women and tattoos

A couple of articles were published today on the subject of women and tattoos. The first is, predictably, completely fucking dreadful. But I'm going to cut it some slack because it sounds like the kind of thing a junior researcher wrote at three am while wired up on coffee and under the instruction to "make it sexy" (because seriously there's no other explanation: Women like butterflies! And hearts! Dolphins are meaningful! Stars are cute! That splintering noise you can hear is my teeth grinding by the way).

The second article, from my favourite newspaper, is actually much better. Despite a false start ("Once seen as a macho world of bikers and seedy basement parlours" which I'm convinced they actually have to put in articles on tattoos in order to get them published) the piece focuses on some of the awesome female tattoo artists working today. Of course, the first artist they have to mention is Kat Von D I mean, fair enough, she's incredibly high profile but the woman irritates the hell out of me. And I've never even seen an episode of her reality show. I think it's something to do with irresponsible and poor quality tattooing under the guise of breaking a world record or possibly having a makeup range at Sephora (because, seriously?) but whatever.

More importantly the article also talks about Saira Hunjan, a woman whose work actually makes me drool. And even more importantly than that the artist I want for my eventual full left leg tattoo based primarily on this lovely lady's description.

I suggest you go and read the whole thing. It's worth a look.

In other tattoo related news: Want. The Boy (unoriginal moniker I know, but it's how I refer to him in my head anyways) has been talking about wanting a new set of tarot cards for ages, and I'm thinking of adding to my collection. I may have to buy a couple of sets next month when I have some cash because: wow. Pretty.

a quick news round up

Christina Ricci manages to simultaneously misunderstand the term "positive female role model" and make my soul cry when talking about her new film, impressive to say the least.

Yesterday was the 90th anniversary of British women over the age of thirty getting the right to vote. The Guardian had an interview with the director of the Fawcett Society on how far we've come and the progress that still has to be made. It's well worth a read.

Guess what? Tattoos, in addition to being awesome, may actually have a medical benefit. BBC news reports that tattooing may be an ideal method of vaccine delivery as the process is excellent for promoting an immune response (anyone who has suffered tattoo flu can attest to this). Looks like it would be too painful to use on children but hey, there's always livestock.

Today marks the start of the Year of the Rat. There are a ton of fun things going on in my fair city and, if timing allows, I'm planning on heading out to soak in some culture and enjoy the fireworks this weekend. I suggest you go out and do the same (or at least get some dim sum).

Oh and did I mention that I went to see this guy over the weekend? Well I did and he was sufreakingperb. A mini-review of the show should be going up some time this afternoon.

I weep for humainity...

I was flicking through the Guardian today when I came across the "notes and queries" section in the G2. One of the queries rendered me actually, literally speechless - no mean feat (I learnt to talk at the age of one and apparently "haven't stopped since"). Alas, the query isn't up on the website yet so you'll have to take my word for it:

"Evolution is now well-documented and accepted, so if people kept jumping off the roof of a tall building, how long would it take before we developed wings to fly?"

Seriously?

Ok. A deep seated hatred of the kind of people who write into newspaper editorials actually prevents me from writing in to the section in question with my response, however it doesn't stop me from passive-aggressively ranting about it in my blog. Here is a highly simplified crash course on how evolution works:

Evolution is in its simplest form "survival of the fittest". The best adapted members of a species are more likely to survive and/or be chosen as breeding partners - meaning that they are more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. This makes those favourable genes more common in each successive generation. As the process continues through the generations the "favourable traits" that led to the first individual's evolutionary success become more and more widespread until eventually they become "normal". I'm aware that my hastily noted ramblings may be confusing so let's use a totally fictional and rather extreme disease model to simplify things:

On planet Alex there are millions of bunnies (why bunnies? Because it's planet Alex. Deal with it). The bunnies all live in harmony on planet Alex, which is plentiful in food and free from predators, and are free to interbreed at will. Because of this there is a large amount of genetic diversity. Some of the bunnies have spontaneously mutated so that they carry gene X (note the "spontaneous" part. This is random people). At the moment gene X has no general effect on the population and so it is passed on from parent bunny to baby bunny with no real consequence. Until the plague comes.

(The plague has been brought to planet Alex by evil toad overlords who came for a two week holiday and then buggered off again)

The plague is fatal to the bunnies on planet Alex, however it just so happens that gene X makes the bunnies that carry it immune to the plague. This is a total coincidence. Pretty soon the entire bunny population has been wiped out by the plague, leaving only the bunnies with gene X alive. Because they are bunnies they set about repopulating planet Alex pretty sharpish. The result? Every in bunny in the population now carries gene X.

That was a very simplistic and entirely unrealistic scenario (in actual fact there are no bunnies native to planet Alex) but the basic point I'm making here is that evolution is a process that happens by chance not by design. It is caused by the selection of existing genetic traits that have become favourable for survival due to a particular environment. It is not caused by the actions of individual members of a species over time.

Taking the above example: people continually leaping from a roof top would not cause other members of the population to sprout wings, it would merely serve to remove those idiots who jumped off of buildings from the breeding pool.

And that ladies and gents is why I'm going into science journalism.

The worst thing is when I told one of my co-workers that I'd seen something truly depressing in the newspaper our resulting conversation was as follows:

"You mean the thing I sent you?"
"Erm, what thing you sent me?"
"The thing with the scratchcards."
"What thing with the scratchcards?"
"The thing I sent you with the....Jesus, Alex. Try checking your work email."
"Ok, ok..... Oh, crap."

The little gem awaiting me in my inbox was this. My favourite line of the piece?

""I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it."

I'll be out back, researching tall buildings with roof access in my local area.

wednesday geekery

I'm feeling the warm and glowy love for my subject today. Mainly because of this article. Seriously, if it were possible to marry a piece of journalistic writing it would be this one waiting for me in the registry office. The author puts into words exactly what I want to scream at some people on a daily basis. The gist of the article is this:

The past 30 years or so have been an age of endarkenment. It has been a period in which truth ceased to matter very much, and dogma and irrationality became once more respectable. This matters when people delude themselves into believing that we could be endangered at 45 minutes' notice by non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

It matters when reputable accountants delude themselves into thinking that Enron-style accounting is acceptable. It matters when people are deluded into thinking that they will be rewarded in paradise for killing themselves and others. It matters when bishops attribute floods to a deity whose evident vengefulness and malevolence leave one reeling. And it matters when science teachers start to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

It's a well written piece and well worth the read, I may be a little biased as creationists were the bane of my religious studies A-level (I did it for the ethics course which, incidentally was a super fun experience. I was the only person in the room who didn't think that aborting your heroin addicted half sibling was going to earn you a one way ticket to the land of fire and brimstone. Try teaching situational ethics to that crowd. Here's a hint: you can't.) but this is not an anti religion thing, people are perfectly capable of combining science with belief. I've seen it happen. And whether or not I see the rationale or point behind it is an entirely off-topic issue.

The way I see it the essential problem is the death of the questioning mentality. The general public isn't educated enough in the basics of science to question what the newspapers and their so called "experts" have to say. And so we live in a society where potentially famine-solving research into GM crops is put on hold because "We'd be eating DNA!!!!", people give their life savings to psychics and mothers endanger the lives of their children because they want them to be treated "naturally". It makes me ill.

Here's my dirty little secret: I own two decks of tarot cards. I can also read I-ching. I have an oracle book. But and I really must stress this I do not believe that they will answer my problems or tell me anything I don't already know. Dividing yarrow stalks or dealing cards gives me the time to think over a problem and by the time I'm done it doesn't even matter what the outcome is. I think horoscopes are a bit of fun, I read them as I flick past the page and then immediately forget them. These things are diversions at best and quite frankly anyone who thinks they're anything more needs a fucking straitjacket.

I think magazine psychics are a sick joke - especially the ones who pass on messages from dead loved ones or give life advice based on their spirit guides. Live psychics are frankly, con-artists. Anyone who's looked at cold reading will tell you so. But still this isn't where my problem lies.

My problem is when they call it science.

Skepdic makes for an enlightening read on the subject especially if you don't have a scientific background, there are some fantastic articles on the ways that studies using "scientific methodology" can be deliberately misinterpreted, skewed or simply explained away. Most people don't understand scientific terminology so if you have an agenda to push then it's easy to twist things your way by throwing out some jargon and hoping the public bites.

I honestly believe that critical thinking should be on the curriculum as standard. But what do I know?


Well now that the ranting and raving is over with I'll give you something amusing to look at while I get on with the business of packing up my soap box.



Now that's dedication to the cause. There are more tattoos for the thoroughly geeky here, and I must say: it did indeed brighten up my day.

morning update - Sharks!

For those of you not familiar with the British tabloids this time of year is what is known as "silly season". During the parliamentary recess there's often a dearth of real news (other than the usual stories about immigrants bringing down our house prices, intrepid reporters sneaking replica guns onto planes, "soaring" crime rates, the general hideousness of the youth today and wild, completely unfounded speculation about kidnapping cases) which often leads to some rather fun filler pieces.

This year it's sharks.

Great White sharks to be exact. In Cornwall. I'll give you a second to either ponder that or look up exactly where Cornwall is.

The Sun (my favourite of the red-tops) has been literally going mental over the story.

Sharks!!!

No, really - we're serious: Sharks!

Honestly, an expert said so.

Human interest angles are vital to the journalistic cause and not merely cynical marketing ploys.

Add in some stories about how Cornwall's economy is now booming and how some "cheeky bakers" have been cashing in by making Cornish pasties in the shape of shark fins (so triangular, then) and you have the makings of an international sensation. I say "international" as several news networks from outside the UK also chose to run the story.

Which makes this article from today's Guardian even more tasty.

"I didn't expect anyone to be daft enough to take it seriously."

Quite.

taking temporary tattoos to a whole new level

This article in the Guardian caught my attention this morning. I have kind of a problem with the concept of tattoos becoming "trendy" (although I will be laughing my pretty inked ass off when everyone who got a tattoo because it was cool suddenly finds themselves stuck with a permanent brand that's no longer in style) it's just another case of something I love being made tacky by the mainstream. I guess I'm lucky in that I'm crazy about something that is inherently customisable but it still annoys me.

This is essentially someone putting patterns on a shirt and using the label of "tattoo" as a marketing tool, but I suppose if people want to waste their money on a pointless fad then more power to them. I did like the attitude of the artist towards the guy licensing his artwork though:

"This guy is at ground zero of everything that is wrong with contemporary civilisation," Hardy commented. "However, if he wants to make a lot of money with my art and it's not going to be overtly negative, then what the hell."

Anything associated with the word "tattoo" that doesn't come with some pain and the problem of permanence just isn't going to cut it I'm afraid. I didn't think I'd ever believe this but now half the point of getting ink done is the process for me. I think maybe I'd be less irritated about the clothing line if there was some kind of physical penalty involved in the buying process, perhaps for every cap you buy then you get 15 minutes of a sharp stick being jabbed repeatedly into your ribs. The time limit could increase by the size of the item and by the cliched nature of the design. Now that would be acceptable. Almost.

The Guardian (which seems to be running a theme of late) also published this article last week on the future of durable, removable tattoos. I'm an inherently fickle person and at the grand old age of 22 I'm already getting a cover-up/re-work of one of my pieces of ink. Do I wish this technology had been around then? No.

"Why ever not, Alex?" You ask. Well, I'll tell you:

I currently have a big, blue, unlined snowflake on my right shoulder blade. It's horrifyingly placed, poorly coloured and if I have to hear one more person say "is that.... umm.... is that a cross? No... can't be a cross - it's blue. Maybe some kind of flower?" I'll scream. But it's my own fault. I was 18 when I got it, it's my first piece of custom work and I spent all of fifteen minutes thinking about it. I was too nervous to say anything to the artist and so just mutely nodded when he showed me the art (which I could tell I wasn't 100% about even then) and got it done. I hated it from the second it was on my skin. Every one around me hates it still, but I don't.

In fact, I kind of love it now.

It's there as a permanent reminder that I shouldn't rush into things, to think things through before I do them and, when it's been re-worked, it will be a symbol that even something truly awful can be made better again. Bizarre that the most non symbolic of my tattoos can end up meaning the most to me in the end. And I've learnt from it - my last tattoo had to be repositioned five times before I was completely happy with it, and I had no qualms about doing so. And I'm going to be a complete pain to my artist with my next design, but I've learnt now that if something isn't perfect from the beginning then it's not going to magically become that way over time, so I don't really have a choice.