Firstarticle

titleofarticle:Tattooseyecatchingbutaretheyart?
webstieurl:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/24/tattoostheillustratedpeople
Text of article:
A blue and red flowering, sinuous, inky design written permanently into the
skin of bare legs may be eye-catching but is it art? Amy Savage thinks so. She explains how she
got the tattoos on the backs of her legs from Xam, a noted tattoo artist who works at London's
Exmouth Market. She and companion Eddie Boxell, who has equally rich and beautiful tattoos
covering most of his left arm, "collect" their tattoos from noted practitioners: "It's an art thing, a
collecting thing," says Boxell.
They are early arrivals among the 20,000 or more visitors expected to attend this weekend's
International London Tattoo Convention at Tobacco Dock in Wapping. The expansive halls of
this converted warehouse have become a fantasy realm of tattoo parlours, tattoo museums and
supply stores, with alternative fashion boutiques, a rockabilly club and performance stages to
entertain the decorated multitudes when they tire of photographing and praising one another's
illuminated flesh.
It is a skin thing, you notice, as more and more people with ever-more impressive markings flow
into Tobacco Dock. You find yourself ignoring clothes and looking at an inky foot, a spider-web
neck, a dragon shoulder. The decorations shine up skin, make it different and mysterious. They
lead your eyes and hold your gaze. A Japanese geisha portrayed on someone's arm; a woman
going by with elegant tattoos all over her arms and on her legs, under her tights.
"People who are into tattoos know that it's an art," emphasises Savage. She is a tattooist herself,
and is here to shop for equipment as well as survey the scene. She and Boxell both got their first
tattoos when they were below the legal age of 18. They were 16 and 14 respectively, so they have
a lifelong love affair with emblazonment. But what they both admit began as "rebellion" has
matured into aesthetic wonder and appreciation.
They are participants in a cultural wave as huge as the Pacific surf, the islands from which the
word "tattoo" originated. Chiara and Fabio are part of the same movement or fashion or
compulsion: they have come from Italy especially for the convention, parading faces completely
covered in phantasmagoric designs finished off with piercings. At its extreme, tattooing might

seem a radical subculture that defines your whole existence, but the growing popularity of
tattooing belies any such assumption. Chances are that you, a family member or a friend has
tattoos. Once associated with sailors, gang members, or circus performers, these markings are
now a mainstream cultural force. If you don't have tattoos close to home, you surely see plenty of
people around who sport the kinds of spectacular, high-quality inkings that are walking around
this convention floor. Sally Feldt, editor of Total Tattoo magazine, has seen the change happen.
She got her first tattoo 30 years ago and has had a ringside seat at the cultural explosion. "It's
definitely more socially acceptable, more creative. It encompasses every age now, every walk of
life." It is not only young people who are taking the plunge, she stresses: "I know people in their
60s getting their first tattoo."
Feldt admits there are no official figures on the growth or scale of tattooing. "Guesstimates vary:
between 20 to 30% of the adult British population now have a tattoo." That figure takes it well
outside the limits of a subculture and into the mainstream. One proof of this success is her
glossy magazine that sells in Smiths and at supermarkets. In the past five years the magazine
has gone on sale at Morrisons and Asda, evidence that a once-rarefied passion is approaching
the norm.
But again is it art, as visitors to the London convention claim?
The answer is a flaming dragon of a yes. Not only is this an art, it is one of humanity's most
ancient arts. The once-salty docksides of Wapping provide a historically resonant place to stage
this festival, for it was sailors who were known for their tattoos in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The European "discovery" of tattooing dates from Captain Cook's exploration of the Pacific in
the 18th century. Cook took artists and scientists on his voyages, and on the islands in the Pacific
they encountered peoples for whom it was habitual and ritualistically important to decorate the
body using a bone needle to force natural dye deep into the skin.
Modern tattooing, which is being done all around me at the convention by parlours offering
state-of-the-art markings, is just a more hygienic (hopefully) and technological version of this
ancient method. Tattooing flourished in the inhabited Pacific islands, yet each practised a
different style: Maoris combined tattooing with facial scarification, Marquesas islanders wore

full-body tattoos, Samoans preferred them on buttocks and thighs. The word for this art was
"tatau".
For the first European visitors, these islands, above all Tahiti, seemed paradisiacal dreamlands
of free love and unashamed physical beauty. In 1789 the crew of the Royal Navy ship HMS
Bounty, seduced by the alternative society they saw among the islanders of the south seas,
mutinied against the formidable Captain Bligh. As an expression of their radical choice to stay in
the Pacific and reject their Britishness, they got tattoos. Since then, tattooing has become a
nautical stereotype, then the stuff of 1950s fairground subculture, and now a mainstream body
art celebrated in picture books and conventions.
In fact, the historical curiosity of today's tattoo enthusiasts leads them to look far earlier than
the Pacific encounters of Cook and Bligh. At the convention, Japanese tattooing is on offer the
origins of tattooing in Japan go back into prehistory. At a tattoo museum tucked in among the
stalls, it is stressed that some form of tattooing is universal among ancient peoples, including the
blue woad-covered Britons described by ancient Roman historians. It was also customary in
Rome to tattoo slaves.
Is the rise of tattoo, then, a return to our roots, a modern tribalism? The trouble with such
catch-all theories is the self-consciousness of tattoo enthusiasts about their art. There are
"tribal" tattooists here, but that is just one genre. Savage, for instance, says she tattoos in a
"neo-traditional" style, specialising in figures such as Gypsies that she renders in a convincing,
precise manner.
Entranced as I am by the strange beauty of blue, green and red limbs in the sun that filters
through the Tobacco Dock skylights, I cannot imagine getting a tattoo myself. Perhaps
understanding my own resistance is a way to understand other peoples' acceptance. My first
boundary is the obvious one.
"It all relatively hurts," says Savage, "but some hurt more than others."
So, there's the pain. And the more extensive, rich, careful and beautiful the work of art that is
pounded by a needle into your body, the longer you have to endure that pain. That makes
tattooing a rite of passage: and so it was among the Polynesians before Christian missionaries
discouraged them from marking their flesh. Getting a ritual tattoo in the pre-modern Pacific was

a way of becoming a man, a warrior, a chief. It was considered erotic, bu paradoxically repelled
the god who ruled Paradise. Before he could be buried, a tattooed chief in the Marquesas had to
have his skin removed postmortem to be allowed in heaven.
It is the weight of ritual, the sense of undergoing something that changes you, that stops me
personally from ever considering a tattoo. But it must also be part of its attraction. Just by
visiting a tattooist such as the celebrated Danish artist Eckel you can change who you are. The
change is permanent. You are a work of art.
In the Pacific, anthropologists have associated tattoos with a fragmented conception of identity,
a belief that a person is not one but many things. Putting on the shining painted skin of a
warrior changes your nature.
Are people now seeking to change their natures, to become fabulous new beings? Perhaps there
is something digital and post-human about it all, a new sense of self that is no longer bounded
by being inside your own skin, but penetrated as by a needle by social media and constant
internet information, so you feel part of a larger entity, that imprints itself on your body.
Well ... that's as maybe. What I actually feel at the London Tattoo Convention is a seductive
sense of adventure, exoticism and fun. It has the feeling of a fantasy world, an escape from
workaday reality. Rockabilly is playing, people are parading their opulent chromatic skins, and
to be honest, if I stayed here much longer, I might start to get tempted by those parlours after
all. The modern art of tattoo is beguiling, magical and sexy. Why would people not be lured into
its fantastic alternative universe, where spider webs sprout on backs and flowers on elbows?
Outside is the economic news. As the world gets tougher, the appeal of some kind of escapism
grows. Like getting a 1940s hairstyle (also popular here) or reading fantasy stories, being
tattooed is a way of breaking out. It's just a bit more permanent and dramatic, and therefore
more intense and efficacious. "You must change your life", as the poet Rilke wrote, looking at a
nude statue of Apollo.

Step 1 - Paraphrasing each paragraph:

1st paragraph- about the authors own tattoos she has.

2nd paragraph- speaks about the international london tattoo convention.

3rd paragraph- tattoos are catching the attention of people versus the clothes they are wearing.
They are decorative.
4th paragraph- the appreciation of tattoos as an art.
5th paragraph- Growing popularity of tattoos in society. Family members or friends have
tattoos.
6th paragraph- tattoos are now becoming the norm.
7th paragraph- origins of tattoos in the 18th century.
8th paragraph- the sailors got tattoos as a radical choice and it has became a stereotype.
9th paragraph- origins of rome and japan tattoos.
10th paragraph- types of tattooing (ex. tribal).
11th paragraph- hesitation and boundaries of tattoos.
12th paragraph- pain of tattoos is worth it for the art that is embroidered in your body.
13th paragraph-changing your nature when you get a tattoo.

Step 2- Explicating:
1. Tattoos are considered an art, humanitys most ancient art. Going back to the 18th and
19th century.
2. In other words tattooing is a form of art, a body is a blank landscape and one is allowing
for a tattoo artist to design a work of art and implementing it on your skin. Tattoos are
becoming more of the norm as more and more people are starting to get them.
3. The mood of the text was enthralled.
4. The tone of the text was reflective.
5. In the pacific, anthropologists have associated tattoos with a fragmented concept of
identity.
6. There is always more than meets the eye for when people see others tattoos.
7. Tattoos are a permanent change on your body.
Step 3- Analyzing the logic of what we are reading

1. The main purpose of this article is trying to convince readers that tattoos are a form of
art.
2. The key question the author is addressing is if tattoos are considered a form of art.
3. The most important information in this article is the origins of tattoos, how they became
mainstream and part of the norm.
4. The main conclusion in this article is the new sense of self when someone receives a
tattoo.
5. The key idea we need to understand in this article is that tattoos are a form of art. The
reasoning behind this is that tattoos are humanity's most ancient form of art. The word
it originated from tatau means the ritual of when people got tattoos. They are a sense
of a new identity and changing yourself to fit the person you are.

second article
title of article: are tattoos considered art? should tattooers be considered artists?

website url:
http://tattooartistmagazineblog.com/2015/02/23/should-tattoos-be-considered-art-are-tattooe
rs-artists/

Text of the article:

I have been hearing complaints almost since I began fifteen years ago about how
tattooing is not being taken seriously as an art form. Maybe it was as a genre specific sort of folk art, but
that wasnt enough for most people in the business. But you know what? I see where the illustrators are
coming from.
Now, before people get start to react, let me go over some of this. I think the best approach is to compare
tattooing to another medium. When punk rock came out, there were a few auteurs, but most of it was
crap. And I like punk. But its true.
In high school I had a blue mohawk, combat boots, and a spiky leather jacket. Over time, some real talent
started to emerge. Thats when it was recognized as an art form. It took a while, but bands like Black Flag
and the Dead Kennedys are respected now. The Ramones and the Sex Pistols have even been inducted
into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Same with metal. Or science fiction. Or comic books. In fact, I almost
went into comics, and Im still the first to admit that most early comics had mediocre artwork and stories.
At best. Now you get the likes of Alan Moore and John Totleben. Metal used to have Venom. Now they have
musicians that can play circles around many in other genres. Even if you dont like metal, you would be an
idiot to not admit it has talent. I think tattooing has gone through the same birth pangs.
The way for anything to prove its worth, is by producing a better product. Early tattooing had a limited
palette, limited machines and limited needle groupings. Such a social stigma was attached to tattoos for
generations that truly talented artists often looked elsewhere for careers. And not to pick on just tattooing,
the other genres I discussed had the same problems early on. In fact, going back to the beginning of
comics, serious artists tended to do something that involved more money and more respect. Limited time
lines, low wages, and stories that were often quick and aimed at the lowest common denominator didnt
help matters. Then, in the eighties, comics developed specialty stores; they werent just for passersby at
the corner store any more. A different kind of people started reading them, and started making them.
Adults remembered them fondly from their childhood. Celebrities admitted they were fans. Comic
conventions began sprouting up all over the place. Comic books started to make the news. And then there
came the movies. In time, comic books, artists and writers began to to be taken much more seriously by
the mainstream. I would say tattooing has gone through a similar evolution. These days there are some
some amazing tattoo artists out there that blow away some artists in other fields, or at least compete with

it. But just as all comics arent well drawn, neither are all tattoos done well. In fact, with such a huge
demand for tattoos, there is no way the best artists could even keep up. Unlike most comic or commercial
illustrators, tattoo artists arent peer reviewed, (unless you count Instagram). And they are in far greater
demand. So even technically well-executed tattoos that are artistically mediocre flow out of shops every
day. But its still true that many, (perhaps even the majority), of tattoos are not well executed at all. They
may not flow well with the body, and they make otherwise blank skin actually look worse. To add salt to
the wound, unlike bad artwork on paper, they cant just be shelved and forgotten about. Thats the nature
of the beast. At its best, Tattoos can impress more than any painting could. At its worst, it can become a
lifelong regret and the subject of jokes at parties. But I dont think the answer is to cry over spilt milk.
Great looking tattoos will always triumph. What I hear all the time is, Wow, thats a tattoo? This isnt
because I think my tattoos are the bees knees, Im talking about tattoos done by a huge range of talented
artists. Most people are used to the old-school pieces their parents have, or the small tattoos their friends
got from a local flash shop. Put out your best work and forget the haters. Like many punk bands that were
written off at the time but are now considered classic, many art forms are like this. The movies Blade
Runner and The Shining were panned by critics when they first came out. Now they make all the top ten
lists. If its quality, it will be recognized, even if it takes time. If not, it may not even noticed while its
passing, Before everyone starts making all sorts of excuses about how they are really just a misunderstood
specialist, lets consider a few things. Good movies make it not because they were underground or
misunderstood, but because they were well done. Too many tattoo artists write off artistic techniques
that are the lifeblood of any other illustrative medium. Anatomy. Perspective. Design and flow. Light
source. The list goes on. Most of the general public is not going to look at a tattoo by the likes of Robert
Hernandez, or Tommy Lee Wendtner, and say oh thats just scribbled crap. But by the same token, the
public at large is not going to look at the work of Joe Shmo who cant even pull a straight line and say
thats art.
I would like to make another point. Art for Arts sakeor art for wages? I attended art school. And I
remember, in art school, there was this art world snobbery towards anything that was produced for an
assignment. H.R Giger was a well-respected fine artist, until his designs were used for the movie Alien,
then the fine art world denigrated him to being just an illustrator. So, if you want to be technical, since a
tattoo artist works with a client and produces art for money, he is also just an illustrator. Like Frank
Frazetta. Hey, if thats the company you want to throw me in, Im fine with that. Keep in mind, however,
that this hypocritical frame of reference would apply to all those revered early artists, like Michelangelo,
Rembrandt, Da Vinci, etc, etc, etc. The true masters we admire and study now mostly did religious

material and portraits. Why? Because that is what paid the bills. Sounds like illustration to me. Alright, one
more issue that I feel needs to be addressed.
I remember, when I first started, that I had this portfolio with just a few tattoos in it. But I had a whole
load of paintings filling the rest. And boy did I hear it. Youre just a frustrated painter. That doesnt apply
to tattoos. So you can paint, this is tattooing, who the hell cares.
Now it seems like everyone paints. Some are really good at it. Like Nick Baxter, or Carlos Torres. But just
like anything, most tattooers doing it suck. Even if you are a good tattoo artist, that does not make you a
good painter. I have seen great painters try to do another medium, including tattooing, and fall on their
ass. They didnt lose respect as a painter, but thats no free pass in the tattoo world if your work is crap.
You need to do good paintings to be respected as a painter, and good tattoos to be respected as a
tattooer. Its not like being good in one field gives you some free pass in all the rest. Unless youre Prince, I
dont expect a good musician to automatically be a good basketball player, and I dont expect a good tattoo
artist to be a good painter. So, in my opinion, a tattoo is and isnt art. Just like a painting. Many paintings
suck. Many tattoos suck. A great painting will be considered art. A great tattoo should also be considered
art. Unless someone has a prejudice against tattoos. And if thats the case, who cares. Their loss.

Step 1- paraphrase each paragraph

1st paragraph- introduction to the controversy of tattoos as a form of art.
2nd paragraph- tattooing has gone through birth pangs.
3rd paragraph- evolution of tattoos, it keeps bettering itself versus when they were limited
supplies for tattoos.
4th paragraph- execution of tattoos and the comparison to paintings.
5th paragraph- attended art school- tattoo artists are technically illustrators.
6th paragraph- correlation between paintings and tattoos.
7th paragraph- a great tattoo should be considered art.
Step 2- Explicating
1. The main point of this article is what contributes to make tattoos considered art.
2. In other words, not all paintings are considered art because some are executed badly,
same goes with tattoos. If a tattoo is executed badly it wont be considered art but a great
tattoo is considered fine art just like a great painting is considered art.
3. The mood of the text is energetic.
4. The tone of the text is passionate.

5. Earlier comics are not even close to how impressive comics are now. same goes with
tattoos they were not impressive earlier ago because of the limited supplies that were
available.
6. Tattoos are art just like paintings are art. Some may be bad and some may be good.
7. Look for a tattoo artist that can execute well.
Step 3 Analyzing the logic of what we are reading
1. The main purpose of the article was to try to explain why tattoo;s should be considered a
form of art.
2. The key question the author is addressing is what makes tattoos considered art over
other forms of art.
3. The most important information in this article is the process of how a tattoo artist is
considered an illustrator.
4. The main conclusion of this article is that a tattoo is and isnt considered art in the same
way a painting is and isn't considered art. If a painting is bad or a tattoo is executed bad
no one will consider it a piece of art but a great tattoo beats a great painting any day.
5. The main assumptions we can make is that what makes something considered art is how
well is it done (how appealing it is) and the mentality you have going in. If you dont
consider bright blended colors art but someone else does then it's the perspective and the
mentality you have going in on what is and is not considered art.