Title Card: You wrote a the­sis on the rela­tion­ship between tat­too­ing and art, can you tell us about your per­spec­tive on this?

Matt Lodder: Absolutely. My PhD was at the University of Reading in 2010, and it’s called Body Art: Body Modification as Artistic Practice. I’m real­ly inter­est­ed in…actually the metaphors of art, right? We all under­stand this ver­nac­u­lar phrase body art” in terms of what it means. Tattooing, body pierc­ing, some­times cos­met­ic surgery gets rolled into that as well. And it kind of makes some kind of intu­itive sense. I think we all kind of under­stand it’s the pro­duc­tion of a mark on the sur­face or in the cre­ation of some­thing out of the body’s raw mate­ri­als.

But not real­ly many art pro­fes­sion­als, or any art pro­fes­sion­als real­ly, have though through what this might mean for art prac­tice and art the­o­ry. How can we think about tat­too­ing as an art form? If we do think about it as an art form, what are the con­se­quences of that for the ways tat­too­ing is nor­mal­ly under­stood?

So for exam­ple one of the real­ly inter­est­ing prob­lems is the ques­tion of author­ship, because most aca­d­e­m­ic writ­ing about tat­too­ing pre­sumes tat­too­ing is, if you like, authored by the per­son who wears the tat­too. So there’s lots of things about mean­ing, about the con­struc­tion of of iden­ti­ty, about the expres­sion of deviance.

Completely elid­ed in those dis­cus­sions, which comes from aca­d­e­m­ic anthro­pol­o­gists and psy­chol­o­gists and med­ical pro­fes­sion­als, is the role of the tat­too artist. And when you start think­ing about that and how tat­toos are actu­al­ly pro­duced, and how tat­tooists talk about their work, and exhib­it their work in their port­fo­lios, and the rela­tion­ship they under­go with a client, and how that even­tu­al work is pro­duced, you end up with a much more com­pli­cat­ed sto­ry. And it’s a sto­ry which I think art his­to­ry as a set of dis­ci­plines can make more sense of than these oth­er more med­ical­ized dis­ci­plines.

The oth­er thing that this artis­tic metaphor, when you pick at it, you reveal, is that again for most intents and pur­pos­es in oth­er aca­d­e­m­ic dis­ci­plines, tat­too­ing is a phe­nom­e­non. So it gets writ­ten as why would you do that do your­self?” and then whole screeds, whole books about all tat­too­ing as a kind of phe­nom­e­non. Every tat­too is the same, phe­nom­e­no­log­i­cal­ly.

Whereas from an art his­tor­i­cal point of view, and almost from a com­mon sense point of view, some­one hand-poking them­selves with (as my old bus dri­ver did) a Wham! logo, and some­one trav­el­ing to Switzerland to see Filip Leu to get a whole back piece done, they’re not the same thing. And they’re obvi­ous­ly not the same thing. The moti­va­tion is dif­fer­ent, the sys­tems of pro­duc­tion are dif­fer­ent, the recep­tion of them is very dif­fer­ent. But if you read a lot of aca­d­e­m­ic writ­ing on tat­too­ing, you don’t get the sense of that kind of broad, what I want to call art his­tor­i­cal or visu­al cul­tur­al, dif­fer­ence. So that was what the work was about real­ly, prob­ing at that metaphor of art.

Title Card: Are recent muse­um exhi­bi­tions on tat­too­ing or fea­tur­ing fine art by tat­tooists on can­vas, paper, and oth­er medi­ums instead of skin, giv­ing tat­toos new dimen­sions and per­spec­tives?

Lodder: Well, these shows are inter­est­ing. They have a lot of pres­tige in a way. There have been tat­tooists who’ve been exhibit­ing their work in gal­leries in those kinds of for­mats that you talk about. Photography, print, draw­ings, occa­sion­al­ly even arti­facts of the tat­toos them­selves, sten­cils and prints and things. That’s been hap­pen­ing at least since the 1980s. In fact there’s some exam­ples even ear­li­er than that.

But I think what’s inter­est­ing about the shows is that there’s a rhetoric around these shows which sort of say tat­too­ing is artis­tic. Now, what I think is quite inter­est­ing about those shows and why I think occa­sion­al­ly… I mean, I real­ly love the Somerset House show. It’s fan­tas­tic and the work in it is incred­i­ble. But it doesn’t actu­al­ly fea­ture any tat­toos in it. So the actu­al artis­tic sta­tus of the tat­too itself, on the body, in the world, is some­thing which I think is a more inter­est­ing and a much more dif­fi­cult prob­lem. This is some­thing I’ve writ­ten about as well in my PhD, because I think if we’re going to take tat­too­ing seri­ous­ly as an art form, then we have to under­stand it as an art form out­side of these kind of con­texts. It can’t just be art if it’s hang­ing on the wall of a muse­um. What I find inter­est­ing is when the respons­es peo­ple have to tat­too­ing in the world are actu­al­ly real­ly sim­i­lar to the respons­es peo­ple have to oth­er forms of art-making. And we can the­o­rize those with­out wor­ry­ing about it being in a muse­um or not.

I know a lot of tat­tooists are kind of skep­ti­cal of insti­tu­tions and wor­ried about what being in a muse­um says about the prac­tice. That is some­thing I think is real­ly impor­tant, and I think it’s real­ly good that the tal­ents of these peo­ple, these artists, are shown. That we can hang these things on walls in an exhib­it and say, Hey look, there’s a huge range of stuff. there’s a vol­ume of stuff.” But I think what’s most fun­da­men­tal­ly inter­est­ing for me is the tat­too in the world, and the expe­ri­ence of see­ing tat­toos in the world, whether or not they’re inside a muse­um.

There’s a real­ly good exam­ple of that. There’s a great gag in Punch mag­a­zine 1915, a hun­dred years ago. The image is of all these kind of guys with their shirts off, big curly mus­tach­es, stand­ing up on plat­forms. And there’s sort of a crowd and they’re peer­ing at the peo­ple on the plat­forms, and they’ve got guide­books. And the cap­tion under­neath says Simultaneously with the pri­vate view at the Royal Academy, the Royal Society of Tattooists opens their sum­mer show.”

So this idea of tat­toos as art is not a new idea. It’s a hun­dred years old. But what I love about that image is in the pic­ture there’s a Sergeant Major who’s not part of the exhib­it; he’s not stand­ing there with his shirt off. But he’s rolling up his sleeve to show some­one in the crowd his tat­toos. And that kind shows that the idea of a Royal Society of Tattooists” hav­ing an exhi­bi­tion is kind of a gag, but the idea of see­ing tat­toos in the world an appre­ci­at­ing them aes­thet­i­cal­ly and in all the ways that we under­stand oth­er forms of art is prob­a­bly a much more rich way of think­ing about it.

Title Card: What do you think about mod­ern artists such as Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons cre­at­ing tat­toos?

Lodder: That’s some­thing that got a nice, deep set of prece­dents, pos­si­bly back into the 1980s, but there’s a good example…well, actu­al­ly peo­ple have been get­ting tat­toos of art­works since there’s been pro­fes­sion­al tat­too­ing. There was a real­ly famous tat­tooed lady in London called Emma deBurgh, who was an American, and she had The Last Supper” across her back. One com­men­ta­tor report­ed, because she’d put on a bit of weight, that it made Jesus a bit fat as well when she was show­ing off. And there are exam­ples of peo­ple get­ting tat­toos of Constables and of Joshua Reynolds por­traits and stuff through­out the 19th cen­tu­ry.

In the ear­ly 90s, in 1994, there was a show at a lit­tle inde­pen­dent gallery in Hackney called The Roadside Attraction Gallery. They got loads of artists, includ­ing Wim Delvoye, Sarah Lucas, David Shrigley, sev­er­al of the oth­er YBAs were involved as well. And they pro­duced basi­cal­ly draw­ings, sketch­es for tat­toos, and they were tat­tooed on on human can­vas­es,” so to speak. And then they were exhib­it­ed in the Barbican, where the peo­ple who had the tat­toos lined up for one night and they did a pri­vate view. That’s been going on for twen­ty years.

After that, Wim Delvoye did a real­ly famous piece called Tim,” where he tat­tooed the back of a Swiss guy called Tim Steiner. The tat­too was done by some­one else but Wim signed it, and then they sold the piece to a German gallery for €70,000. [They] split the prof­it, so Wim Delvoye the artist got €35,000 and Tim got €35,000 on the con­di­tion that he now has to stand around in his under­pants a cou­ple of times a year at the behest of the col­lec­tor. There’s great pho­to of him stand­ing next to a label with peo­ple peer­ing at him.

So this idea of artists pro­duc­ing tat­too designs is noth­ing new. Really inter­est­ing because it does also com­pli­cate the medi­um of the tat­too because this is almost the same prob­lem that the Somerset House show has. Is it the image that’s impor­tant? Or is there some­thing about the mate­ri­al­i­ty of the tat­too which trans­forms a par­tic­u­lar image into some­thing dif­fer­ent? There was a case in Oklahoma about five, six years ago where there were some quite restric­tive zon­ing laws on where tat­too shops could be opened. And this artist sues the city say­ing they were inter­fer­ing with his free speech rights, his First Amendment rights to be an artist and they were look­ing down at him.

There was some prece­dent to that back in the 80s. Another tat­too artist called Spider Webb had tried some­thing sim­i­lar. He’d been banned from tat­too­ing in New York because of a hepati­tis out­break, went and tat­tooed in front of MoMA, and called the police, tried to get him­self arrest­ed, got arrest­ed, went to court. The judge threw it out and says, even if tat­too­ing in an art and I’m not sure it is, I’m not sure we should allow that to over­rule oth­er con­cerns of the city.

But twenty-five, twenty-six years lat­er, this case in Oklahoma went to court and the defense on the behalf of the city was, if this guy’s an artist why is he not just sell­ing t-shirts or doing posters? We’re not inter­fer­ing with his artis­tic prac­tice because he can still draw on what­ev­er he wants, just not skin and not with­in x-100 meters of a church or a school or what­ev­er it was. The judge actu­al­ly said in the case there’s some­thing mate­ri­al­ly dif­fer­ent about a design on skin and a design on paper or on a t-shirt. So that was in essence the rul­ing that over­turned the zon­ing laws in that par­tic­u­lar juris­dic­tion.

And I think that’s real­ly inter­est­ing, because again it gives you some­thing to think about. There are whole aca­d­e­m­ic books about tat­too­ing which have noth­ing in them about the images. Where these images come from, where they’re pro­duced, how they’re relat­ed to broad­er visu­al cul­tures, and actu­al­ly what them being tat­tooed on the skin does, as a process. So I think we have to be care­ful of reify­ing any artist who scrib­bles on a bit of paper and then declares it to be a tat­too, because I think there’s some­thing more inter­est­ing about the rela­tion­ship between a tat­too artist pro­duc­ing a work designed for skin in con­sul­ta­tion with a client, which you don’t get by just trans­fer­ring an image drawn on a dif­fer­ent medi­um onto the skin with­out any of that kind of thought.

Title Card: Have pub­lic per­cep­tions of peo­ple with tat­toos altered over the last 30 years, and if so what are they cur­rent­ly?

Lodder: This sense of the per­cep­tion of tat­tooed peo­ple is some­thing which real­ly inter­ests me as a his­to­ri­an, main­ly because it seems it’s such a com­mon trope. I work pri­mar­i­ly on what I call the pro­fes­sion­al era of tat­too­ing, so the late 19th cen­tu­ry when tat­too shops first opened to the present day. And through that whole peri­od, and actu­al­ly to be hon­est even before that, but cer­tain­ly since the 1880s, news­pa­pers, tabloids (In many cas­es the exact same tabloids that we have today; the Daily Mail being a pri­ma­ry exam­ple.) are writ­ing sto­ries about how tattooing’s a brand new thing. About how everyone’s doing it now; about how women are get­ting tat­tooed; about how it’s fash­ion­able; And always in with that about how peo­ple are going to regret it when they’re old­er; how the fad’s near­ly over; and how awful and bar­barous it is.

So these two strands, about how it’s new and excit­ing and fash­ion­able and cool, and also how it’s kind of awful and degen­er­ate and wor­ry­ing and ter­ri­fy­ing, run in par­al­lel for the whole peri­od we have for pro­fes­sion­al tat­too­ing in this coun­try. Which makes it quick dif­fi­cult to answer the ques­tion as to whether or not it is real­ly more pop­u­lar or not. Because if you believe the news­pa­pers, it’s always been new. Which obvi­ous­ly doesn’t make any sense log­i­cal­ly. I’ve tak­en to send­ing jour­nal­ists who write those arti­cles exam­ples from a hun­dred years ago, some of which get quite annoyed when I do that. So what you have to try and do is work out from oth­er sources, or read between the lines and work out how things have changed.

I think cer­tain­ly the low point for British tat­too­ing in terms of its social accept­abil­i­ty is the late 1950s, actu­al­ly. During World War II, it’s cer­tain­ly the case that tat­too­ing was very very preva­lent amongst enlist­ed pop­u­la­tions pri­mar­i­ly, but also in the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion. The Captain of the sub­ma­rine fleet, a guy called George Creasy had a big tat­too on the back of his neck, which is immor­tal­ized in his sculp­tur­al bust in the National Maritime Museum.

People came back from the War, and tat­too­ing became by the 50s very asso­ci­at­ed with a par­tic­u­lar class of per­son. Lower class peo­ple. And the rea­son for that is because it’s sort of a vis­i­bil­i­ty prob­lem. If you’re bank man­ag­er has a tat­too on his back, on his leg, on his arm, you will nev­er see it because when you meet him he has shirt­sleeves on and a blaz­er. If your gar­den­er has a tat­too on his arm, you will see it. And so pri­mar­i­ly, I think, due to a vis­i­bil­i­ty prob­lem, the upper ranks of the British mil­i­tary that got tat­tooed a lot dur­ing World War II, their tat­toos sort of fade into…not into his­to­ry so much as they fad­ed from view. But the peo­ple who were hus­tling on the streets after the War and forced to work in man­u­al pro­fes­sions were the ones whose tat­toos you saw. So a per­cep­tion devel­oped dur­ing the 50s that tat­toos were for a cer­tain kind of per­son.

Linked in with that was a gen­er­al trend in visu­al cul­ture towards mod­ernism, towards stream­lined, towards the removal of orna­ment. It was fash­ion­able to— There wasn’t so much dec­o­ra­tion, there wasn’t so much chintz, in every­thing from archi­tec­ture to fur­ni­ture. And so gen­er­al­ly this idea of dec­o­ra­tion fell from favor. So these two forces, plus as well the stig­ma of tat­too­ing in the Holocaust—the tat­tooed num­bers on the con­cen­tra­tion camp victims—led to a real decline. So peo­ple who were chil­dren, my par­ents, who chil­dren dur­ing the 50s, have a real­ly real­ly stig­ma­tized sense of what tat­too­ing is. I think that’s large­ly the per­sis­tence of why we still have a sense in gen­er­al that tat­too­ing is of a par­tic­u­lar kind, despite the fact that we’ve had the same kind of arti­cles I’ve just been talk­ing about, the same kind of arti­cles that tattooing’s a brand new thing all the way through that peri­od, even.

By the time you get to the mid 60s, late 60s, it’s start­ing to pick up again. There are inter­est­ing tat­tooists in London. But they’re hav­ing to work in a way that their pre-War coun­ter­parts weren’t. So tat­tooists in the 60s, they were tat­too­ing teenagers. The Tattooing Of Minors Act came in 1969 in response to a big moral pan­ic about kids get­ting tat­tooed. So it was very fash­ion­able in the 60s, but it was linked with this moral pan­ic.

But by the 70s, cer­tain­ly by the late 70s in America, you have what some peo­ple have called that tat­too Renaissance. People like Ed Hardy, Zeke Owen, Leo Zulueta (not Zeke Owen, sor­ry, I meant Leo Zulueta), Cliff Raven. These guys were real­ly inter­est­ing artis­ti­cal­ly, real­ly push­ing the art form.

That starts fil­ter­ing through to Britain by the ear­ly 80s. Now, in the 80s there aren’t many tat­too shops in London, but those that do exist are tat­too­ing old­er guys who were tat­tooed dur­ing the war, and young kids who were fash­ion­able kids. Punk kids. And of course that leads to the stig­ma. And basi­cal­ly this is the rhythm. All the way through the 80s, 90s, 2000s, you get these rhythms of tat­too­ing comes and goes, and styles come and go. When Into You opened in London in 1990 by Alex Binnie, it was in response to all that 80s tat­too­ing. Alex had been to America, worked in San Francisco, actu­al­ly for Ed Hardy, and came back to London with all this cool black­work. Alex had been to art school, he was one of the first art school-educated tat­too­ers in London. Although there was some­one before him, a guy called Alan Oversby (Mr. Sebastian), who was an art school guy.

But by the time you get to the 90s, again there’s this fash­ion­able move, art school kids. And it’s real­ly hard at that point to work out exact­ly what’s going on. My hypoth­e­sis is, real­ly, that there is and always has been two types of peo­ple: peo­ple who get tat­too­ing (and I mean that on an empa­thet­ic lev­el), and peo­ple who don’t get it. And if you under­stand the desire to mark your body…even if you don’t want to get a tat­too your­self, if you get why oth­er peo­ple do that, then you get it. If you don’t get it, it can nev­er be explained to you. And if you don’t get it, it’s always going to be weird, always going to be sur­pris­ing, always going to be shock­ing, always going to be strange, always going to be slight­ly hor­rif­ic because it involves blood and strangers touch­ing you.

And that’s the sto­ry that I think is the per­sis­tent one. Some peo­ple get it, some peo­ple don’t. Journalists are always going to find it sur­pris­ing. And yeah, there are moments when it comes and goes, and it booms and busts. I think basi­cal­ly since Into You opened in 1990, it’s been a con­tin­u­ous, con­tin­u­ous, con­tin­u­ous increase, and there are cer­tain­ly more tat­too shops now than there have been ever in this coun­try before. Back in the 80s, Lionel Titchener, who’s a tat­tooists in Oxford, esti­mat­ed there were no more than thir­ty or forty tat­tooists in the whole coun­try.

There’s a great let­ter with peo­ple writ­ing in the 60s and 70s. There’s a guy who wrote to his news­pa­pers in Nottingham and said, I real­ly want to get a tat­too but I can’t find a shop. Is there one?” And the news­pa­pers says, We can’t tell you if there is one.” Then some­one writes the next week and says, There is one but I can’t tell you where it is.” So there weren’t many tat­too shops.

Now there are loads and loads and loads. So undoubtably, even though I don’t real­ly believe this idea that tat­too­ing is not just for sailor any­more,” that the demo­graph­ics have changed, the num­bers cer­tain­ly have. More peo­ple are get­ting tat­tooed now. I don’t think the demo­graph­ic split has changed at all, because I think there’s always been young and old men and women, fash­ion­able and inter­est­ed. So that’s a long answer to a short ques­tion. But I think a focus on the demo­graph­ic or on the nov­el­ty is the wrong focus. I think quan­ti­ty is prob­a­bly inter­est­ing, and vis­i­bil­i­ty.

Just to kind of wrap up this thought, visibility’s inter­est­ing because in the 19th cen­tu­ry if you were tat­tooed, you didn’t show it off because you were wear­ing heavy cloth­ing all the time. A woman called Edie, Marchioness of Londonderry, got tat­tooed in Japan in 1900. Big drag­on on her legs, fam­i­ly crest. No one saw it because if you were a Victorian woman you didn’t show off your ankles. By the 30s came around, skirt lengths were a lit­tle bit high­er and peo­ple were shocked to see the tat­toos on her legs.

And there’s a sim­i­lar thing now, as it’s becom­ing more and more accept­able over the last twen­ty or thir­ty years, cloth­ing has become a lot more casu­al at work, peo­ple can roll their sleeves up at work. And tattooing’s becom­ing much more vis­i­ble. And now also in the past ten years, maybe, there’s lots more tat­toos on hands, necks, and faces. Which I don’t think are accept­able yet in a gen­er­al sense. I think you’re still going to strug­gle to get a job in lots of pro­fes­sions if you’re as vis­i­bly tat­tooed as I am. But it cer­tain­ly is the case that you see tat­toos a lot more now that you didn’t before.

Title Card: Are a wider cross-section of peo­ple get­ting tat­tooed nowa­days?

Lodder: Well, I think tattooing’s over­whelm­ing­ly been a young person’s game. I think that’s the rea­son a 100 year-old granny get­ting tattooed’s always been a news sto­ry. It’s not a new news sto­ry. There’s exam­ples of that a long way back. But it’s cer­tain­ly been a young person’s endeav­or. But I think that’s in a way fair­ly obvi­ous, isn’t it? Because when you’re in your youth you’re exper­i­ment­ing with your iden­ti­ty, and you’re exper­i­ment­ing with your aes­thet­ic. Most peo­ple, the hair­cut they get when they’re 25 is the hair­cut they stick with for the rest of their lives, more or less. Certainly for men that’s the case.

So I think in gen­er­al, I haven’t got any spe­cif­ic fig­ures on that, but it’s prob­a­bly skewed younger. But it’s not always been the case. Certainly the big­ger tat­toos, the kind of things that I’m real­ly inter­est­ed in, the big, what I want to call artis­tic” tat­toos, the very inter­est­ing back­pieces and things, they’re expen­sive. And they always have been expen­sive. Again to pick an exam­ple from the 19th cen­tu­ry, peo­ple were buy­ing sea­son tick­ets to their tat­tooists. They were spend­ing tens and tens of pounds in the 1880s and 90s to get big tat­toos. So that requires a cer­tain amount of cap­i­tal. So I think you’ll find the peo­ple that are very heav­i­ly tat­tooed are prob­a­bly in their late 20s, ear­ly 30s. Most peo­ple who I know, men and women, who are very heav­i­ly tat­tooed who aren’t in the tat­too indus­try, tend to be in their 20s and 30s because that’s just when you can afford it.

Title Card: Are tat­toos pub­lic or pri­vate?

Lodder: That’s a real­ly good ques­tion. People often ask me why peo­ple get tat­tooed on their backs, because you can’t see it. And I’m not exact­ly sure what the answer to that ques­tion is, oth­er than to say that in the same way that plen­ty of art col­lec­tors will buy things and lock them up in vaults…it’s cer­tain­ly a step a head of that. I think most tat­toos for most of tat­too­ing his­to­ry have been, let’s call them semi-private.” I think there’s an assump­tion, cer­tain­ly among the com­menters on news­pa­per web sites, that peo­ple who are tat­tooed are exhi­bi­tion­ists. But that’s of course what we might call the toupée fal­la­cy. You only think toupée’s look awful because you’re nev­er going to spot a good toupée.

And in the same respects, the only vis­i­ble tat­toos you’re going to see are on peo­ple who want to show them to you. Now, my tat­toos are very vis­i­ble. I’m quite hap­py to have my sleeves rolled up. If your bank man­ag­er has a tat­too on his back, to come back to that, you’re not going to see it. But some­one will; his lover might see it, or his fam­i­ly might see it. Or he might look at it in the mir­ror in the bath­room and nev­er show any­one him­self. And for most of tattooing’s his­to­ry, at least what I cant to call the con­tem­po­rary his­to­ry, mod­ern his­to­ry, that’s how tat­toos have been. You showed them off to peo­ple who you’d show your skin off to, but you weren’t show­ing them off to the gen­er­al pub­lic. So they’re semi-pri­vate, I think, much more so than might be oth­er­wise assumed.

Title Card: How does it feel to have suc­ceed­ed in com­bin­ing two of your passions—tattooing and art?

Lodder: It’s great, you know. I love tat­too. I do what I do… I’m an aca­d­e­m­ic art his­to­ri­an, I teach about con­tem­po­rary art, per­for­mance art. I teach that stuff and I’m into art because I love tat­too­ing. And it wasn’t the fact that I got into acad­e­mia and then got inter­est­ed in tat­toos as an aca­d­e­m­ic sub­ject. It was the com­plete­ly oppo­site way around. I’ve loved tat­toos all my life, and it was lov­ing tat­toos that sort of drove me to won­der where they came from and what they’re all about and to try and find stuff out. And the more I looked the less I found that made sense to me, which has led me onto this research career. And it’s fan­tas­tic.

I think, in a way, and right­ly so, lots of tat­tooists and peo­ple who are into tat­toos are very skep­ti­cal of acad­e­mia and aca­d­e­mics writ­ing about what they do. Because I think most of the time it’s been quite voyeuris­tic and quite exploita­tive. And cer­tain­ly I’m sure some peo­ple think even what I’m doing is unnec­es­sary. Tattooing doesn’t need me to defend it, and I don’t want to make the case that I want to say tat­too­ing is art that’s been ignored for so long, because that’s not the case.

What I want to do instead, I think, because com­ing at it from how I do, being heav­i­ly tat­tooed, hav­ing at least some access into the tat­too world and being able to chat to tat­tooists who are will­ing to show me things that they wouldn’t oth­er­wise show oth­er peo­ple, and be will­ing to put the work in where oth­er aca­d­e­mics maybe haven’t done that before… Because a lot of the this stuff that I research and write about isn’t in pub­lic col­lec­tions. It’s not in archives. It’s in people’s sheds and the back rooms of their tat­too stu­dios. And to get access to that stuff you have to have a certain…you have to have them trust you. Tattooing’s again a very kind of closed world, in lots of ways. For all it’s pop­u­lar­i­ty and for all its vis­i­bil­i­ty, it’s still real­ly a kind of old-school guild in lots of ways. It’s taught by appren­tice­ship. It’s passed down from per­son to per­son. It still has its foot in some inter­est­ing areas of social prac­tice.

So it’s hard for aca­d­e­mics to get into it, so I feel real­ly blessed, actu­al­ly, that I’m able to put some­thing back into the world that I love so much. It’s so nice when a tat­tooist says to me, I real­ly appre­ci­ate what you’re doing and thank you.” And I can show a tat­tooist some­thing that I found and to have them be real­ly thrilled about it. It’s a real priv­i­lege. And it’s real­ly nice to know that every day, really…my job real­ly, and what all aca­d­e­mics do, there’s lots of stuff around it, but real­ly what we do is read books and then tell peo­ple about them. Find stuff out and then tell peo­ple about them.

And I love being able to go and sort of say to peo­ple, Hey, every­thing you thought you knew about tat­too­ing isn’t right.” And when I do talks to places like… I mean, recent­ly I’ve giv­en quite a few talks to Rotary clubs, these clubs for peo­ple the same age as my par­ents, these peo­ple who were born just after the War and who have a par­tic­u­lar sense of what tat­too­ing is. And when I can say to them, Hey, did you know Edward VII had a tat­too?” or, Are you aware that this is how tattooing’s always been, and actu­al­ly these things you think about tat­too­ing aren’t quite right?” And it’s real­ly nice to have peo­ple come up to me after those talks and say, I nev­er knew that, that’s real­ly inter­est­ing.” They might still hate tat­too­ing, and they cer­tain­ly will nev­er get one them­selves. I’m nev­er going to con­vince some­one, nor do I want to, who hasn’t got a tat­too that they want one. That’s not a pos­si­ble task. But to have some­one say I didn’t know that” is kind of what I do this for.

Further Reference

This interview was conducted by Maximillian Jacobson-Gonzalez as part of the requirements for his Master of Arts in Creative Media, at the University of Brighton, 2014, and portions were used in his documentary Tattoos: Perceptions & Perspectives.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.