BME: Body Modification Ezine

A tattooed person suspends from hooks, laying flat, one leg higher than the other. Their head is back, and they seem to be smiling, dark hair dangling like an anime character.

Celebrating body modification culture since 1994.

Category: Features

  • What is ‘Body Modification’? Part Two – Through the Modified Looking Glass

    Written by

    BME

    What is ‘body modification’?
    … and what does it matter?

    Hold on to something, this one is going to jump around a bit…

    A lot of the feedback on my last offering (‘Body Modification’?) gave me a sense of preaching to the converted. That is, of those who commented, the majority thought the points I was looking at were ones they agreed with and found to be rather obvious. While it is nice to know that others share something of my view, I can’t help but be dogged by a certain uneasiness. If it is true that many modified people will agree that body modification is something everyone does and includes things like haircuts and possibly even clothing then why isn’t that reflected in their words and behavior?

    It reminds of the problem with evolutionary theory. Many people will accept and recite back evolution when questioned as to the nature of the human animal but they do not reflect this position in how they actually behave. It is simply a ‘fact’ that they have learned to give in response to certain promptings but it is certainly not what they base their actual decisions upon. People who purportedly believe in evolution hardly ever react to and judge human behavior on the grounds that human beings are a domesticated primate group. If they did so, then much of our moral and social quibbling would be absolutely absurd. There is a clear gap between what many people say they think and how they actually behave on this issue and it shows up in much the same way for modified people talking about modification.


    “The difference between people without tattoos and people with tattoos is that people with tattoos don’t mind if you have tattoos or not.”

    I have seen variations of the above in many a shop, on t-shirts, and quoted by people complaining about the fact that the ‘un-modified’ often discriminate against or look down upon them. However, I often see behavior which goes directly against it — people with tattoos or other mods being very judgmental and pejoratively discriminating against those without. This is not only the case for people without what is popularly referred to as body modification but also for those with ‘taboo’ mods like facial tattooing or amputations. While I find it unfortunate and potentially damaging that people who choose certain methods of body modification (like tattoos or piercings) would further divide themselves from people do not, rather than try and show those others that what they do in getting tattooed or pierced is simply another means in a process we all engage in, it seems even worse to me that they should want to divide amongst themselves those with acceptable and unacceptable tattoos, and so on. For anyone doing so and then claiming to understand body modification as a more general term I would like to hold up the mirror of logic so that they can clearly see it shatter with their reflection.

    This does lead to another interesting trail of thought, and one that Shannon suggested investigating as part of following up the piece: the differences between atypical and mainstream modification and how the line is drawn. Quite clearly this is a question of relative cultural and social values as it can be seen that what is the norm in one part of the world and a given subset of a population can vary widely and be plainly contradictory with another. For example, in many African cultures scarification would not be atypical while in the US it is still anything but mainstream and while tattooing might still be considered atypical in the US for the culture as a whole, in many subsets (like the often cited bikers and rock musicians) it is very much part of their mainstream, if not obligatory. To push it back to a broader context, we could ask why is it that I am allowed, and often expected, to cut and style my hair but I am frowned upon for doing so in certain ways (such as a Mohawk)?

    As a side note, if you want to really see how something like hair style can affect your life try wearing a moustache in the style that was chosen by Hitler (and was very common in its day). I wore such a moustache for a few months years ago and was almost universally reviled for it, receiving harsh and negative reactions the likes of which my facial tattooing has never even approached. All for a small patch of hair that was representative of nothing symbolic but just a silly experimentation to see how it looked. (When people would call me nasty names I would rebuke them for not appreciating my homage to Charlie Chaplin‘s genius — this generally just confused and further incited them).

    To really address why some modifications are accepted and others are less accepted or even taboo would require an indepth examination of the relevant culture or society. I am certainly not going to attempt a full deconstruction of Western civilization and its views on the body here — others have attempted and I think pointed to a great many salient points and influences. I do think though that what you see in terms of a given group’s attitudes towards hair, dress, tattoos, elective surgery, and so on is something of an admission that body modification is a universal and as such rather than be denied, it can hopefully be directed for the good and interests of the group. We then see the typical problem arising on the macro scale that the group is simply too large and diverse in many cases to reach fundamental decisions (for example, an ear piercing on a man in an urban area of the US will have little effect but I still know and see many regions in which it draws negative attention).

    Another jump: mainstream versus atypical puts me in mind of another term: extreme. What is extreme body modification? Most of the treatments I have seen before propose that there are two grounds on which a modification can be extreme: technical difficulty and social reaction. Personally, I think the former can be almost completely discounted. The technical difficulty of a modification (now speaking in the popular sense) is negilible and for the most part only exists because of how the industry is structured. I do not mean to deflate anyone but the most complicated procedures being performed by modification artists (such as implants, genital splitting, urethral relocations, and minor amputations) are incredibly basic compared to what is done on a routine daily basis by the medical community. It is the social component that makes something truly extreme in my opinion primarily because it is a social stigma held by those most qualified (doctors and surgeons) which prevents us from attaining the true outer limits of what is possible in terms of modifying our bodies.

    Given the possibility that what is extreme is socially derived it will then be quite relative. As has been pointed out before, for a given pair of individuals it may well be a more extreme act for one to simply dye their hair than it would be for the other to tattoo their face. I had a friend from a very traditional Japanese family in college who was nearly disowned for coloring her hair red whereas I received a primarily positive response from my family when I tattooed my face. And what about facial tattooing?


    Recently on IAM, Shannon predicted and described facial tattooing as the next “trend”. I have to agree that I have seen and been approached by people considering it a lot more in the past couple years but I would emphasize the caveat that it’s going to be a certain type that really becomes predominant (remember what I said above about groups attempting to direct modification for their own good and interests).

    I think you will see people who have always been a bit further along (full body suits, heavy facial piercing, etc) realizing that in today’s world they aren’t really taking that much of a risk by moving into facial tattooing — If you already have large stretched or many multiple facial piercings the general public’s reaction if you add a facial tattoo probably won’t change that much. The ones that I think are interesting from the standpoint of cultural change are those that are less heavy (full black or green, heh) designs — ones that work up the neck or along the hairline and are more decorative than transformative of a person’s appearance. All that said though, a couple things about facial tattooing (inspired in part by Cora’s column on things to consider for those considering the incredible transformation she is undergoing):

    1. It will change your life. The degree will vary but it will change and you will not be able to predict a lot of it.
    2. Make sure your life is at a relatively stable point. Getting your face tattooed is not an answer or a fix to anything. It is going to make your life less certain (see above) and that’s not something you need to introduce if things are already at all shaky.
    3. Make sure you want it and get what you want. Seems obvious I know, but it is amazing what people overlook or skimp on.
    4. Tell people you care about beforehand and examine their response. They will be your support and can help you a lot. Sometimes people are amazed that I have such a good relationship with my family but as I often say (and mean it every time) I couldn’t do what I have done without them.
    5. Try it out first. Use makeup or whatever to simulate it — not just for a minute but for days or longer. Put the design up and look at it everyday because once it’s there you will have to see it everyday.

    In a perfect world, I would suggest these (and more) before any mod but I’m not silly enough to think that’s going to happen…




    Erik Sprague

    because the world NEEDS freaks…

    Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more?

    Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published June 26th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

  • Regulation: Attacks from Within? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt

    Regulation: Attacks from Within?

    “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley,
    An’ Lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain / For promis’d joy.”

    – Robert Burns

    Over the past six months I’ve been contacted by an increasing number of piercers and amateur activists complaining of perceived problems in the piercing industry, and seeking my help in pushing through regulations of various kinds to combat them. Most of these piercers are talented and experienced and often some of the best in the industry. While being very clear that I’m not attacking them, but simply their methods, what I’d like to show in this column is that while their actions are well-meaning, they are ultimately misguided and perhaps even destructive to the body modification community.

    The first thing that should be addressed is that the piercing industry is only a very small part of the (atypical) body modification community. The piercing industry represents the commercial application of a very small subset of this community’s interests and because of it being a mass-market commercial application, there are certain incompatibilities, since one is built around the individual, and the other around larger issues such as public safety, contract law, and business ethics… all concepts which often run contrary to the extremist individual freedoms embraced by those drawn to atypical body modification, as well as the ever broadening freedoms being demanded by modern societies.

    The big first question from my point of view is “why now?”

    Why wasn’t the piercing community aggressively pushing for regulation five or ten years ago? At its simplest, the golden age of piercing is over. Five years ago shops regularly had “thousand dollar days” and there was more than enough business to go around. In 2003, competition is heavy, the market is saturated, and profit margins are lower and lower. Aging piercers are realizing that they’ve been putting long hours into what may be a dead-end job, and are asking themselves what the future holds — and how they can secure that future.

    It’s expensive to run a good shop. Customers are rarely willing to pay more for high quality jewelry, and far too few are even willing to discriminate by the safety practices of the studio. As such, with pricing being equal, the better a studio is, the less money its owners and staff take home with them. It’s very easy for unscrupulous studios to legally undercut prices by reducing quality and seize a significant market share in exchange for cutting corners and providing substandard service — but let’s face it — that’s true in every industry, and it’s what makes capitalism work!

    In response, a number of well-meaning good piercers are trying to push through regulation that would force every studio to conform to their tightly bordered and high-end standards. Much of the time this is accomplished by pointing out the many problems that arise from not maintaining those standards — slightly elevated (but still very manageable) rates of infection and complication, more young people with piercings (as if that’s a bad thing), and so on. This is further sought by publishing “scare articles”, citing their qualifications as required knowlege (nursing skills, CPR courses, and so on; all excellent knowledge to have as a piercer, but whether it’s required is very much up for debate), and generally using an approach of attacking others (often validly) to make themselves look better.

    In light of recent attention by the mainstream media on procedures such as tongue splitting, others will make extremely negative statements about heavy mods and the artists that embrace them in an attempt to make themselves appear more responsible. I suppose they feel that painting others in the most dangerous, frightening, and irresponsible manner will make them appear more responsible to the mainstream in juxtaposition.

    Problem is, that doesn’t work.

    First of all, we need to realize that the majority of politicians (and media) are not involved in the body modification community and often don’t like piercing and see it with a preexisting set of prejudices. As such, they won’t see any juxtaposition of “high quality” versus problem studios — they will simply see the problems and, like all bigots, stereotype our entire community by the acts of the worst of the bunch.

    Second of all, we need to acknowledge that there is no central professional organization of piercers for regulators to work with in drafting balanced legislation. While groups such as the APP have made excellent progress over the last decade, they still represent only a very tiny percentage of piercers. Almost all attempts to form such organizations have eventually degraded to infighting and apathy.

    Because of those two factors, much of the political action on piercing is either pushed through by a individual piercers who don’t represent the industry on the whole, or, worse yet, by politicians working with doctors who don’t have any comprehension of or sympathy for atypical body modification. When this occurs we tend to see things much like gay sex laws — heterosexual sex is typically legal at 16, with homosexual sex not becoming legal until 18, and we see piercing being restricted to 18 even though cosmetic surgery is permitted at 16. In addition, we tend to end up with tightly defined rules which restrict jewelry use, procedures, and even aftercare to only one possibility. Since piercing is still very much evolving and improving, locking its growth like this is a potentially harmful act, and tends to restrict valid and sometimes even superior methods — as illustrated by some areas’ bans on dermal punches, scalpels, and other needle alternatives.

    We also need to recognize that what an industry perceives as being right for it is not always right for the surrounding community (or from the industry’s point of view, the customer). The actions of groups like the RIAA are good examples of that of course, where we are watching a power shift from the music listener and the musician to the corporate distribution channels.

    So what should we do? How can we ensure a high quality piercing industry that encourages the growth of the body modification community, gives consumers a range of options, while still ensuring basic safety?

    Now, I’m not about to propose that this should be an absolutely unregulated industry; simply that we need to balance individual freedoms and public safety. Clearly we need to ensure minimum standards as far as sterility goes and making certain that regulation controlling contamination are adhered to — no studio has a right to willfully and negligently endanger its clients. I’m happy to say that a growing majority of jurisdictions have already enacted such laws covering piercing studios, nail salons, dentists offices, and so on. I am fully in support of such laws. They restrict no one’s freedoms and simply increase the safety level.

    My focus with BME will continue to be education over regulation. This is why I dedicate resources to developing FAQ documents, BME/Risks, and work to get qualified authors writing columns. An educated consumer base will make the decisions that it sees fit for itself — and we do have the right to purchase low quality product should we choose to. After all, assuming base standards are in place, the worst that can occur from a lower-end studio under normal circumstances is a small scar. Given that we allow — and even encourage — the consumption of junk food and candy by even young children, thereby damning them to live in the most obese and unhealthy culture in human history (in effect allowing corporations to market a product that shaves 15 years or more off a person’s life), it seems somewhat hypocritical to suggest that we should restrict piercing to only the most conservative, limited, and safe options?

    As far as age standards go — and we do need to strike a balance between the rights of parents, the rights of youths, protecting against predatory piercers, while making sure not to fall prey to ageism — we must create them in context with other age restrictions. It’s too easy to allow politicans to force into place high age restrictions as a shallow cover for an attempt to ban and keep piercings out of schools and so on. We allow youths to sign for surgery and drive at 16. We allow youths to sign for abortions without parental consent at as young as 14. We allow marriage and sex at 16 in most areas, and we even allow firearms to be owned by teens… If we are then to restrict piercing to 18, we need to justify how piercing is more dangerous than these acts and why comprehending them is out of the range of a young person’s ability. From my point of view piercing is a safe and excellent way for young people to practice independence and responsibility, and I worry that when we spend so much effort telling young people that they are immature that they will be utterly unprepared for the world when they reach adulthood.

    I mentioned earlier that I believe informed consumers can make a good decision. Because of that, one type of regulation that I would like to see in place is disclosure laws. We require food manufacturers to place ingredients and nutritional information on the packaging in order to allow consumers to make an informed decision. We require auto manufacturers to disclose pollution and mileage data. Why should piercing studios not be required to state what material their jewelry is manufactured from? Without this information, the average consumer can’t tell if they are being sold a $1 mass-manufactured barbell made of cheap low-grade steel, or whether it’s a $20 piece of “implant grade” jewelery — while the vast majority of people can heal a piercing just fine with the cheap stuff, it will take a bit longer, the complication rate will be a fraction higher, and some people will have reactions. Certainly someone should have a right to choose that path, but I do not believe that a studio has the right to surreptitiously impose that path on unwitting customers.

    Ultimately though there is only one way to guarantee a high quality industry: Consumers must, on their own, decide to support high quality studios. Poor quality studios don’t thrive in a vacuum — they thrive because of their large customer base. If you’re reading this, you probably have the knowledge required to judge which studios in your area are the good ones. Tell your friends. Write experiences about them. Tell the piercers why you go to their studio and not another, and tip them appropriately. People have a choice in life — all of our laws make it clear that we believe as a culture that people have a right to make bad decisions and purchase an ill-advised product should they choose to. Why should piercing be different? Are we really comfortable with ours being the one industry that’s tightly restricted and dictated by the whims of politicians?

    To the piercers who are pushing for these laws, while I applaud what you are attempting to achieve (a high quality industry), I hope you consider that your actions may not achieve your goals, and could in fact have the opposite effect. There are better ways. Make sure that when you push for regulation and make public comment, you push for minimum standards and disclosure laws, and not for self-serving regulation that may come back to haunt us all, and that you respect the right of others to make their own informed decisions, even if you disagree.

    Thank you,


    Shannon Larratt

    BME.com

  • What is ‘Body Modification’? Part One – Through the Modified Looking Glass

    Written by

    BME

    ‘Body Modification’?


    Interviewer: So why do people get tattoos?

    Me: There are probably at least as many reasons as there

       are tattoos.

    Interviewer: Yes, but generally why?

    Me: Because people modify their bodies.

    Interviewer: Some people.

    Me: All people.

    Interviewer: Not everyone gets pierced or tattooed.

    Me: They all do something; haircuts, make up… even clothing
       changes the way in which your body looks and moves

    Interviewer: But those things aren’t permanent.

    Me: So temporary body modification isn’t body modification?

       That doesn’t make much sense…

    The above is paraphrased but pretty accurate and has actually occurred more than a few times. It is probably a good example of me trying to be a smart-ass; it is also what brings me to this:

    The term ‘body modification’ has popularly come to refer to a loosely grouped set of practices — tattooing, piercing, branding, scarification — and it is usually with this pop meaning in mind that the common question “Why do people modify their bodies?” is asked. The problem here is that the question being asked is significantly different than the question that is very likely intended: “Why do people modify their bodies with tattoos, piercings, and so on?”

    The former is a general question about the human experience and motivation while the latter is one that develops out of the first and looks only to particular methodologies. By analogy, to ask the former is as if to ask, “Why do people compete?”, and the latter, “Why do people race cars?” Part of the reason I think that people are often mystified by why someone would modify their body is because they have gotten tied up in the idea that this one particular usage is the pure definition of what is body modification. So then, what is body modification if not just these or similar procedures?

    Most of the discussions I have encountered concerning what does and does not count as body modification have born a great resemblance to the debates which occupied a large portion of my academic career over whether or not something was art. In the case of debates over art, it can often be shown that what is actually being argued is not whether or not something is art but rather whether or not something is good or bad art. Obviously, according to most theories of art, whether or not a piece is possessed of any great talent or merit is not what determines if it is art. That is to say, even though it may suck, even though you hate it — it is still art.

    In the case of body modification I have found that what is often at stake is not really whether or not something is or isn’t body modification but rather whether or not it is the sort of body modification that is of concern to the parties engaged in the debate. For instance, is hair dyeing body modification? In that it is an alteration of the body it would seem that hair dyeing is body modification on its face. However, since it is not permanent and because it falls (depending on the color) well within acceptable practices many people will claim that it is not body modification. Much of these debates focused upon what other terms would be assumed to be built into or implied in their use of the term body modification. On a practical level this is often expected and quite essential. It is common to use a specified definition for purposes of certain discussions (BME is a fine example of this in its motivation and choice of what it considers body modification for content inclusion) but that definition should not be mistaken for or masqueraded as exclusive or complete.

    Body modification as it is commonly used today is a fairly recent introduction to our language and seems to have emerged mainly from the communities that practice it as described. And it is within these communities that I have been able to find the most common adoption of the term and debate over its definition. The other place in which I was most readily able to find the term applied was in anthropology — where it is often used in a very broad fashion.

    Anthropologically speaking, the term is taken at nearly face value. It is applied in most any case where the body of a person is in some way altered — from hair styles and body painting to skull shaping. The interesting (and important) thing about this is that taken in this way there is no record of any human culture or society without practice(s) of body modification. And it is for precisely this reason that I support some of the broadest possible interpretations of what is body modification.

    I do this because it helps to break down the artificial barrier between the modified and the un-modified. I am fond of pointing out that we are all individuals whether we like it or not. By our very nature we are different from one another but there are also many shared qualities. In embracing our own unique stature I think that it is important that we do not needlessly create the perception of even more difference. If body modification is something we all engage in, in one form or another, then there are no un-modified people.

    From this point, we may find a better way for those who do not choose certain forms of modification to understand the motivations of those who do. If the person who shaves, manicures, and is possibly considering a nose-job learns to see tattooing or tongue splitting as simply an alternative example of the same general behavior (modifying the body) that they themselves engage in, it may become less mystifying to them. In fact, body modification taken as part of the overall effort to intentionally create the image that others perceive when they apprehend you — especially in an effort to better express one’s self — is something that I think most people would readily accept as the sanest and most rationale thing in which a person can engage.




    Erik Sprague

    because the world NEEDS freaks…

    Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more?

    Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published June 10th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

  • Is getting a BME tattoo lame? [The Publisher’s Ring]

    Written by

    Shannon Larratt

    Is getting a BME tattoo lame?

    “To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting.”

    – E.E. Cummings

    One of the things that BME preaches rather endlessly is a doctrine of individuality, self-expression, and self-determination, and when people ask my advice on tattoos I always urge them to get custom work and never copy someone else’s tattoo. Because of that, I am regularly asked what I think of people who choose to tattoo the BME logo on them. Short answer: Personally, I think it’s awesome, and very much in line with my general ideology on tattoos.

    The tattoo section of BME also has a gallery of music related tattoos, largely images of band logos. While I suppose it’s very valid for a fan who feels that a band is an important part of their life to commemorate that with a tattoo, I don’t see that getting a BME tattoo is quite the same thing. A band is special because of the creative expression of the people in the band that is then enjoyed by the “fans”. BME on the other hand is special because of the creative expression of an entire subculture which is then appreciated by that subculture (and the mainstream world).

    To put it another way, getting a tattoo of a band logo is an act of appreciation for the work of another person — saying “your music is important in my life” — whereas getting a BME logo tattoo is an act of appreciation for the work that we all did together. The vast majority of people who’ve chosen to mark themselves with the “BME4LIFE” message are regular contributors to BME, and can validly say that they helped create BME. More so than saying “I love Grobschnitt” or “Eloy Rules!”, a BME tattoo says, “I love myself. I’m proud of who I am, and I care about my family.”

    Short of choosing the life of a sociopath, even the most individualistic people have family and community, not just by birth, but in modern times they also have the one they chose for themselves.

    Most cultural groups develop iconography to identify and league themselves in a form that has meaning to them. Scottish tartans — the striped and checked patterns which represent different Scottish clans — date back nearly two millennia, and have evolved over time both to reflect both new manufacturing technologies and cultural and political changes such as clan intermarriage. With just a scrap of fabric from a person’s tartan it can be possible to identify where they are from, who they are related to, and in some cases even what they do for a living. Because of a ban on the tartan in the 18th century in an attempt to kill off the culture, coupled with modern commercialization, the direct significance of patterns is certainly up for debate, but the underlying drive is not. The heraldry of European families also illustrates similar motivations.

    African scarification in different regions is well defined and carries a very specific set of iconography as well. While it’s dying out quickly, by the marks on a person’s body you can tell where they’re from, who their family are, and what point in their life they’re at. Maori facial tattooing serves a very similar purpose, signifying both individualism, allegiance to a certain tribal group, and as a marking of social status — with the lowest people not being tattooed at all (as they effectively had no identity).

    The notion that body modification is an important part of defining one’s identity is far from unique — I’d go so far as to say it’s nearly universal. The Greek historian Herodotus wrote in the 5th century BC of the Thracians (who lived in what is now Turkey and Bulgaria), “to have punctures on their skin is with them a mark of nobility; to be without these is a testimony of mean descent.” Nearly every culture has at one point in their history used permanent markings to signify both individual identity and group identity.

    It’s also not an expired idea in any way — gang tattoos, fraternity brands, and BME tattoos are all permanent body marks that involve both an act of individualism and an integration into a specific tribe by embracing and personalizing its shared symbols. When a person marks themselves with any of these they’re not simply making an esthetic statement, nor are they bowing down before an idol. They are glorifying themselves and what they stand for and what they work toward in life.

    So to return to the question of why a person who encourages individualism and discourages copying others ideas as one’s own would support tattooing a “website’s logo”, I say that a BME tattoo, assuming that it is in the context I’ve described here (and I really believe it almost always is), does in fact achieve those goals. It’s not just a tattoo of a pretty picture; it’s a tattoo of an idea.

    If BME has played the catalyst in bringing about someone’s emancipation from the shackles of conformity and somehow helped them “be themselves”, then I can’t imagine how signifying that with a shared symbol of the people who collectively fight for that is anything but wonderful, beautiful, and meaningful.


    Shannon Larratt

    BME.com

    PS. If you want a BME tattoo yourself, first and foremost remember that it’s your tattoo and your symbol. Don’t be afraid to alter it and fine-tune it (or not) to reflect your own feelings and interests and thoughts. Don’t be afraid to integrate it into other pieces (one of my favorite BME tattoos is one where a BME head was put on the end of a staff in a larger tattoo) and always remember: you built this site… It’s not just a trademark of a website — it’s an icon of a subculture with a set of shared values and beliefs and activities.

  • By Way of Introduction – Through the Modified Looking Glass

    Written by

    BME

    By Way of Introduction
     

    According to custom, something like this would have been my first installment for Through the Modified Looking Glass, wherein I explain my choice of column title, plans for future subject matter, and background. The problem with that is that I have always felt such pieces tend to be cop-outs which avoid a true effort. And while I try to maintain a familiarity and respect for custom, I quite often find myself circumventing it. So, as a sort of additional piece for this month I will do the classic ‘intro’.

    First, why ‘Through the Modified Looking Glass’? The reference is, mostly, obvious — if not cliché. I am, as it happens, a Lewis Carroll fan but the greater motivation behind my choice is the use of the looking glass reference by another tattooed sideshow aficionado and performer: Mike Wilson. In his interview that appeared in Modern Primitives, Wilson describes the idea of becoming heavily tattooed:


    "...signifying a possible way of going through the looking glass for me to achieve a whole other frame of reference, and to elicit experiences beyond the 'normal'... presenting yourself as a signal beacon drawing things to happen to you."

     

    I shared with Mike some similar influences — surrealism and circus sideshow history so it’s not surprising that we also held some similar views. In fact, this was as close to some of my own ideas and inspirations for my transformation project as I had ever seen expressed by another. I only first saw the interview in 1995 and through my own carelessness for not taking advantage of opportunities I missed my chances to meet Mike in person before his untimely death. I have since come to know some of his friends and colleagues from Coney Island and the title of this column is in part an homage as well as an expression of that shared notion. I like to think too, that Mike as a performer realized one of my own personal joys of the stage and being a tattooed man – taking others through the glass for awhile just by being part of their day.

    That is the story, for what it’s worth, of the title. But what do I actually intend do to do with this pulpit? Well, as evidenced by the first installment, The [Modified] Body Politic, some subjects will choose me and simply demand to be addressed. In the absence of such ready made topics in the future I hope to address and give an accounting of the land I find through this modified looking glass and that others may report discovering through their experiences with me. I will also attempt to put some use to the formal training I have had as a philosopher by examining concepts and terms like ‘body modification’. I would also suggest to anyone who has a topic they would like to see here that they contact me via my IAM page or email. And of course, feedback is always welcome.

    Now then, you may be asking ‘So, who the hell are you anyway?’ Well, my given name is Erik Michael Sprague but I am far better known these days as The Lizardman. I was born on Fort Campbell, KY in 1972. My mother is an elementary school teacher and my father works both as a high school teacher and a mountain warfare instructor for the military. Growing up, they always encouraged me and told me I could do whatever I wanted — I took them seriously. And so, using the tools they provided me with in my upbringing and thanks to the support of them, my younger sister, and many dear friends I did what I wanted: I became a performance artist. A professional freak. Along the way I have worked a myriad of jobs (lifeguard, farmhand, karate instructor, warehouse crew, bartender, college instructor, and many more) and picked up a degree in philosophy (I abandoned my doctoral thesis to devote my time fully to myself as an artist). Currently, I live with my girlfriend, Meghan, in Austin, TX with one snake and three ferrets when I am not traveling the world speaking and performing. My modifications, rituals, and experiments are documented here on BME as well as on my own pages. Ultimately, I hope that through this column I will find another way to express and develop ideas and to make a contribution that others will find in some way worthwhile.



    Erik Sprague

     

    because the world NEEDS freaks…

    Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more?

    Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published May 24th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

     

     

Latest Tattoo, Piercing, and Body Modification News