(no subject)
Mar. 24th, 2004 01:17 pmSo, I have a question. It's mainly for
mezdeathhead but anybody can contribute. Is it common for artists to request/demand that their art not be used for tatoos?
Stumbled across an online discussion where a husband and wife team (wife as author, husband as illustrator) basically said don't use the art for tatoos because a) it becomes part of the tatoo artists "flash book" (and I'm probably butchering the terminology there) that gets passed around to other artists and, this being my favorite reasoning, b) they didn't want somebody on death row for murdering 20 children having their oh-so sweet, kind and good characters emblazoned across his chest.
Is this a legitimate claim or is my gut reaction of "Oh, come ON!" founded?
Stumbled across an online discussion where a husband and wife team (wife as author, husband as illustrator) basically said don't use the art for tatoos because a) it becomes part of the tatoo artists "flash book" (and I'm probably butchering the terminology there) that gets passed around to other artists and, this being my favorite reasoning, b) they didn't want somebody on death row for murdering 20 children having their oh-so sweet, kind and good characters emblazoned across his chest.
Is this a legitimate claim or is my gut reaction of "Oh, come ON!" founded?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-25 11:18 am (UTC)and the cherry on top? that stereotype needs a break. i tattoo school teachers and brain surgeons and county sheriffs and professional dancers (not even just the stripping kind). smart, well to do, wealthy, normal people are getting tattooed these days, surprise! it ain't just for sailors and hussies no more!
that mentality makes my stomach churn.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-25 12:17 pm (UTC)