In an earlier post, I discussed growing trends of body modification as illustrative of the new cyborg body. Although it is debatable whether these trends are in fact “new,” (after all, various indigenous cultures have been practicing body modification long before European colonists began taking note of it in their travel diaries), I would like to continue this conversation by looking at one subculture of body modification: tattooing.
As an avid “tattoo collector” myself, I have spent the past few years attending tattoo conventions, hanging out with tattooers, and getting heavily tattooed, all while working on my research regarding the popularization of tattooing. What I notice are changing norms regarding appropriate use of the body as canvas. I would like to draw your attention to one particular trend that is growing in the tattoo subculture: facial tattoos.
What was once the purview only of convicted felons has become an increasingly normative way of expressing one’s commitment to the subculture. (For a case in point, simply Google “facial tattoos” and see what pops up.) What I notice from my interviews and discussions with tattooers and clients alike is a sharp disparity between those who see the face as a legitimate space for artistic display and those who see the face as “off limits.” Traditionally, tattooers were wary of getting tattooed on “public skin” (e.g., face, hands, and neck), as employment in the industry was unpredictable and one never knew if she would need to find another job amongst the masses. Having tattoos on public skin was almost certain to prevent employment. But things may be changing.
As the tattoo industry has become somewhat of a pop culture phenomenon, and many consumers have become visibly tattooed (full sleeves, bodysuits, and the like), tattooers have begun to see the face as a legitimate space for getting tattooed. Many of the artists I have spoken with now have prominent facial tattoos, and the ones that don’t often plan on getting them (usually something small beside one or both eyes). For many, it is now the only way to differentiate themselves from tattoo collectors or other body modification enthusiasts who now sport full body suits, stretched earlobes, and other prominent modifications. Where having full sleeves once denoted one’s status as a tattoo artist – a professional in a tightly-knit and guarded community of craftsmen – now facial tattoos serve to display one’s commitment to the profession, lifestyle, and artform. As such, facial tattoos have become a new form of (sub-)cultural capital, where those who were on the “inside” of the subculture now find themselves defending their turf from a onslaught of newcomers wanting to jump on the bandwagon.
However, even among tattooers, there is a resistance to this growing trend. Many of the traditional tattooers (those who were trained long ago or received a formal apprenticeship) that I have spent time with spoke strongly against facial tattoos. In fact, most traditional tattooers refuse to tattoo clients on public skin entirely. It is simply not a part of their habitus (to borrow Bourdeiu’s terminology). This was certainly the case for the likes of Bert Grimm, Charlie Barrs, or Amund Dietzel, traditional tattooers from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, as well as many other artists who were trained prior to the Tattoo Renaissance of the 70s. For the young man who walks into the tattoo shop and asks for his lover’s name emblazoned across his neck, he now has to find a “friend” in the industry who is willing to do it. Either that or he must risk receiving a poorly-rendered tattoo from a “scratcher” (someone untrained and unaffiliated with a tattoo shop, who purchased their equipment online) who will agree to do the piece at a dramatically reduced rate at a tattoo party or out of somebody’s basement.
In conclusion, as tattooing has become more popular, tattooers and those whose lives revolve around the art of tattooing must create new forms of distinction to differentiate themselves from the masses. This goes back to Bourdieu’s notion of the social field, and how forms of distinction change after the entrance of new social actors with much different forms of capital and very different habituses. Although many a Nu-Skool tattooer (those who recently joined the tattooing profession, often with art school training) sees no problem tattooing their face, hands and neck, many traditional tattooers still see it as a questionable practice and refuse to do it themselves. However, with pressure resulting from the increasing popularity of tattooing and the increasing numbers of individuals with their faces prominently tattooed, we may see an increase in traditional tattooers who choose to tattoo their face.
David Paul Strohecker is getting his PhD in Sociology at the University of Maryland. He studies cultural sociology, theory, and intersectionality. He is currently working on a larger project about the cultural history of the zombie in film. This post originally appeared at Cyberology.
For more on Bourdieu, see our posts on The Evangelical Habitus, Dumb vs. Smart Books, and The Hipster and the Authenticity of Taste.
Comments 22
Lynne Skysong — February 25, 2011
I have a tattoo (ankle) and have plan to get a full back piece (Old Japanese style: sword with angel wing on the left and dragon/demon wing on the right). Many of my friends are tattooed, and I personally see it as no one's business but the skin's owner. It is my body to modify (or not) how I see fit. However, I work as an engineer (female, mid 20s) which is a highly conservative and male dominated field (less so now, my graduating class was 50/50 male/female). I would never consider face/hand/neck tattoos because that would be a potential death sentence to me professionally. I don't personally see anything wrong with it, but I am well aware that enough of my potential (and current) colleagues would.
Shannon — February 25, 2011
This is a really interesting guest post!
I would love it if Mr. Strohecker could talk more about resistance to facial tattoos among tattoo artists. It may be because I live in NYC, but I see many many neck tattoos that look professionally done, and found it surprising that the author suggests "For the young man who walks into the tattoo shop and asks for his lover’s name emblazoned across his neck, he now has to find a “friend” in the industry who is willing to do it." Did I misunderstand and he was talking about the 70s? I have a hard time believing any tattoo artists in the East Village, for example, would turn away someone wanting a neck tattoo.
But, I have no tattoos, so what do I know.
Thanks again for sharing!
Andrea — February 25, 2011
I have a neck tattoo, and it was difficult to get. A number of tattoo parlours refused, and my tattoo is about 7 years old. So there is still a taboo about it, certainly, but I DID find a tattoo parlour that would do it, and I have a number of friends that have tattoos on their neck, and by their ears and have all had them done by someone reputable. So I think it's changing, if slowly. I find it interesting that a tattoo artist would take on the responsibility of someone else's bodily choices, that they would refuse, not for any medical or artistic reason, but because they feel responsible for the tattoo-ed's job prospectives or standing in society. That is what feels bizarre to me about it, shouldn't it be up the individual to bear the consequences of their own choices?
cyffermoon — February 25, 2011
The sense of distinction among tattoo artists is interesting, as is the differing sense among artists of what goes "too far". My brother, a popular and highly skilled and artistic tattoo artist, is happy to do neck tattoos. However, he stopped doing Insane Clown Posse tattoos years ago. He got to a point where he was doing so many of them, he sincerely started to wonder whether these folks would resent the ICP tattoos later in life. Yet he really doesn't otherwise worry himself professionally about the placement or questionable content of other tattoos.
Issa — February 25, 2011
I got a tattoo on the back of my neck several years ago with no trouble at all, but my wedding ring tattoo was harder to get. I ended up getting it from a guy at a camping festival, but it didn't even come with the greatly reduced price.
Ed Baker — February 26, 2011
Taking it to the extreme (well beyond my taste):
http://pblog.ebaker.me.uk/2011/02/speechless-at-skull-face.html
m Andrea — February 26, 2011
Why is this guy getting grant money for this bullshit?
Cactus Wren — February 26, 2011
Barry Goldwater had a "public-skin" tattoo on his hand: but a) it was very small and discreet (symbolizing his honorary membership in a club of white people who enacted fake Native American "ceremonials"), and b) he got it long before the days when tattoos were associated with any "counterculture".
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/74/does-barry-goldwater-have-a-tattoo
Anonymous — February 27, 2011
In Denmark it is illegal to make tattoos on hands, necks and faces. Although I haven't heard of any kind of repercussions to those who do it, most tattooers refuse to make them, also quoting the disadvantages in securing mainstream employment. A few do it anyway, though, and DIY-tattoos are pretty widespread.
In my experience, tattooers have all sorts of different ethics. I have also encountered tattooers who refuse to do overtly political pieces, or who won't do something they know will produce a poor result (like making a tattoo in all-white. It will disappear). Given that many tattooers are people who take pride in their work, it is not surprising that there would evolve certain ethical and cultural codes.
Leigh — February 27, 2011
If you're trying to track the rise of a cultural phenomenon such as facial tattoos, it is extremely negligent to ignore the long history of facial tattoos in gangster/rap culture. By acting as though this is a new cultural phenomenon, you are disavowing the relations of power that enable mainstream appropriation of elements of disenfranchised popular cultures, such as gang or rap culture. Furthermore, by discussing facial tattoos without reference to their history in the United States, you have de-contextualized them and enacted a scholastic appropriation that is just as unsettling to me as the mainstream glorification of gang culture.
Also, I would be interested in knowing why you chose to post three pictures of people with seemingly no facial tattoos?
Andrew S Australia — March 10, 2013
Great diversity of comments. Strohecker's point is this: that tattoo culture is changing and that these changes could be explained according to him, due to the new generation of tattoo artists who come with shifting ideas about tattooing faces. This promotion will cause a significant impact on Tattoo as a cultural institution that had developed certain ethics and principles for generations.
So the important point is this: Should we allow as a society for people to do anything with their bodies as they see fit especially their faces? Why and why not? The discussion should be on such issues in terms of the effects of strecthing the boundaries of individualism to society.
Frank Rodriguez — February 14, 2017
I believe that conformity is "underrated" particularly by most Americans who have face and neck tattoos. If someone is successful and/or "their own boss", then they have a much better chance of "getting away with" visible tattoos since these tats don't interfere with their ability to earn a living. Unfortunately, the majority of heavily tatted up people in the U.S. are neither particularly well-off nor successfully self-employed. Most people covered in tats "have to" work for someone else, and those "looking for work" often face more barriers to employment than their less decorated counterparts.