I've got lots of tattoos -- full sleeves, full chest piece, back of neck, extensive work on both legs. While I do have some tattoos which were done by fairly well known artists, the majority of my tattoos were done by people who are either completely 'undiscovered', or whose fame is strictly local. At least two of these not-widely-known artists do not have any tattoo work on their own bodies (and these two have given me some of the highest quality work I've ever gotten). The tattoos I've gotten by people who are fairly well known (Baba of Vintage Tattoo, Mike Wilson, Tim Kern) came about primarily due to opportunity, i.e. they were set up at the NYC Tattoo Convention and I got lucky.
At A Glance Author Mrs. Penguin Contact Mrs. [email protected] IAM Mrs. Penguin When N/A After someone I know got some amazingly detailed tattoo work done recently by Anil Gupta, who easily qualifies as one of tattooing's superstars (and who, up until fairly recently, had no tattoos of his own), it started me thinking about several issues related to both name-brand vs. 'unknown' tattoo artists, and whether or not a tattoo artist needs to have ink of their own. Now, what follows is representative of MY opinion � I don't profess to speak for all tattooed people.
Issue number one � should a tattoo artist need to have ink of his or her own? I've heard several valid arguments as to why a tattoo artist SHOULD be tattooed themselves:
1. If a tattoo artist isn't heavily tattooed, they haven't 'paid their dues' and shown their commitment to the tattoo industry.
2. How can an artist possibly relate to their customers if they can't identify with what they're going through?
3. An artist who has gotten (and healed) ink of their own is in a much better position to advise customers on their own healing than someone who hasn't been in that position.
4. A tattoo artist who is not heavily tattooed has no right to put permanent marks like this on someone; they don't know what it's like to live as a heavily tattooed person, so aren't in a position to judge if they are ultimately causing someone harm.
Like I said, these are all valid arguments on the surface. But as far as I'm concerned, I don't care if my tattoo artist has tattoos or not. It boils down to this: I'm way more interested in what they are putting on MY skin than what they've got on THEIRS. My ultimate aim in getting tattooed is the end product � a well-executed, aesthetically pleasing piece of art in my skin. I really don't care what tattoos my artist has, why they're tattooing for a living, or anything else except for their artistic skill, technical ability with the tattoo machine, and sterility. If I see good examples of an artist's work on other people and/or in their portfolio, that counts for more with me than whatever they have on their own skin.
I'm not planning to become a tattoo artist myself, or working to be accepted by the tattoo community as 'one of us'. Perhaps my adhering to the popular view that the only good tattoo artist is one who is heavily inked themselves would help me to become part of tattooing's inner circle, and if that was a priority for me, I'd probably do it. But my ultimate aim, as I said, is the end result; the artwork on my skin. I do believe that someone who has bare skin but solid artistic skills and solid technical skills is just as capable of putting on a good tattoo as someone who is fully sleeved. And to that end, I pick whichever artist I feel will do a good job for me � regardless of how they've chosen to decorate THEIR body.
Having said that, there is one non-skill related issue that would stop me from getting tattooed by even the most talented artist. I refuse to even consider getting tattooed by someone who is rude, nasty, or offensive. If I did that, I'd get the proverbial bad taste in my mouth every time I looked at the resulting tattoo. I've heard of people who have tattoos which were done very nicely, but which they hated because the memory of dealing with an artist they couldn't stand is dredged up every time they look at the piece.
Now, on to the issue of 'name brand' versus 'unknown'. That's a bit less clear-cut. On the one hand, people who get work from one of the current crop of tattoo luminaries are virtually assured of getting a phenomenal piece of artwork (there are exceptions to this, of course; I've heard from a number of people who were very unhappy with work done by one well-known artist whose work regularly appears in tattoo magazines). One downside to that, though, is that the waiting periods for the most popular artists can be months or even years in some instances, which is a bit of a problem if you're working on a large scale piece. And of course, their hourly rates can be pretty steep.
I've never been one to price-shop for a tattoo; if you do that, you run the risk of saving money in the short term, and then having to shell out more money down the road to get a truly shitty piece redone or covered up. Generally speaking, you DO get what you pay for, and paying a premium for a tattoo from a highly talented artist is almost always a good investment.
So it makes sense to reserve your skin and money for the big guns, right? Well, my answer to that would be a cautious 'yes, but.....'.
I don't mind at all paying the price for a good tattoo. But in my not so humble little opinion, I don't want to pay an additional premium just for the right to have a 'designer label' on my tattoo, any more so than I would pay extra for a designer label on my clothing. Remember, my ultimate goal is a good tattoo. If my tattoo came from someone that nobody outside the local neighborhood ever heard of, that's fine with me. I truly don't care if, when someone asks 'who did that tattoo', that I can't say 'Paul Booth did it', for example. I'm not going to be prejudiced against an artist whose work I like just because they haven't yet been featured in a national magazine.
And remember, every tattoo artist has to start somewhere. Today's local unknown working in a walk-in shop could very well turn out to be tomorrow's tattoo superstar.
I know of people who wouldn't consider having anyone who isn't already a household word do their ink. These folks do get tattooed by great artists, and have work which makes me green with envy. But while sticking to well-known artists is ONE way to go about getting tattooed with a reasonable expectation of good results, I don't believe it's the ONLY way. I see it as more important to be comfortable with the artist and their work � regardless of whether or not they're a household word.
Remember, these are just my personal opinions -- you may or may not agree. But whatever you believe, please do your homework and research your chosen artist carefully. And make sure you're not sacrificing quality to save money. In the long term, a cheap but lousy tattoo will cost more in cover up and repairs than you save.