to say tattoos are art?

[CopperHandle]

(I've copied and pasted this from Chat as I accidentally posted there )

I've recently got a large(ish) tattoo on my forearm. I love it very much, drew it myself and it represents a lot of different things in my life.
My step-dad strongly dislikes tattoos and in a conversation about it, declared that it "wasn't real art" and proceeded to go on a lengthy rant about how much he hated tattoos.

I understand that many people don't like tattoos and that's totally fine, however I disagree about that it isn't art. There is plenty of art that I don't like, don't find beautiful but its still art.

In my mind, art is something that is man made that sparks discussion, thought or debate - which tattoos certainly do.

AIBU in thinking that tattoos are "real art"?

(FWIW I didn't really argue with my step dad and just let him rant, there was going to be no winning there)

I think that he meant that they are not 'high' art in the same way that street art isn't considered high art. Doesn't mean that it isn't still art in an arts and crafts sense of the word.

Some tattoos are beautiful works of art.

My tattoo definitely doesn't fall into that category. I blame the 1990's personally.

Ttbb is there an Art hierarchy then?

(Please don't read that as snippy, it's a genuine question )

More like different types. You have high art as in high culture (I.e. Art that you would find in an art gallery), you have alternative arts like street art, you have arts and craft arts (so v artistic performance of trades like masonry, carpentry etc). Decorative arts (like the kinds of prints etc you put on your walls at home (unless you are lucky enough to have inherited a Rembrandt of course). Most people tend to use the word art to mean high art.

No I agree with you that tattoos are art. And some (not all) of the distinction between what is gallery worthy and what is "street" is down to social class rather than content itself. I find some of Damien Hirst's work to be just cloyingly predictable and irksome. But because rich people decided to pay millions for it it's lauded? That's not a perfectly valid statement since taste is truly subjective, but why I might well find a beautifully drawn tattoo more artistic than maggots encased in formaldehyde.

Art is also about context. There have been examples of concert level violinists busking unrecognised because people just assume that the music at Carnegie hall will be mind blowing but on the tube will just be someone average. So we set up the context that something that hangs in a gallery is automatically assumed to be good because of its location, while something on your forearm isn't.

But curious now to see a picture of your tattoo!

YANBU. Our bodies are a canvas. I love tattoos and am covered, recent being a large chest piece. There's a lot of judgement out there and I do tend to physically repulse some people but that's their problem.
Some are artsy some not so much.

I'd have to agree that a lot of very recent modern art seend a bit shite. But I'm not educated about art, there must be something about David Hockney and Damien hurst and what not the distinguishes it from other art. It's I like you said largely down to personal taste and of course within the band of 'high' art you have so many different schools of thought which will naturally appeal to different people in varying degrees. for example, I think that the Dutch masters are superior to the Italian renaissance art or the French impressions but that's just because I have some kind of understanding with that aesthetic that I don't with others. For example the Mona Lisa, while enagmatic in a way is not very informative, to me. In contrast, looking at Rembrandt's portrait of Jan Six on the other had created an impression of a life lived. The deep rich tones conjure inmages of leather bounds tomes read by candle light by an old, wise man. Manwehile the delicate, imperfect stokes on the lace give a sense of a flighty and passionate albeit a somewhat shallow youth. That painting has a sense of preseance that is lack in other works. But a different person could look at it and see nothing more than paint. I think that if you haven't spend decades studying art it's very hard to say what does and does qualify as high art and why. Even then experts and philosophers also have different opinions.

well you can't stick them in a gallery or outdoor space, so in that sense they are not what people generally think of as art. They can be artistic which is different.

I personally think they are naff, and I think it is short sighted to put something on your body that permanent that you can't get rid of. I don't understand the compulsion to make a statement banner out of your body. And I hate the idea of being a 55 year old or 60 year old woman and having some grotty old tattoo that belongs to a 25 year old. Its like putting on a leather mini skirt at 16 and then never ever being able to take it off again no matter how your style or position in life changes.

ZaphodBeeblerox

(great name BTW) this is probably outing to those who may know me IRL but here you go.

It's not finished yet

Tattoos are definitely art. I would say that there is vast range in tattoos - but ultimately, they are all art...even the awful ones!

Yours is beautiful!

I'm not a fan of tattoos meaning I wouldn't choose one for myself. But I do admire them on others. Not all, I'm not sure writing quotes on yourself is art, more something people do to affirm positivity maybe.
I have to say I really like your arm Copper and enjoyed looking at it, I guess that's art to me.

KimmySchmidt1 I think its down to perspective too, I will look at my tattoos and see my life in my 20s. Also, it will likely be the norm for my generation to mostly have tattoos, so it won't look out of place either.
But yes, they are permanent and I can 100% see why people are uncomfortable with that.

Im not a particular tattoo fan (nearly got one in the nineties when it was considered edgy, delighted I didn't because I bet the design choice would've been dreadful). Nevertheless I was standing behind someone in a queue yesterday and thinking how beautiful hers was. They can be - but sadly so often aren't!

Tattoos are definitely art - you only have to leaf through a book on the subject or visit a convention to see the different styles, periods and types you have there.

It's also worth remembering the context is important. OP, your Dad was probably thinking of "I love mum" or the sailor type rose and anchor tattoos (and yes, done badly does look naff). He probably does not know about some of our top artists such as Mowgli, Matt Daniels, Charlotte Bergman or Cristiano Viola.
www.greatbritishtattooshow.com/artists/

I often think the term tattoo arist is a contradiction in terms... 🙂
ive never seen a tattoo i thought beautiful or particularly artistic but we each like different things and art anyway is in the eye of the beholder so it doesnt matter what i think.

No matter how anyone feels about tatts themselves, I'd defy them not to admire the sheer detail and artistic skill in these examples! Some of them could pass as photos.

www.instagram.com/imchrisgreen/

www.instagram.com/davidcorden/

www.instagram.com/darylwatsontattoo/?hl=en

In most cases I've seen, they are as much art as the drawings and paintings my children do that then get stuck on the fridge. In other words, art, but not particularly good art.

However, there are a minority of tattoos that are very much art. They are beautifully executed with skill, flair, and creativity.

Zuzu the Keith Lemon one is extraordinary

I believe they are art - there are good and poor examples as in any art form.

On the subject of high art v other art my background is in the written word and the debate on literature/Literature rages on as it has for centuries and I see this mirrored in the visual arts. A lot of art isn't recognised as such at the time of its creation. Eg the impressionists were seen as fairly similar to how Andy Warhol was viewed in the 60's - pretenders to the throne - but this has been debated and re-evaluated many times.

Maud,

Admittedly, his gurning face doesn't shout "art", I agree!

Considering there are still some hardcore traditionalists that think acrylic paintings don't count as "real art", YABU

The art industry is extremely snobby and there is totally a hierarchy within art.

Anything you like is art even Tracey Emins unmade bed.

I am not a fan of tattoos, but even I recognise that there are some tattoos that are beautiful works of art, and I admire the skill of the tattoo artist.

OP your tattoo is gorgeous.
It is art!

Oh that looks gorgeous!

I do have a tattoo on my back - a very tiny one - but mostly just feel a bit loath to commit myself to something that permanent. It took me 3-4 years of debating to even get that one tattoo, although I still love it 5 years later.

I'd definitely call yours art!