A Change of Heart for five hundred, Alex.

Article courtesy of The Macon Telegraph with my comments within [these
things].

Bad body art

[Please note that, yes, fwiw, my opinion remains that there is no bad
tattoo art, but rather merely opinion as to what is bad or good wrt any
and all art. Subjective at its core, imo.]

or simply a change of heart may have you craving a tattoo redo
By Maggie Large

Though tattoos no longer have the same taint

[Beavis: "Huh huh huh, she said taint." Uh, never mind.]

of the taboo that they once did, they still have the ability to cause
pain beyond the tattoo artist's chair.

Maybe the offending ink spells the name of an ex in loving script.
Maybe the subject matter is no longer relevant, or it's even offensive.
Maybe the work is poor or faded. Or maybe the placement is less than
pretty. What's sexy on an 18-year-old can look tacky on a grandmother.

[Although there are some hella sexy grandmothers out there. Holla all
you thirty- and forty-year-old grandmas!]

There are as many reasons to have a tattoo covered or removed as there
are reasons to get one in the first place.

Ray Carlisle, a tattoo artist who specializes in cover work at Beyond
Taboo in Macon, said someone comes into the shop just about every day
to have something covered.

"Mostly names of an ex, that's the biggest thing," Carlisle said.

Offensive tattoos also send people back to the tattooist's chair.

"I have a friend who got swastikas on his stomach, and he went to
Thailand and it almost got him killed," Carlisle said. "So we covered
them up for him."

Other times, shoddy tattoo work sends people seeking professional help.
Unlicensed tattoo artists operating out of homes can be the culprits,
he said.

"I see people with a $200 pair of shoes on, and they only want to spend
$20 on a tattoo," Carlisle said. "Soon that pair of shoes will be in
the trash, but a tattoo is forever."

Not if Eileen Johnson can help it. She's an aesthetician with ENT
Surgical Associates of Macon and specializes in laser tattoo removal.

In her nine years of removing tattoos, Johnson has heard every possible
explanation for unwanted ink. The most popular? Tattooing while tipsy.

"They were off on spring break and had a little too much to drink," she
said. "It was the spur of the moment, and now they're in a job of an
executive type and now have to wear a long-sleeved shirt every day to
cover it."

Other reasons include going into the military, which has restrictions
on visible tattoos, though they were relaxed last year.

She cautions that laser removal has its downsides.

"I guarantee nothing," Johnson said.

[At least she's honest. Better to have no expectations than false
expectations, yes?]

"There is pain and possible scarring. It will never look as pretty as
it did before."

Perhaps because of her line of work, Johnson is vehemently anti-tattoo.
She has never had one.

"It cannot be erased," she said.

[Otoh, while honesty is not necessarily a bad policy, these quotes if
distributed widely - especially to her potential clientele - I suspect
might cause her business to drop off juuuust slightly. "NO GUARANTEES!
YOU CANNOT ERASE TATTOOS!" claims laser tattoo removal aesthetician.
Duh. Way to effectively promote your business, Eileen.]

Jorrell Scott, 25, of Macon, said he has a number of tattoos he wants
to get covered or removed. The most pressing is the large design on his
chest, which features a bleeding and flaming heart with the words "You
Are Forgiven."

To Scott, that particular piece represents a difficult time in his
life. At 18, he traveled to Utah to try to repair his relationship with
his mother, but was unsuccessful. When he returned to Macon, he had a
falling out with his girlfriend.

"I was in a real spiral," Scott said. "I thought (getting the tattoo)
was the only thing that would help me."

He spent time drawing out the design, but as soon as he got home from
the tattoo shop, Scott regretted his decision.

"Every time I look at it, I hate it," Scott said.

[Ha! Mom still hates him and his girlfriend dumped him. Now NO ONE is
forgiven! Funny in a peculiar way, imo.]

He's planning to have the chest piece covered with a patriotic design.

But that isn't the only tattoo work Scott plans to have altered. As a
young man, he got a right sleeve done in religious imagery that he no
longer believes in. And Scott believes the tattoos on his hands and
neck could hurt him professionally.

"I still love tattoos and I grew up around them," Scott said. "I just
hate my chest and my neck." /From
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/living/16491383.htm

--
Curt

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169431570.048111.93410@q2g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
> Maybe the offending ink spells the name of an ex in loving script.

That's why, no matter how in love you think you are, you shouldn't have a
love's name tattooed on yourself. My own father had my mom's name tattooed
on his arm, and 15 years later they split up.

> Maybe the subject matter is no longer relevant, or it's even offensive.

Seems stupid to me in the first place to get something offensive permanently
put on yourself. Yeah, opinions=assholes.

> Maybe the work is poor or faded. Or maybe the placement is less than
> pretty. What's sexy on an 18-year-old can look tacky on a grandmother.

Tacky, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. I know a 40-something
lady who got 3 yellow moons tattooed on a breast and joked that in a couple
of decades, it would be 3 bananas. And really, who cares, and whose business
is it anyway. Humph.

> [Although there are some hella sexy grandmothers out there. Holla all
> you thirty- and forty-year-old grandmas!]

30 year old grandmas? Jeez!!

> Other times, shoddy tattoo work sends people seeking professional help.
> Unlicensed tattoo artists operating out of homes can be the culprits,
> he said.
> "I see people with a $200 pair of shoes on, and they only want to spend
> $20 on a tattoo," Carlisle said. "Soon that pair of shoes will be in
> the trash, but a tattoo is forever."

That is a good point. One of the two artists who did my work always said
"You get what you pay for". And really, if you're going to have people
sticking needles in your skin, shouldn't you make sure they know what
they're doing?

> In her nine years of removing tattoos, Johnson has heard every possible
> explanation for unwanted ink. The most popular? Tattooing while tipsy.
> "They were off on spring break and had a little too much to drink," she

Most artists I'm familiar with wouldn't tattoo someone if they'd been
drinking.

> But that isn't the only tattoo work Scott plans to have altered. As a
> young man, he got a right sleeve done in religious imagery that he no
> longer believes in.

Well, that's very interesting, indeed.
Marie

> --
> Curt
>

Curt wrote:
> Bad body art
>
> [Please note that, yes, fwiw, my opinion remains that there is no bad
> tattoo art, but rather merely opinion as to what is bad or good wrt any
> and all art. Subjective at its core, imo.]

And once again, you have put enough qualifiers in your statement to
make it useless.

You cannot have "good," "mediocre," "okay," "fantastic," etc., without
bad. It would be the same as saying "on a scale of to 10, you are a
two."

Play in the gray.

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:

> Curt wrote:
> > Bad body art
> >
> > [Please note that, yes, fwiw, my opinion remains that there is no bad
> > tattoo art, but rather merely opinion as to what is bad or good wrt any
> > and all art. Subjective at its core, imo.]
>
> And once again, you have put enough qualifiers in your statement to
> make it useless.

What you find useless may just be of use to others, Kavin. Welcome to
planet Earth.

> You cannot have "good," "mediocre," "okay," "fantastic," etc., without
> bad. It would be the same as saying "on a scale of to 10, you are a
> two."

You're operating under a false assumption apparently. You seem to
assume that I agree somehow with your belief that there are good and
bad tattoos. You're wrong if you do.

There are tattoos that I like and there are tattoos that I dislike,
yes, but does my opinion make those tattoos good or bad? No. Likewise,
does your opinion change the viewpoint, the perspective, the likes or
dislikes of those around you? Maybe so. Doesn't make a tattoo better or
worse, however.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

> Play in the gray.

Turn your frown upside down. ;o)

> Kavin

--
Curt

Marie wrote:
> "Curt" wrote

> > Maybe the offending ink spells the name of an ex in loving script.
>
> That's why, no matter how in love you think you are, you shouldn't have a
> love's name tattooed on yourself. My own father had my mom's name tattooed
> on his arm, and 15 years later they split up.

I'd get a loved ones name tattooed on me, but with full knowledge that
love often passes.

Those names, I imagine, still work as a snapshot of a person's life and
love.

I'm thinking KAVIN in big Old English. Yeah, baby! Nah, I'd suffer from
questions like, "Hey, is that spelled wrong?" for the rest of my life.

> > Maybe the subject matter is no longer relevant, or it's even offensive.
>
> Seems stupid to me in the first place to get something offensive permanently
> put on yourself. Yeah, opinions=assholes.

Hmm. No doubt. And yet another reason NOT to get a Kavin tattoo? ;o)

> > Maybe the work is poor or faded. Or maybe the placement is less than
> > pretty. What's sexy on an 18-year-old can look tacky on a grandmother.
>
> Tacky, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. I know a 40-something
> lady who got 3 yellow moons tattooed on a breast and joked that in a couple
> of decades, it would be 3 bananas.

HA! Love it. :oD

> And really, who cares, and whose business is it anyway. Humph.

True.

> > [Although there are some hella sexy grandmothers out there. Holla all
> > you thirty- and forty-year-old grandmas!]
>
> 30 year old grandmas? Jeez!!

Just met a young man who fathered a child at age 15. The mom was 14.
And, at 44, I'm amazed at the incredibly young grandmothers I've met
over the years.

> > Other times, shoddy tattoo work sends people seeking professional help.
> > Unlicensed tattoo artists operating out of homes can be the culprits,
> > he said.
> > "I see people with a $200 pair of shoes on, and they only want to spend
> > $20 on a tattoo," Carlisle said. "Soon that pair of shoes will be in
> > the trash, but a tattoo is forever."
>
> That is a good point. One of the two artists who did my work always said
> "You get what you pay for". And really, if you're going to have people
> sticking needles in your skin, shouldn't you make sure they know what
> they're doing?

Agreed.

> > In her nine years of removing tattoos, Johnson has heard every possible
> > explanation for unwanted ink. The most popular? Tattooing while tipsy.
> > "They were off on spring break and had a little too much to drink," she
>
> Most artists I'm familiar with wouldn't tattoo someone if they'd been
> drinking.

I witnessed one guy attempt to get a tattoo and he was what I'd call
completely gone. He asked the artist how big a tattoo could get for two
hundred dollars. No subject matter offered either. Drunkenly demanded,
"I jusht want it to be thish big!" while holding his hands up to
suggest a general size for the whatever-you-want-jusht-go-ahead
artwork. The artist turned the guy down, but another artist would
undoubtedly taken the intoxicated patron of the arts' money.

> > But that isn't the only tattoo work Scott plans to have altered. As a
> > young man, he got a right sleeve done in religious imagery that he no
> > longer believes in.
>
> Well, that's very interesting, indeed.

Glad you thought so and thank you for your comments, Marie.

> Marie

--
Curt

Curt wrote:
> You're operating under a false assumption apparently. You seem to
> assume that I agree somehow with your belief that there are good and
> bad tattoos.

Not at all.

Try to follow, Curt.

Without a starting line, there is no finish line.

"On a scale of " requires a starting figure, as well as an ending
figure.

Do you realize you can't call a student "average" without having those
that perform less than average, as well as those that perform better
(oooh, good, better, best)

All you are proving by holding on to this silly argument is that your
opinion has absolutely no value. By definition, it can't.

But again, this is how you live your life. You want the definitions of
words to change overnight. You want people to be confused. You think
it helps you. You think it gives you an out.

Sorry, buddy boy, it will trap you. You will meet another person who
plays your game in ways you never imagined. And you are going to want
to call that person "bad." But you can't. No bad tattoos equals no
bad anything. The qualifiers you want to use to bolster your argument
can apply to almost any other subject.

Funny how that works.

I, on the other hand, see a bit more clearly.

You should be dead. Still.

And just how does my honesty reflect on me?

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:

> Curt wrote:

> > You're operating under a false assumption apparently.
> > You seem to assume that I agree somehow with your
> > belief that there are good and bad tattoos.
>
> Not at all.

Good.

> Try to follow, Curt.

If you're leading then I, for one, will certainly not be following,
Kav.

> Without a starting line, there is no finish line.

That moot, however, as I'm talking about art. Aesthetics.

> "On a scale of " requires a starting figure, as well as an ending
> figure.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is not a race. There is no
starting figure or ending figure. Subjective. Opinion. *You* follow.
Hth. ;o)

> Do you realize you can't call a student "average" without having those
> that perform less than average, as well as those that perform better
> (oooh, good, better, best)

There's no comparison here. You're wrong.

> All you are proving by holding on to this silly argument

And wronger still. This is not an argument. This is my opinion. You
don't like it? Oh well. You'll have that on, yeah, planet Earth.

> is that your opinion has absolutely no value.

Thank you for expressing your opinion. I will, however, disagree.

> By definition, it can't.

Again, I disagree.

> But again, this is how you live your life. You want the
> definitions of words to change overnight.

Still looking over your shoulder for those people using gauge as a
synonym for stretch, eh? Get used to that. Change is inevitable. Age
with some flare rather than being one of those cranky "WAAH! CHANGE IS
BAD!" naysayers, won't you?

> You want people to be confused.

Well, you seem to have a flare for it, so...

> You think it helps you.

And you prove, perhaps, the concept that, hey, some people just can't
BE helped. Good luck with that.

> You think it gives you an out.

Strawberry nonfat yogurt. Try some. I mean if THAT doesn't put a smile
on your face then there's absolutely no hope for you.

> Sorry, buddy boy, it will trap you. You will meet another
> person who plays your game

You're in a trap of your own making? Seems that way to me. Ymmv.

> in ways you never imagined.

I doubt that. I have a healthy imagination.

> And you are going to want to call that person "bad."
> But you can't.

Are you bad?

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/michael..._20092560.html

> No bad tattoos equals no bad anything.

Art is subjective, but that doesn't mean all of life is as such. You
should no better, Kavin. How old did you say you were?

> The qualifiers you want to use to bolster your argument
> can apply to almost any other subject.
>
> Funny how that works.

You know funny?

> I, on the other hand, see a bit more clearly.

Ah, I asked too soon. You OBVIOUSLY know funny!

> You should be dead. Still.

Broken record, Kavin.

> And just how does my honesty reflect on me?

I leave you to consider that on your own.

> Kavin

--
Curt

Curt wrote:

> You
> should no better, Kavin.

So writes the king of the spelling flame.



Kavin

Curt wrote:

> I'd get a loved ones name tattooed on me, but with full knowledge that
> love often passes.

That's what would make your "MOM" tattoo so special.

Or would that be "UNCLE"?

Or perhaps just an apostrophe. They can be useful.


Kavin

Curt wrote:
> Change is inevitable. Age
> with some flare rather than being one of those cranky "WAAH! CHANGE IS
> BAD!" naysayers, won't you?

Let's see, 0 gauge tragii.

Winner in outdoor volleyball matches in the Georgia Games in my 40s.

Writing a musical.

You so don't know.

But part of reaching above 40 means you DO get to set the rules. And
no, you shouldn't be afraid of what someone younger than you thinks.
But of course, you are Curt. Think it's not seen?

I'm proud to be my age. I'm proud I don't have to still worry about
being popular. Maybe you'll get to that level, too. I doubt it. But
you COULD make the attempt.

But as far as your misuse of "gauge" I'll say it again: Language is
fluid. It is not a flood.

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
[...]

> <snip> They can be useful.

heh :o)

Make *yourself* useful, why don't you? Take your little good tattoo-bad
tattoo scorecard and do a walk through in your neighborhood. Think
anyone will give a hoot? I'm guessing the answer would be no. Ymmv,
but, hey, best of luck to you.

> Kavin

--
Curt

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt wrote:
>
> > You should no better, Kavin.
>
> So writes the king of the spelling flame.

I do looooove the speeling flam.

And it would seem that you are... no better. ;o)

Hth.

> Kavin

--
Curt

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Change is inevitable. Age with some flare rather than being one of those
> > cranky "WAAH! CHANGE IS BAD!" naysayers, won't you?
>
> Let's see, 0 gauge tragii.

Post pics. This is rec.arts.bodyart, after all, right?

> Winner in outdoor volleyball matches in the Georgia Games in my 40s.

Was that when... never mind. STILL laughing about that one, though. ;o)


> Writing a musical.

Good. Write endless posts on THAT subject rather than having what you
obviously consider an argument with me over what constitutes good
versus bad or, hey, the very existence of good versus bad wrt tattoo
art.

> You so don't know.

Sadly, I believe I know more about you than anyone would ever care to.
Tell me something positive because as of this date you've posted a
bunch of complaints more often than not.

> But part of reaching above 40 means you DO get to set the rules.

And?

My rules say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that even
though you may not like a tattoo that doesn't automatically make that
particular tattoo bad. It's opinion and nothing more. That's the rule.
;o) Yes, ymmv.

> And no, you shouldn't be afraid of what someone younger than you thinks.

Is that YOUR rule? Because, hey, from my perspective, well, you
certainly seem to be afraid of what I think. I'm younger than you,
right? You don't seem to be able to want to gracefully allow me to have
my opinion re tattoos, so what gives? You're a cranky "WAAH! CHANGE IS
BAD!" naysayer? Some might say yes. I might be one of them.

> But of course, you are Curt. Think it's not seen?

What, you being happy? You seem to enjoy typos suddenly, so there's
always hope, eh? :oD

> I'm proud to be my age. I'm proud I don't have to still worry about
> being popular. Maybe you'll get to that level, too. I doubt it. But
> you COULD make the attempt.

Why don't you make the attempt? What's the much loved RAB phrase? Be
the bigger man! Get over yourself and your pride.

> But as far as your misuse of "gauge" I'll say it again: Language is
> fluid. It is not a flood.

That's cute, but it won't change things when gauge appears as a synonym
for stretch wrt piercings. Start building your ark, Noah. ;o)

> Kavin

--
Curt

Curt wrote:


> Take your little good tattoo-bad
> tattoo scorecard and do a walk through in your neighborhood. Think
> anyone will give a hoot? I'm guessing the answer would be no. Ymmv,
> but, hey, best of luck to you.


Again, not the point, is it?

Are you playing the Devil's advocate again, or are you just an idiot?

Kavin

Curt wrote:
>Write endless posts on THAT subject rather than having what you
> obviously consider an argument with me over what constitutes good
> versus bad or, hey, the very existence of good versus bad wrt tattoo
> art.

No wonder you seem confused. You are. I haven't argued over what
constitutes good or bad.

Oh, I see, trying to confuse the readers again.

And it's not good versus bad, either.

It is simple Curt. If you cannot call something bad, you can't declare
something good. It makes the definition worthless. Neither is more or
less subjective. In fact, your argument that bad is subjective would
also mean good is subjective.

And where are your supporters on this? Marie? Lori? ModifiedHeart?
Hans? Radio?

Kavin