesting and
well-written, and the author actually has experience with prison tattoos,
which makes him more expert than 99% of us, easily.

Also, this may shock you, but I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with the
author that your tattoo is neither original nor cool, so if that's what you
find offensive then you've totally missed the point!

~~~
lolc
The whole thing hinged on the two points that the author doesn't like it and
that people who do it are boring, predictable individualist-consumerists.
These are not points that needed making with me.

So at the end when the author smugly predicts the tattooed masses how it will
look bad with age, should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse
with age?

There was just nothing in there for me.

~~~
ciphershot
>> "These are not points that needed making with me."

I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this. Like, you think that it's
false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up?

>> "There was just nothing in there for me"

I'm guessing this is emphasis on the above point.

>> "should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse with age?"

No, and if you think he's making a trivially true comment then you're missing
a subtler point. Anyone with a nice tattoo will lament the fact that it will
fade, it will lose crisp lines, and it will look bad over time.

That's why for nice pieces touchups are necessary, but you have a limited
number of those.

~~~
lolc
> Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up?

Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the
author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? That
people are generally shallow is an observation that can be made about a number
of topics and I don't see what is gained when singling out tattooed people.
Subcultures do tend to look ridiculous to the outsider.

The fact that people get tattoos to look nice in the eyes of other people who
appreciate it was not discussed seriously in what feels like willful ignorance
on part of the author. Or in the words of a tattooed friend: "People with a
stick up their ass do tend to leave you alone once you've got your face done."

> Anyone with a nice tattoo will lament the fact that it will fade, it will
> lose crisp lines, and it will look bad over time.

That's not a novel observation for me. What's subtle or funny about it? "Look
at these people. They think they have a nice tattoo but watch them in twenty
years!" (I know it's not funny anymore once it's bluntly stated anyway, but
I'm having trouble understanding how the original can be considered funny.)

~~~
ciphershot
Okay, before I continue this conversation further I just want to note that I
understand your concern for the optics of an educated doctor appearing to
condescend to a large group of young people, but I think yes, he does have
much more insight than the average person on tattoos, and I think it's made in
jest with a little cultural misunderstanding on humor.

I have a tattoo but I acknowledge I'm not an expert. I did take a class on the
psychological and social constructs behind body modifications and clothing,
but most people with strong opinions on a subject believe their factual
knowledge is "above average," including myself. In return, I'd like you to
consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well.

Okay, so continuing...

>> Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So
the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway?

I'm just going to restate the first sentence of the essay here: "When I
started as a prison doctor in 1990, I was both fascinated and horrified by the
tattoos inscribed on the skins of the prisoners." I'd say he's more than
qualified to write an op-ed on this topic. This is also not a scientific
topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article.

 _On the other hand, I think you 've pointed out your chief objection clearly:
People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say
about._ I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate
you being explicit about it. As a matter of principle, I don't just disagree,
but disagree very strongly with this statement.

>> That's not a novel observation for me. What's subtle or funny about it?

Ask anyone with tattoos, and while everyone "knows" that tattoos fade, it's
much different when it's your tattoo. Tattoos are consistently listed at the
top of the list of regrets young people make, that's a fact. I don't think
it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later, even really nice,
expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there. It's not just aging, it's
fading and bleeding of colors. Ink on skin does not age the same way as on
other media, and I seriously doubt anyone without a piece or working with
clients can actually can predict what the tattoo will look like ten to twenty
years later.

~~~
lolc
> In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the
> topic as well.

I don't think I understand much about tattooing at all.

> I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic.

Why are we dwelling on that? I assumed we are in agreement about it.

> This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then
> yes it's not the right article.

It could have been. It started out interesting enough. I'm deploring the
wasted opportunity.

> On the other hand, I think you've pointed out your chief objection clearly:
> People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say
> about. I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate
> you being explicit about it.

Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more. Had the
author argued their position then that could have been interesting. Sadly the
article was just a collection of general observations mixed with the distaste
of the author. There wasn't much to object to except for the unsubstantiated
opinions sprinkled about.

I don't even disagree much with the author!

> I don't think it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later,
> even really nice, expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there.

In a useless way: "for there is only one thing more pitiful than a tattoo on
young skin, and that is a tattoo on old skin."

Such was the depth of the article!

~~~
ciphershot
>> So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway?
Why?

>> Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more.

Unless your writing tends to be very tangential, or you are only using
conjunctions for stylistic purposes, it's hard for me to read this and not
take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification.

Specifically: _" You do Z, but you do X, why?"_ In my very limited world, this
construct implies there is a disconnect (or more rather, some connection that
needs clarification) between the two. The implication is that Z and X held
together create a tension in your world that needs resolution.

Perhaps that can be considered presumptuous, but if that is considered
presumption then I don't think I'll be able to correctly interpret your
position without a lot more syntactic clarification.

No harm done, and I'm sure we find much more agreement elsewhere. Besides,
this is hardly the best thing I've read all year; I just found it funny and
somewhat interesting, and I thought I found some negative pattern in the
comments that would stifle otherwise interesting conversation. But perhaps the
poster and I just have poor taste of cheeky humor and this doesn't belong
here! That's possible too. Cheers.

~~~
lolc
> it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking
> for some kind of justification. [...] The implication is that Z and X held
> together create a tension in your world that needs resolution.

The article failed me. I wanted to know what the author's reasons are. But I
was left hanging with only witty comments for the rest of the article. It
turned out I was not justified in reading the whole. I feel I was tricked into
reading dross.

~~~
ciphershot
I see. In that case we'll chalk it up to his "self-expression." Maybe the only
difference between him and his subject matter is the medium on which the ink
is laid! Lol.

------
chaseha
This guy's gotta be a hit at parties

------
jayd16
I find this article hilarious. Everything is from the author's perspective
with very little (none?) from that of a person with a tattoo. As if the author
couldn't fathom the idea of asking what someone actually thought and instead
goes into wild speculation of their motivations.

The author has no problem making general statements about the motivation of
the tattooed but then finds the idea that there is a community or shared way
of thinking that binds them inconceivable.

The amount of time and effort people put in to not understanding but still
disliking things that don't effect them has always and continues to blow my
mind...

~~~
bluntfang
>The amount of time and effort people put in to not understanding but still
disliking things that don't effect them has always and continues to blow my
mind...

It's easier if you categorize it a little bit. I put this type of
rhetoric/conversation under "commiseration". Humans tend to get social
validation and dopamine hits when their views and opinions are validated. It's
much easier to find common ground with people on things you dislike. I really
suggest people examine their relationships with the friends and people they
keep around them and try to inventory how many of those relationships are
based on commiseration, talking shit about people or things. I then suggest
you stop spending social energy with those people. IMO, it has been better for
my mental health to be alone than to be with commiserators. It's even better
when you're able to connect with people and share revelry.

------
zaat
All in all this is pretty hilarious and funny, however

>More recently, in what is no doubt a manifestation of the desire to fit in
with the majority, even dark-skinned minorities, whose epidermis is unsuited
to tattooing, are having themselves tattooed in ever-larger numbers.

smells a bit racist and ignorant to me, I mean, tattoos are part of African
tribes culture for at least few millennia.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tattooing#North_Afr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tattooing#North_Africa)

~~~
vgoh1
No, I think stating that dark on dark is hard to see is just stating facts. As
a former tattoo artist, I can tell you that the more pale, the better the
tattoo and especially colors show up.

But comparing modern men to tribesmen, that might be a little...

~~~
zaat
>I think stating that dark on dark is hard to see is just stating facts. As a
former tattoo artist, I can tell you that the more pale, the better the tattoo
and especially colors show up.

Well, obviously, but this is slightly different in content than "unsuited to
tattooing", which is false as the rich history of African tattoos shows, and
very different in connotation, which was my point.

> But comparing modern men to tribesmen

I didn't make any comparison.

------
mudil
I find the whole idea of tattoo repulsive, ugly and uncool. I am also
perplexed that people would spend their time on getting it. As if they have
nothing better to do.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
_" I am also perplexed that people would spend their time on getting it. As if
they have nothing better to do."_

Have you considered sitting down and asking them, with an open heart and mind?

