In the article entitled “Tattoos are not indication of crime, drugs” written by Ryan Grounds, the author was actually responding to an opinion relayed by Santiago Munoz, who asserted that “tattoos defined people as criminals and junkies” . The donning of tattoos has evidently incited diverse opinions. Grounds’ contention was that tattoos are mere expressions of art and should not be construed as symbols of criminal or maladjusted behavior. One shares the same assertion of Grounds in signifying that tattoos are personal expressions of promoting art in the form of worn visual patterns.
Tattoos, by definition, are marks in specified “(part(s) of the body) with an indelible design by inserting pigment into punctures in the skin” . As described, it falls under the category of art forms through the integration of designs which are distinctly chosen, either by the individual being tattooed, or the tattoo artist. Likewise, it is a personal expression since each design is different according to preferences. This was corroborated by Grounds when he acknowledged that “tattoos are a form of self-empowerment and self-expression. It is a way to let the world know who you are as a person. Every person is unique just as every tattoo is unique. Just like people, no tattoo is exactly the same. Each is different and can represent different things to different people” (par. 5). The diversity of tattoos as a means for personal expression confirms it as a form of art, since art is also aptly defined as: “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power” .
Those who content tattoos as being worn by people who are criminals and junkies, just like Santiago Munoz, could have based their arguments from stereotyped beliefs that “throughout history tattoos have symbolized rebellion” . It was likewise emphasized that “the tattoo was used to mark the criminal, adulterers, traitors, deserters, the deviant and outcast. The tattoo was a dreaded mark of reproach and disgrace” . Therefore, the remarks could have had validity in historical journals; but not anymore in contemporary times. The same study written by Watkins confirmed that in current times, tattoos are seen to be commonly worn by much publicized persons, including athletes, actors, public servants, and even professionals. As such, it was stressed that no data confirms any link between people wearing tattoos and these people being pegged as criminals or manifesting immoral behavior.
The evolutions of tattoos have revealed that the arguments of Munoz and Grounds are both valid, depending on the time frame for their allegations. It was clearly confirmed from historical documents that tattoos were definitely initially designed to mark criminals and other outcasts as symbols of rebellion. However, in contemporary times, tattoos are evidently worn by people who are not criminals, junkies, or outcasts but by celebrities, athletes, fashionistas, or other people who are merely expressing art in more visualized ways.
Overall, the contention of Grounds that tattoos are personal expressions of art are validated today as observed and supported by other scholars and writers who studied tattooing over the course of time. People who wear tattoos are definitely not evidently criminals or junkies by merely deciding to be tattooed; but that people who decide to have tattoos are just expressing art in one of its finest visual forms through wearing them in strategic designs and in defined parts of their bodies.
Works Cited
"art." 2013. Oxford Dictionaries. 11 April 2013
Grounds, Ryan. "Tattoos are not indication of crime, drugs [OPINION]." 27 March 2013. The Rambler.org. 10 April 2013
"tatoo." 2013. Oxford Dictionaries. 11 April 2013
Watkins, Terry. "TATTOO: The Mark of Rebellion." 2001. av1611.org. 11 April 2013
