Conformity via Tattoos
#41
(11-29-2011, 02:52 AM)Arun Wrote: that's based in opoinion, though, rather than fact. what facts can you offer to back that up?

Don't you recognize that it's an objective truth - independent of any opinion at all - that skill is a necessary but insufficient criterion of artistry?
Reply
#42
(11-29-2011, 03:02 AM)Jackson K. Eskew Wrote:
(11-29-2011, 02:52 AM)Arun Wrote: that's based in opoinion, though, rather than fact. what facts can you offer to back that up?

Don't you recognize that it's an objective truth - independent of any opinion at all - that skill is a necessary but insufficient criterion of artistry?

Nonetheless you have failed to demonstrate your statement that no tattoo artist fulfills the criterion of artistry. You knew that that was what I was referring to in my post, yet you chose to make the sidestep you have made here and try to push me into a corner thinking that I would then try to argue my way out against a statement which is true - and which I didn't deny. How about making a move or two above the board for awhile Jackie?

Right in the kisser... :)
Reply
#43
(11-29-2011, 03:13 AM)Arun Wrote: Nonetheless you have failed to demonstrate your statement that no tattoo artist fulfills the criterion of artistry. You knew that that was what I was referring to in my post, yet you chose to make the sidestep you have made here and try to push me into a corner thinking that I would then try to argue my way out against a statement which is true - and which I didn't deny. How about making a move or two above the board for awhile Jackie?

Right in the kisser... :)

:LOL: Good stuff!

It's true, I maintain that no tattooist - insofar as he tattoos - is an artist. Thus there's no such thing as tattoo artistry. I say that the tattooist is equivalent to the cowboy who brands cattle. Insofar as he brands cattle, even if he constructs the brand, no one would say that the cowboy is an artist. I say that the tattoo, like the cattle brand, is none other than a badge of ownership and conformity. It signifies ownership by and conformity to the Zeitgeist. Put differently - as Hegelianism is to be rejected - it signifies ownership by and conformity to the tribe of the world. (I'm speaking of the tattooed who are not soldiers, criminals, savages, or working class - while still maintaining that no tattoo is a work of artistry.)

But all this begs the question! Now we're forced, as I feared we would be, to dive into the real matter: What is art? Related: What is an artist? What is artistry?

Let's begin this way: Do you agree that skill alone doesn't make an artist? If so, what else is required? I'll anticipate your answer: Application of that skill. So, skill and application of that skill are required. Next: According to what criteria?

Note that you could get out of the whole thing like this: "Fine, I'll stipulate that no tattoo is a work of art. But they're still wonderful!"

And I could get out of it like this: "Fine, I'll stipulate that tattoos can be works of art. But they're still horrid!"

I wouldn't mind if we took these escape hatches. First, because if we really pursue the matter it's going to take hard work. Second, because (knowing the futility of it all) I might just be too lazy to expend the energy the full discussion demands!

Very unSocratic, I know!

Reply
#44
Lol. Nice answer! :)
Reply
#45
So how about the tattooist that does freehand work? Is that not the samething as using a blank canvas and paint brush?
Reply
#46
Mind = Blown that I agree with Mr. Eskew here..... somewhat. Your average tattoo shop guy is not an artist.

However, some of them are real artists. Like on Miami Ink. They draw, design and colour the stuff themselves and as far as I remember  one or two of them have stuff in galleries. It just so happens to be on someones skin at the end, instead of a canvas. Just because the medium is different doesn't make it any less artful.
Reply
#47
I personally don't understand them. Hopefully in 30 years time TIA wil be leading the government of Europe and all women will be wearing Catholic clothing up to the chin and down to the ankles. Otherwise when I am sitting on the beach with my grandchildren I and they are going to have to look at a load of old crinklies with green and indigo blotches on their skins.

I like those ones in the bubblegum packets.  They wash off and you can change them.  Maybe in the future they will sell bubble gum with a lick and stick tattoo of a seasonal saint.  Then you could look like a stained glass window.
Reply
#48
In the past Christian sailors would  have a cross tatooed on themselves so that in case of shipwreck and their bodies washed ashore, they would receive a Christian burial.
Getting oneself tattooed is also a way to keep faith with the past......to do as our ancestors did.
Reply
#49
Pure art:

[Image: ab1edd56-8639-435a-bd58-f23279b4928a.jpg]
Reply
#50
Have to agree with Jackson here.  Tattoos only demonstrate vanity.  So do piercings, hair coloring, make-up, designer clothing... I could go on and on.  I read plenty of rationalization in this thread, but the fact remains that the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost.  If one is tattooing himself, he is figuratively tattooing the Holy Ghost.  It matters not how "cool" one thinks his tattoo of his favorite saint is, the point of tattooing is personal glorification.  Even if a tattoo is supposedly something religious, why get it?  Does one wish people to know he is a devout?  By one's actions, he is known.  Why not wear a T-shirt that says "I am holier than thou"?  Is that not the point?  Get a tattoo and then hide it?  Wear a scapular instead. 

Someone up the thread mentioned asceticism.  Not getting a tattoo, not getting a piercing, wearing no make-up -- these are not asceticism.  Our modern, materialistic culture has gotten so soft that "not pampering ourselves" has become asceticism.  It's akin to giving up candy for Lent.  Good grief people, giving up a luxury is not a sacrifice.  Giving up a necessity is.

If the tattoo is something immoral or just base or vulgar, obviously, a Catholic has no justification for getting it.  If a Catholic has such a tattoo, it is incumbent upon him to have it removed. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)