Tattoos aren’t art – they’re graffiti
Last updated at 16:43, Wednesday, 06 February 2013
THE Big Debate topic in Saturday’s Evening Mail was “Have tattoos lost their stigma?”.
Have your say
I yet again fail to see the point of these âarticles,â they appear as nothing more than a soap box in which the âwriterâ can attempt to proclaim their superiority over something trivial. Whilst it does have potential to be humours and light hearted, the structure feels full of holes and Iâm not sure what I was supposed to get from reading it. Is she meant to represent a particular section of society? If so who? Are we supposed to warm to her as a person? If so I would recommend a light hearted approach which does not offend a large proportion of society. Are we ourselves supposed to relate and feel better that âwe donât have tramp stamps the size of Askam.â Ergo we are better than those who do?Rusty.
Tattoos are indeed hideous. But the bad ones aren't those on the toned bellies of the young and (otherwise) beautiful slim blonde creatures on their way on holiday....go and look at that same woman in 50 years' time when she is older, fatter and wrinklier and the cute dolphin has turned into a faded, mis-shapen blue whale.
Tattoss are never attractive on the young but should be made illegal on the old wrinklies...they put me off my all-inclusive buffet dinner
Tattoos say look at me I'm so radical but when most people have them, frankly you're not. I frown when I see overweight scruffy individuals sporting tattoos; naturally they wear shorts and vests in the most inappropriate places to show them off. Presumably they had them done to 'look good' when in fact losing 5 stone and putting on more appropriate clothing would have been a more non-delusional approach.