Digital Czar wrote:
Lots of models have tattoos. Now many folks want to remove them. So here's some information for you.

http://fashionitch.com/serious-about-re … sx6Xc69956

Screw those anti-tattoo, people, who don't know opinions of Marc Jacobs on tattooed fashion models.

If you ignoramuses, don't know who Marc Jacobs is... please..., stop spouting opinions on fashion models and tattoos... because you are not current, and hence not relevant!

Toodles for now!     

Digital Czar wrote:
Lots of models have tattoos. Now many folks want to remove them. So here's some information for you.

http://fashionitch.com/serious-about-re … sx6Xc69956

Tattoos are not a temporary modification and if someone where to get one thinking it is they are in for a reality check.

I'd doubt that wearing the scar of tattoo removal would necessarily be accepted in fashion. Although according to this video it is blissfully gone in 30 seconds, feels only like snapping and is pretty easy with no scarring at all.

I'm going to check around online for Marc Jacobs thoughts and then check out some of his Runway shows!


Jen

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
A model once showed me a tattoo that she was in the process of removing.

Ouch, the desire to have something removed when it is permanent makes me think it really bothered here. I hope she was happy with the removal.

Jen

Jen B wrote:

Ouch, the desire to have something removed when it is permanent makes me think it really bothered here. I hope she was happy with the removal.

Jen

It was a small tattoo on her thigh.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
"Tattoo Removal: A Bigger Business than Tattooing"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-kr … 74675.html

There is a tattoo studio less than a mile from me. In the same building there is a laser removal business.

Weldphoto wrote:
Mark Jacobs is not a valid reason for anyone to do anything beyond the superficial realms of today's fashion trend. Tattoos are for life, fashion is for the moment and for profit. To call people who don't see them as important or who see the wisdom of not following the trend of the moment ignorant is absurd and short sighted.

Can someone please explain to me how an art form that's existed and been used for several thousand years is 'a trend'. It's the same as saying jewellery is a trend, or shoes. Certain tattoo styles go in and out of fashion, sure, but tattoos as a general thing have definitely stood the test of time.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
"Tattoo Removal: A Bigger Business than Tattooing"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-kr … 74675.html

That article is half a decade old, and has proven to be wrong..., since the tattoo industry is still having an extreme boom and I know more people that are getting tattoos than I know people who are removing them.

ValHig wrote:

In my day they were virtually non existent except among convicts, military and circus performers

udor wrote:
That article is half a decade old, and has proven to be wrong..., since the tattoo industry is still having an extreme boom and I know more people to are getting tattoos than I know people who are removing them.

There are many newer articles as well, from several western countries all indicating that tattoo removing has been growing.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

There are many newer articles as well, from several western countries all indicating that tattoo removing has been growing.

There is no doubt that tattoo removal has its place and is a growing business... but the tattoo producing industry strongly outruns the growth of tattoo removals.

Heck, out of the anti-tattoo crowd, he hear sometimes that tattoo removal is the fastest growing business and surgery in the US, which has been many times debunked.

Btw., my long-standing motto is: "Think, before you Ink!"

udor wrote:

There is no doubt that tattoo removal has its place and is a growing business... but the tattoo producing industry strongly outruns the growth of tattoo removals.

Heck, out of the anti-tattoo crowd, he hear sometimes that tattoo removal is the fastest growing business and surgery in the US, which has been many times debunked.

Btw., my long-standing motto is: "Think, before you Ink!"

I do agree that more people get tattoos than those getting them removed. But, as for money spent, that might go to the laser removal. The only reason is, it takes so many sessions and so much money to have them removed. The numbers are going to be skewed naturally.

udor wrote:
That article is half a decade old, and has proven to be wrong..., since the tattoo industry is still having an extreme boom and I know more people to are getting tattoos than I know people who are removing them.

But there are hell a lot more people NOT getting a tattoo.

Weldphoto wrote:
Mark Jacobs is not a valid reason for anyone to do anything beyond the superficial realms of today's fashion trend. Tattoos are for life, fashion is for the moment and for profit. To call people who don't see them as important or who see the wisdom of not following the trend of the moment ignorant is absurd and short sighted.

I am not getting into a drawn out discussion about this...yet again... I am just letting you know that at every fashion week in NYC, you see some tattooed models, walking for the greatest designers. Admitted, the female models have rarely huge coverage areas, but often several small ones. I shot over 2,000 fashion shows in NYC, during my career and have been involved in the casting and production of hundreds of fashion shows.

Yet, there are always those people, the ones I call ignoramuses, who are not aware how relatively common tattoos on the runway are.

Mark Jacobs' opinion is relevant, because he is one of the most important designers at New York Fashion Week, who frequently pays up to a Million bucks for his show production... using models with tattoos. He said, and I am paraphrasing, that he appreciates tattooed models, whose work is usually reducing them to clothes hangers, and a tattoo, humanizes the model, gives her personality and character.

Of course, certain tattoos.. and visible tattoos can hinder, or propel a model's career.., but to state that it doesn't happen... when I see it, first hand, either backstage, or when on the media riser, is just, as you said "short sighted".

Besides... tattoos are not a "Trend", certain styles are "trendy", depending on varying factors... but... it's one of the oldest art form of humanity... banned at times, stigmatized at times, but tattooing is a global ancient tradition, which, became more mainstream, once tattoo parlors became more and more decriminalized (e.g. NYC made tattooing legal only in 2000 C.E.)

Don Garrett wrote:
How about, "Some like tattoos on their models, and some don't" ? You don't have to convince anyone else of your point of view.
-Don

I am totally in agreement, Don!

I posted above my motto "Think before you Ink!" and that really about the individual's decision making on getting marked for life or not... and what to put on... and knowing the consequences it could have in the society etc.

It is perfectly fine if someone isn't sure about getting a tattoo, and if someone is hesitant... should opt for NO tattoo... and then there are people who do not have any connection to that art-form and won't get one... which is absolutely perfect as well.

I am speaking up against statements that do not reflect reality.

I think that someone has to make an educated choice, based on their own life, before getting a tattoo... maybe even holding off, with getting one, until the time is ripe.

But I am speaking up against those kind of people who advise strictly against getting a meaningful tattoo for selfish reasons, as if the model's body belongs to them.

I had to cast non-tattooed models for clients (or non visible tattoos), and that is fine, I don't have a problem with that...

There are plenty of fish... and then there is that "Jacksland" thread for models without any tattoos... for the "purists"...

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:

In my day they were virtually non existent except among convicts, military and circus performers

And in the day before your day, they were reserved for aristocracy and the very rich.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
In my day they were virtually non existent except among convicts, military and circus performers

ValHig wrote:
And in the day before your day, they were reserved for aristocracy and the very rich.

Very true... and here is a little example...

During the Meji restoration in Japan... the Tenno forbade tattooing, because he thought that this ancient practice of Japan, might make the Japanese look barbaric to the Europeans...

Yet, people like King George V of England, liked the Japanese style of tattooing so much, that he got a dragon tattoo on his forearm... and several of the aristocrats and members of the court got their own Japanese tattoos...

P I X I E wrote:
The bulk of the (paid) work I've been getting in the past year since I moved was from artists, for life drawing modeling... I never heard them complain about my tattoos. I've seen some of the paintings/drawings and they paint/draw me without the ink. That's totally fine. Whatever.

Modeling isn't my main day job, and it never was meant to be.

They can just ignore the tattoos as they create their image, a photographer can't it's EXTREMELY difficult, our art is a physical copy of the light reflected from our subject we can't tell the camera not to see the tattoo.

GER Photography wrote:
They can just ignore the tattoos as they create their image, a photographer can't it's EXTREMELY difficult, our art is a physical copy of the light reflected from our subject we can't tell the camera not to see the tattoo.

That's why I love working with/for them.

PS: I get it. It's just that my life isn't centered towards modeling so working with painters is way easier for me, like working with ink-free models is easier for you.

Don Garrett wrote:
How about, "Some like tattoos on their models, and some don't" ? You don't have to convince anyone else of your point of view.
-Don

+1
It's really that simple.

I will never understand the models with tattoos debate. Just work with people who fit your requirements rather than try trying convince someone that their decision to get ink was stupid.

sdgillis wrote:
It's important to have images without tats so you can enjoy their "timelessness" long after you are dead lol.

What? The art of tattoo it may be timeless but the actual "art"of a tattoo is personal and will go with you, (unless you are mummified or someone does something abhorrant with your skin when you expire.)
Jen

Alannah The Stylist wrote:
+1
It's really that simple.

I will never understand the models with tattoos debate. Just work with people who fit your requirements rather than try trying convince someone that their decision to get ink was stupid.

Thank you.

+this
Jen
Edit to add: I haven't looked at the Jacksland list of models with no tattoos thread before, (I might now,) because of the many threads where tattoo haters are vocal. However, if I was non inked I'm sure I would flaunt it in my profile too, (NOtattoos...) However, I am inked and I am human as well as a model and it is not possible for me to be completely anonymous with them, at all, so I won't even try to be.
Edit again: Since this thread I checked out a Marc Jacobs video that I watched before with an interview of him. I also saw a casting for him and replied, (why not?!) Sure I'm 30 years older than his models and I have two HUGE tattoos.

Don Garrett wrote:
How about, "Some like tattoos on their models, and some don't" ? You don't have to convince anyone else of your point of view.
-Don

Alannah The Stylist wrote:
+1
It's really that simple.

I will never understand the models with tattoos debate. Just work with people who fit your requirements rather than try trying convince someone that their decision to get ink was stupid.

Figures Jen B wrote:
Thank you.

+this
Jen
Edit to add: I haven't looked at the Jacksland list of models with no tattoos thread before, (I might now,) because of the many threads where tattoo haters are vocal.

What I find to be some sort of a pattern... some people, especially art-nude photographers, consider almost any model as their body belonging to them (the photographers), and hence feel like they have to tell the model what to do with "their" property.

Then, it goes further and whenever there is an article about tattoo removal, and some outlandish claim connected with it... they don't check the facts, they just gloat over "the foolish model that didn't listen to the photographer and got a personal tattoo (or is planning to do something like this with "their" canvas)... well... it's actually even more complex than this, but I am on the way to pick some supplies for my current art project ("The Valley of the Ferronites"...) 

udor wrote:
What I find to be some sort of a pattern... some people, especially art-nude photographers, consider almost any model as their body belonging to them (the photographers), and hence feel like they have to tell the model what to do with "their" property.

Then, it goes further and whenever there is an article about tattoo removal, and some outlandish claim connected with it... they don't check the facts, they just gloat over "the foolish model that didn't listen to the photographer and got a personal tattoo (or is planning to do something like this with "their" canvas)... well... it's actually even more complex than this, but I am on the way to pick some supplies for my current art project ("The Valley of the Ferronites"...) 

Some artists, photographers, dilettanti, dabblers, hobbyists, and GWC's of the human subject prefer to work with a blank canvas. And, some of them express their interest in working with a blank canvas, or a clean slate. By expressing an interest in working with a blank canvas, they are not claiming ownership on a model's body, or his/her free will. If a person were to say, 'I don't like onions.' They are not saying, 'I claim ownership over Vidalia, Georgia.'

I don't have the fortune to be in a large market for models (or photographers for that matter) I am going through the lighting sceme, art for my next project. Using myself as a model, I came up with something I think looks pretty cool. Then, I realized the models I wish to work with are tattooed. Tattoes are incongruous with my concept, so I have to cover them up. So, I will go with a more plain sceme. I suppose I could go with the better sceme, and hire someone to edit out the tattooes, but it would be easier if they were not tattoed. If I was in a bigger market, I would just find models without tattoos.

Consider a photographer who wishes to do a Rococo styled photo essay with a wedding dress and a French couch. And, on the models back is this Japanese tattoo thing. Surely, you can imagine how the tattoo might conflict with the photographer's vision.

Really, it comes down to supply and demand. Those who suggest models not get themselves tattooed are just trying to effect supply.

DCurtis wrote:
I would also add, Marc Jacobs's vision is not my vision.

Hello DCurtis,

Edit:tablet typos and wonky word erasings...

I do not think everyone who adverse or indifferent to tattoos is a vocal tattoo hater. Generally those, the ones who are highly vocal about anti tattoo are the ones I'd call a hater.

Everyone has their own vision, that is right, go for it. Its hardly an occurance to see those who are appreciators of tattoos or merely tattoo tolerant starting threads about those darn 'clean slates' or trying to tell them how to rectify their non inked status with public service announcements or information on the latest updates in how to ink or choose it.

FWIW, if Marc Jacobs ever casts me, I'll post a pic! His style TOTALLY IS my style.
Jen

DCurtis wrote:
Consider a photographer who wishes to do a Rococo styled photo essay with a wedding dress and a French couch. And, on the models back is this Japanese tattoo thing. Surely, you can imagine how the tattoo might conflict with the photographer's vision.

Trust me... during my (about) 10 years on MM and MySpace before that... I have heard pretty much every single argument why photographers do not want to work with tattooed models and I do understand the reasoning, as someone who had to cast thousands of models for different projects, mostly runway, but many editorials and lookbooks for designers,

I do have observed,... heck... not me alone, by far, that this "ownership" claim is alive and well... of course, not everybody does that... but, it is expressed in the photographer, who tells the model to, not, under any circumstances, should get a tattoo that the model claims to have a deeply spiritual or personal meaning for, because it's stupid, and she is ruining her body and it's an idea she will regret anyway and that he (the photographer) doesn't want her to have a tattoo if he is going to work with her.

I think that anybody, who follows anti-tattoo threads for a while, is able to see this pattern. Photographers are putting their own interest over that of the model, denigrating her reasons, ridiculing the seriousness for the model.. in short... trying to discourage the model from ruining HER body for THEM!

This goes way beyond your example of merely expressing the desire of working with tattoo-free models, which I understand, but I think that you are really dishonest, by trying to demonstrate an almost benevolent dialogue between the photographer and the model.

I am certain that you know a few things about me... I am heavily tattooed myself, part of the body-mod community myself for nearly 2 decades and I studied out of personal interest that community, also from an anthropological POV, since I was once a director for a NYC based anthropological institute. So, besides being biased about tattoos... I am also probably much better informed about the motivations for many, many people to get tattooed.

As a NYC based fashion photographer, I shoot runway for a very long time... and I see tattooed models on every runway... I notice them... because I constantly have those MM'er in my mind who spouting anti tattoo stuff and telling models that it will ruin their careers as runway or fashion models. But advise like that, falls usually into the category, discussed further above... advising their own bias as "true industry knowledge" (by people who know the fashion modeling industry just from MM or ANTM)... so... yeah, I speak up, against bullshit.

If you say that you don't want to have tattoos in your images of your model, that's fine, but don't make up reasons why a model shouldn't get a tattoo, just to fit your own agenda.

Btw., this is a fashion model... did several national campaigns for a large clothing chain and other stuff... guess what... she has a gorgeous, huge dragon tattoo (in honor of her Japanese grandmother) on the side of her body... hard to see, right?!



I wonder if your model in your example about a Rococo style editorial shot, wearing a rococo dress, which leaves a decollete, but covers the entire back and neck, would give you really THAT much of a problem if she had a back tattoo?

Then, of course... there is ALWAYS the chance to hire a tattooed model, who knows her profession and has a set of Dermablend for her skin tone in her makeup bag...

Just did a google search for two more shots of Amy (the model I worked with above) and here too, showing more skin, you can't see her rather extensive tattoos. Point is... if you like the body and the face... you can work around about some issues, especially if the project involves clothes...