Josh Lobes

We have have a new piercer and tattoo artist now at Dr. Ink and Dr. Piercing... Josh Lobes!  Here is a taste of what he's doing.

Temporal Art on Temporal Things

Alex Grey Painting

USA Today had some breaking news citing a study revealing once and for all that the choices we make today have an effect on our tomorrow. Moreover, that the future, say ten years from now, will be utterly different then any future we can imagine.

Basically, after all the quotes from Yale professors and scientists, their theory is this: think back ten years, things have changed drastically since then right? Now think forward ten years, the change that will occur will be more radical then you can picture in your head.

So what does this mean for tattoos? What you think is cool now will be hindrance in the future.

No shit.

The aura around tattoos is a dangerous one, that is the whole draw of them. All those kids who have hand and throat tattoos weren't too ignorant to project in their minds what the future might hold. Nor were they riding some trend wave that'd break them against the rocks. They were expressing something inside themselves and expressing it through tattoos.

Someone with face tattoo is not being held back from that three figure suit job with 401k with medical, dental, and mental and a biz-cas-fri for the next forty years just because of their face tattoos. Really the choices that we've made and the ways that they have adorn their bodies are the exterior signifiers of internal workings. Their brand, their tattoos, separate themselves from what they deemed hum-drum and banal, however subconsciously. Their tattoos exclude them from the classic culture and they transcend into something different, something alternative.

The difference being that now tattoos are no long in a subculture or in a counter-culture. Tattoos are no longer for low-lives and thieves. Tattoos are now an alternative culture, one just as positive and highlighted and above ground as an accountant or a lawyer. When they pass a tattooed person on the street they no longer cross to the other side, they no longer clutch their purse, they have no choice, the tattooed are as predominant as windsor knot ties.

I'm not said "Duh" to USA Today. What I'm trying to say is that Karen Weintraub (the author of the article) is taking a narrow view of the topic.

I'm sure there are plenty of 30 year old's that jumped on the band wagon and regret the stars or Japanese symbol they tattooed on the back of their neck. Karen is probably one of them. What I am trying to say is that the mistakes and free will choices that are presented to us in youth and how they effect the outcome of our life as a whole is not new advent sprang from tattooing. Tattoo is no more detrimental as a life choice then cocaine was in disco or LSD in the 60s or premarital sex leading to teen pregnancy in the whole of the modern era. Adam and Eve ate the apple a long time ago.

We don't need to bring in studies and professors and experts to let us know that the decisions we make are going to effect us ten years from now. We need parents and councilors who'll help these 20 year olds finding their way into accounting or environmental science or computer programming or music or tattooing.

Be whatever you want to be; isn't that the dream (burden) we've all been presented?

Tattoo Acceptance In The Workplace

by Brent Michael Canle at Dr. Ink Tattoos

There has been a cry lately in the subculture for tattoo acceptance in the work place. Spearheaded by Steadfast brand, this lamentation soundlessly chants such slogans "Tattooed And Employed" or "I Want A Tattooed President." Which are nice slogans, bringing a sense of comradery to the industry which should be fraternally inherent yet still somewhat transient. The thINK Equality movement seems legit, that a person shouldn't be excluded because of the modifications which they make willingly to the own bodies. That a person's desire to be tattooed and their value in society are not very much in relation to one another. At least not any more. And the more demographics getting tattoo and calling for acceptance will inevitably bring it about. But largely the ones flying these acceptance flags are tattoo artist or peoples submerged in the tattoo culture. Something unsettles me about this.

The foundations of American tattooing stems from a counter-culture, one of hellious bikers, mentally despondent sailors, rock n' rollers, rebels, sideshow freaks, thieves, pirates. These were people breathing and eating on the outside of societal norms. These were aberrant peoples unmindful of rules and regulations. They were tattooed because they were different.

Juxtapose this richly degenerate history with the shirted slogan "I Want A Tattoo President."

This is not to say that I am against change. Moreover, I am of no part of the pirate roots of tattoo culture and am wholly a part of what Michael Malone disdainfully called the 'black shirts.' That next generation who knew nothing of what it meant to be a tattoo artist. And I don't.

So then why, when we were 18 and just legal, did we stumble into those tattoo parlors, full of giant and misunderstood men, and ask to receive through injury what they have? Why did we brand our bodies with skulls and daggers and scenes of desolation? Why did we scribble on ourselves war cries: can't hold me down, death before dishonor, only God can judge me? 

Did we want to be hard and tough? Did we want tattoos because we thought they'd help us get laid? Because we previously couldn't have them? Because the singers of all our favorite bands have them? Curiosity? Boredom? 

Or was it because we innately felt that we should be tattooed, that tattoos gave physical aesthetics to something we harbored inside, something that we were bullied in high school for, something we alienated ourselves in effect. Did we get tattooed because we were different? Or did we get tattoos because we were akin?

This is the question which arises when we stammer on about a tattooed President. Tattoo were suppose to (at least in my mind) represent an alternative culture and what could be more mainstream then the President of the United States of America. 

How disparaging, right? So then, what would happen if we gain our tattoo acceptance? What would a tattoo be if tattoos and being tattooed was so widely accepted? A simple answer would be that in such popularity, tattoos would cease be cool, giving raise to the alt.culture of anti-tattoos (echos of straight edge?). Lyle Tuttle portrays the theory of the butterfly tattoo on a mothers breast and the child in having started at it for all their life rebels by rejecting the entire, now institution of, tattoos.

Think any one of your peers who is openly against tattoos, now think of karate chopping that person in the effin' throat, now try not to smile. 

But in this tattoo accepted world the openly anti-tattoo are the cool kids. Tattoo acceptance in the workplace opens this paradigm

Look, I am down for tattoo acceptance. I encourage you to buy all the Steadfast shirts there are. I do not think that a tattoo should have the stigma any longer. But I'll admit I've rolled down my sleeves before and worn long pants. I've hid those little 'cool' markers on my body as to not be judged. But there was a explicit of delight to the chicanery. To know that my body was marked and to live in the guile. I could never fully be a part of their windsor knotted, memo e-mailing, god fearing, nine to five buffoonery. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't be them. 

So why would we want them to be like us?

  

   

Tattoo Design Copyright: Stirring The Lawsuit Pot

By Brent Michel Canle at Dr. Ink Tattoos

As December rears its ugly mug so starts the tattoo artist shuffle as they count their coin and hope tax returns come early this year. But some, namely Chris Escobedo out of Elite Tattoos in Arizona, took a different route to make it through the winter besides flash prints and machine building: the American art of lawsuits. Jumping on the wagon, Chris follows suit with Victor Whitmill (who sued the Warner Brother over the Tyson face tattoo debacle) which cause so much debate on forums and in the tattoo shops.

Escobedo is suing THQ for illegally recreating the lion tattoo design on fighter Carlos Conduit in their new video game UFC Undisputed 3. Ironically, Escobedo seems to endorse the video game in his portfolio, posting screen shots of the digital character with the tattoo and reviews for the game with are void of lawsuit references.

So the question is posed again: does a tattoo artist hold rights to their design?

Of course there is the argument that the tattoo design is the intellectual property of the art. Meaning that they created it, the design came out of the artist head, their hands materialized it, so the artist must own the design. Makes sense. But let me shed new light with a couple points.

First, in the realm of fine art, I uphold the idea that once a piece of art is released, or once a book is published, or a installation is installed, that the artist no longer owns it. This is to say that once the art is out there, the artist claims right to it just as much as anyone else who views it. Public sculptures can be tampered with and graffiti'd. Books can be marginalized and criticized. Painting gradually fade in empty galleries. The buyer of a painting can take a piss on it if they truly want, the art can't say much but hold a grudge and learn to sell to better people.

For the true artist, what they create it is something that happened, it is history, it is like standing on a podium and receiving a medal in the winner circle or it is like a car accident or a break-up. Good or bad it is in the past. How can one advance as an artist if they are living in the past, hung up on what they've already done.

Second, tattoo artist are in the SERVICE industry. They make art to serve people. A customer comes in and if they like you as an artist they employ you to create something specific for them and affix it into their skin. The client has BOUGHT that tattoo from you.

We all know those tattoo artist who've kept sketches from tattoos they've already done and made flash. Some artist see this as an unethical practice but then the tattoo industry has never really been an ethical bunch. No honor among thieves, right? But as the tattoo industry grows away from it's pirate roots, and as legislation becomes an increasing concern, method must come out of the madness.

My Opinion: The customer owns the tattoo. It is their body, it is a part of them. The artist has no right to sue. The moment the tattoo is finished, the customer has much more invested into that tattoo then the artist. It was their pain, it was their blood that was shed. They have dedicated themselves to that tattoo design so much more then the artist putting pencil to paper and a needle to skin for a couple hours. The customer now live with it and dies with it. Not only that but they paid for it. The customer bought that tattoo and by the current standings of this capitalist society if you buy it, you own it.

This is a grey area of tattooing where lines have yet to be drawn in the sand. It has never been challenged before and there is a couple bucks to be made so I don't blame an artist for trying to cash in on a single tattoo as much as possible.

But why rock the boat? Why bring more attention? Why bring legislation into the also lawless world of tattoos? We became tattoo artist because we didn't like the world that they created, to separate ourselves, now we're messing with them? I think all these tattoo lawsuits are just going to open a can of worms that should remain closed.

And once we open it hell will break loose. Artist and photographers will sue tattoo artist for using their images as references without permission. Brands will sue artist for using recognizable images (the entire genre of Pop Surrealism will be sued out of existence). Graffiti artist will sue film makers for their illegal work appearing in their shot. Tattoo artist will sue other tattoo artist for using their flash without permission. Okay maybe that last one was a little outrageous but goes to show you the realm of creative property.

Law and art do not mix. If I were Escobedo I'd let sleeping dogs lie, if the response from forums is any indication he's just making himself look like a dick. I wouldn't stir the pot and I'd just enjoy the free publicity.

Maybe it's time to shut up and give back a little. God knows you've been using the third page of Google Images for a while now. We should calm down before Warner Brothers retaliates and sues us for putting Taz on someone.