"For we live in a world of 'cultural relativity' and the whole furniture of earth and choir of heaven are to be described and discussed as they are conceived by men. Caviar is not a delicacy to the general [population]. Cows are not food to the Hindu. Mohammed is not the prophet of God to me. To an atheist, God is not God at all." (Faris, 1937: p. 150 – 151)
At A Glance Author Elson Contact elixir_73@yahoo.com IAM elixir When N/A Impression is a matter of interpretation. Picture this heavily-inked entity ostensibly minding his own business at a corner. The very first thought that indubitably springs to the mind of many a non- tattooed layperson would be that the man is a criminal. If he is not already one, he must surely possess the propensity to perpetuate crime. The plausible possibility that the man is, in all actuality, a very successful tattoo artist – scrupulously particular both in the discipline he enforces on his lifestyle and work ethics – would not strike the non tattooed layperson's mind.
So, tattoos are BAAAAD. Naturally, tattoo artists must be BAAAAD. Right? Hold up just a minute. To demystify the enigma that is the community of tattoo artists, it must be understood that understanding their shared and individual identities, lived realities and values are central towards the differentiation between deviance and mere difference. A tattoo artist embodies free expression and individualism as the perpetuator of the craft in tattoo artistry, considering that he experiences mixed emotions in his daily job scope. Tattoos go through both societal reception and rejection: to people without tattoos, conforming to the common perception of the tattoo artist's role as one with a basis in decadence and flamboyance is almost ubiquitous; to the tattooed population, however, the tattoo artist plays a role that carries fundamental significance to the entirety of tattoo artistry itself. While the nature of his job requires working against expectations of social norms, the tatt oo artist derives job satisfaction ultimately from a piece well done. Pride in the artistry of his trade is paralleled by the ability to outperform the label(s) imposed on tattoos.
To highlight, it is through a barrage of obstacles, latent or otherwise, that the average professional tattoo artist earns his or her title and status. Difficulty encountered both via the obtainment and duration in the tattoo artist's apprenticeship; the subsequent obligatory bond with the mentor (who is almost surely the owner of his apprentice's workplace); different and differing day-to-day dilemmas in potential conflicts between tattoo artists themselves and between the artist and his clients; the actuality of being subjected to societal stigmatization and scrutiny as the perpetuator of this alleged deviant profession; the stressful maintenance of tact and diplomacy in dealing with a myriad variety of clients; and generally coupled with the usual problems faced by the average Singaporean. Upon these issues and the immense pressure and gruelling challenges generated henceforth, it is perhaps justifiable only to call them deviant because they do not live with what the legi timate society come to recognize as tolerable emotional strain. Apart from the seeming deviance in bearing with such stress – suppressed or otherwise – in their lived realities, it is to be argued that they are merely different from the social audience who labels them in adherence to the notion proposed by moral entrepreneurs.
>From its primitive origins of indicating identity and status in the tribal community, tattoos have since moved on to be often seen as indicators of criminal deviance. There is visibly no direct crime involved with tattoo artistry itself; in the unlikeliest of all cases, if the act of marking one's skin is to be subjected to lawful prosecution, tattoo artistry will at most suffice to be a victimless crime. It is through a temporal transition of gradual labelling that tattoos come to be coloured with closely knitted connections with criminality. Akin to this erosion of branding, tattoo artists – being the primary central to tattoo artistry – end up being perceived as being connected to criminality too, either through the tattoos they wear or the art they tattoo, or even the parlor they work in. The tattoo artist, by perpetuating the tattoo, is by no way involved in the tattooed individual's actions in the legitimate society. The artist is merely practicing his craft; the tatto o has no life on its own to influence its bearer's action. It is the tattooed individual who is responsible for his/her own actions.
To put it but simply, the primary source of labelling comes from legitimate society which may be influenced by its elitist moral entrepreneurs. It is from here that the tattooed population are conferred a label whose nature is chiefly based on the ownership of tattoos; the act of wearing ink on one's skin, as suggested in the aforesaid, is in itself considered deviant due to common association of tattoos with crime. To the average tattooed person, his or her tattoo artist appears to them as a different breed altogether. The common trait that most artist share in their perchance in the acquisition of much more tattoos than their average clients has led to the consequent and consequential labelling by the latter. This practice can be traced to the artists' individual indulgence in the passionate pursuit of their own craft, or the will to mark themselves apart from the average tattooed person in respect for their position.
The social world of tattoo artists centres on the production of a unique cultural context. The artistry, the passion behind it, the tattooing process and the product of it all contribute to the formation of this particular genre of self-expression. Well, perhaps it would be most apt to reiterate the idea that tattooed people not complaining about non-tattooed people's lack of skin decoration – in that it cast a light on this following (friendly) reminder to all those ignorant *I-Know-it-all-and-I'm-holier-than-thou* village people out there who thrives on an anti-ink policy: don't hold strong opinions on matters you know nothing about.
Well, being at a position to etch my ephemeral art on the skin of another, as an expression set in eternity, gives me more joy than anything else. I love being a tattoo artist, and nothing can change it.
So how do I feel about being subjected to societal stigmatization and the general idea of being wronged and judged? (brings to mind what I would say to the average ink virgin's nervous question)
"Of course it hurts."