12 Jan 2016

TATTOO OR NOT TO TATTOO? THAT IS THE QUESTION



Now today's blog is a little of a divergent from my normal blogging. Mainly inspired by something I recently saw in the press but also something that is a day to day concern of mine. If anyone keeps up to date with awards season you will have known that the Golden Globes have just happened - an awards show that rewards actors and actress' for their work in tv and film over the past year. It was a who's who of celebrity guests including Leonardo Decaprio and Lady Gaga. One of the most talked about incidents of the night was Lady Gaga's collision with Decaprio's elbow - and his hilarious reaction. However this isn't the reason for my post. If one was to have studied the video closer one would have noticed something odd going on with Gaga (not unsurprising I know but bare with me). Here is a picture of Gaga on the night...





Looks perfectly normal right? (perhaps too normal for Gaga). But now here's what she normally looks like...




As you can see she is pretty heavily adorned with tattoos. As a tattooed human also I found it pretty bazaar that she would go to so much effort to cover up these beautiful works of art she has chosen to have permanently adorning her skin. It's also pretty stupid, under bright studio lights it's obvious that they have covered her skin with what I presume is thick makeup, rather than cool tattoos she now has weird pale blotches. She apparently used the makeup artist that has worked on films such as Mad Max - Fury Road to help her cover them up which is extreme already. I understand why someone would cover up tattoos for a role, as it wouldn't make sense for a character to have the same tattoos as the actor, but as yourself for an award show it makes no sense. It's unknown why Gaga chose to cover them up, perhaps she was taking on the character of The Countess of which she had been nominated for a Golden Globe for portraying or was it for another reason? From reading many articles detailing the event and Gaga's presence at said event, many headlines read "Gaga takes a more demure look" or a more "sophisticated appearance", now it was this that pissed me off. In what way does removing your tattoos indicate a more sophisticated appearance? It's annoying that still in 2016 people still look at tattoos with negative implications.


I have a pretty prominent tattoo on my forearm and as soon as I got it I was bombarded with the standard, "you'll never get a proper job with tattoos like that" or "you'll have to only wear long sleeved tops to work if you want to get a good job." Since when should my appearance affect my future job prospects? Does the ink from my tattoo seep up into my brain and cause me to lose brain cells and in tern make me stupid? I think not. Will it distract my fellow employees so that they stop working and don't get anything done? No, and if it does it's only because they're super jealous of my sick tattoos. I am a hard working and driven individual, my tattoos are an extension of my personality - may that be wild and adventurous but that doesn't stop me being a hard worker. It doesn't mean I don't give a shit about my life or my prospects, it just means I have an interest and that interest just happens to be displayed all over my body.


But anyway back to my sophisticated/not argument. This isn't the first time it's happened, at an award show earlier this year Rita Ora chose to cover up a tattoo on her hand and the immediate reaction yet again was "The body art addict, who has 26 etchings, hides her ink with heavy make-up as she goes for a more demure look at MTV VMAs." There's that word again demure. The dictionary definition of demure states that (when in reference to the individuals behaviour) said individual is more reserved and honest. I'm sorry I didn't realise my tattoos were encouraging me to get my tits out and lie all the time? Above is a picture of one of my favourite tattoo artists Cally Jo, one, she is down right gorgeous, two, she is an amazing artist and three, she is covered the fuck in tattoos. You can't look at her and say she doesn't look sophisticated as fuck? She is lucky enough to be in an area of work where she is taken seriously even though she is heavily adorned with tattoos, no one thinks she'll turn up late to work or call in sick all the time because she's gone on a heavy night out. No one thinks she won't put every effort into her work because she's "wild and can't be controlled". Instead she is respected and ends up on the cover of magazines for being amazing at what she does. So back to Gaga, does she think that in the world of acting - a somewhat different world to music - that to be respected and taken seriously she has to cover up the inkings that have made her who she is today? If that's the case then shame on that industry that makes people think that way, tattoos should be showed off because they are part of who you are, they don't change you, they make you. I for one will show them off even when I'm old and grey.

Check out my last post all about the band Blossoms.


L x




No comments:

Post a Comment

TEMPLATE CREATED BY PRETTYWILDTHINGS