Cross-hatching in tatttoos

[Graeme]

I don't know about that. Certainly can't speak for everybody who gets that type of tattoo, but my one friend who actually has an Amanda Wachob tattoo is really into ALL kinds of tattoos. She has other styles of tattoos in addition to that one. But she really loves her AW tattoo, I think it's her favorite. Is that a problem? So, it's going to fade. I guess she will deal with that when the time comes. I would just hope for the "watercolor tattoo" client's sake, that they did enough research to realize their tattoo is going to fade (more so and more quickly than other tattoos that have black outlines and shading). If people know that, and still go for it, so be it...their skin, their money. I'm sure my friend does like watercolor paintings, I wouldn't assume otherwise.

I'm curious how Amanda Wachob's tattoos will age. I don't say that to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious. I think that because a lot of her tattoos are abstract that they might not do too badly in the long run, relatively speaking, because they don't require the structure that, for example, a watercolour style hummingbird like the one posted earlier in this thread would need to keep it readable over time as a hummingbird. I have to wonder about the craftsmanship here. I feel that I often hear people talking about how this is a "new" style and how nobody knows how it will age, and I think that's total garbage. The Music & Sea Tattoos issue of Tattootime has an article by Doc Webb from 1982 where he says "[many] have gone to extremely thin line, no shading. This had happened before. The many who stayed in business long found when the colors faded, as they seem to do, if you only had a faint outline and no shading, you had no tattoo." It's been tried time and time again with the same result every time. Either people are doing these tattoos without an understanding of the history of tattooing, which is a problem, or they're giving people tattoos they know won't hold up essentially because there's a demand for it, and that sits really uneasily with me. Are people who want these tattoos being informed about this? I hope so, but if you google "watercolor tattoo" after a couple of pinterest/tumblr links there's a website from a guy who seems to do these tattoos saying that they'll age just fine. I guess when it comes down to it, I fundamentally agree with you that it's people's skin and money and if that's what they want and what makes them happy, then they should go for it, but for me, I think for the most part this kind of thing isn't what I would consider good tattooing. Different strokes, etc.

[polliwog]

I can imagine someone tattooing something interesting over her black-free abstract tattoos as they fade that takes advantage of the muted areas of color.

[TrixieFaux]

Either people are doing these tattoos without an understanding of the history of tattooing, which is a problem, or they're giving people tattoos they know won't hold up essentially because there's a demand for it, and that sits really uneasily with me. Are people who want these tattoos being informed about this? I hope so, but if you google "watercolor tattoo" after a couple of pinterest/tumblr links there's a website from a guy who seems to do these tattoos saying that they'll age just fine.

Good points. Unethical.

[misterJ]

I was unfamiliar with Amanda wachob, so I googled hard. I can't imagine looking at a piece like that 5+ years down the line and being like I'm so glad I got that swoosh of blues and yellow with a splotch of red.

Is there a healthy medium that would still keep the aesthetic of the watercolor (I think it's the translucency and movement that appeals to people) while still falling in the benchmark of a solid tattoo that will last? I'm curious.

[Fala]

I remember when I was first getting into tattooing (like I've been getting tattooed for that long, insert eye-roll, I'm a tattoo newbie still), and loving Amanda's birds and such but then the more I simply thought about it, how tattoos and the skin ages, etc I came to my own conclusion that they would not age well. Then, I learned about what makes a good tattoo and it solidified this conclusion. If I were the kind of person that wanted to get tattooed with this style, knowing full well that the tattoo would fade and not age well - well, then I guess I'm cool with doing that for the experience, the temporariness of the tattoo, etc. Though, if I'm going to get a tattoo, I damn well want to get one that is going to look as good as possible for as long as possible. I agree that it is unethical to not have your clients know that you are not tattooing in a traditional way, and the effects of aging are going to be different than that of a traditional tattoo. Also, I've seen a lot of tattoos like this on the street (ie without the strong outlining of more traditional work), that are obviously at not fresh, and they look sad to me - like something is missing.

[DJDeepFried]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

There's an old David Mamet essay -- he's writing about writing but it applies -- about how some of the "mod" architects of the '60s & '70s built houses with flat roofs that looked amazing when they were first built but collapsed with the first heavy snowfall. Versus how chairs were built in the 18th & 19th centuries with mortise and tenon joints that only made the chair stronger as the wood expanded over time.

Some styles just work and while the art of tattooing (or any other art) can't move forward without innovation, there's no point in trying to reinvent the wheel when there are perfectly good wheels available all around you.

In a word, it's all about structure.

Sorry if that sounded wicked pretentious.

[Fala]

No way @DJDeepFried - I thought that was awesome!

[SeeSea]

Is there a healthy medium that would still keep the aesthetic of the watercolor (I think it's the translucency and movement that appeals to people) while still falling in the benchmark of a solid tattoo that will last? I'm curious.

That's an interesting thought. I'm not a tattoo artist and certainly can't speak to the mechanics/physiology, but from an art perspective, that could be neat. Start with a tattoo design that looks one way, fully knowing certain parts will fade faster/differently than others....and then after time the look/design changes as a result of the differing fades. Kinda like the link I posted from @CultExciter (I think) above except done on purpose, knowing the red would really fade. Like a sunset/beach/tree tattoo that had an underlying snake or something that your eye is fooled into ignoring until the colors faded more.

I know, probably hipster or something. ::shrugs::

[scubaron]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

There's an old David Mamet essay -- he's writing about writing but it applies -- about how some of the "mod" architects of the '60s & '70s built houses with flat roofs that looked amazing when they were first built but collapsed with the first heavy snowfall. Versus how chairs were built in the 18th & 19th centuries with mortise and tenon joints that only made the chair stronger as the wood expanded over time.

Some styles just work and while the art of tattooing (or any other art) can't move forward without innovation, there's no point in trying to reinvent the wheel when there are perfectly good wheels available all around you.

In a word, it's all about structure.

Sorry if that sounded wicked pretentious.

Taste in tattoos, like taste in art is individual preference. Will there be a day when any tattoo, regardless of style, will hold up better over time ? I hope so. Is it possible for ink to get better and more resilient ?

I like the wheel analogy, but I don't consider different styles of art, wheels. I think ink is the wheel or better yet, the tire. A tire will wear out. Take a standard low priced tire. Constantly drive over rough terrain, don't maintain proper tire pressure and the tire will wear out quickly. Sounds similar to tattoo ink.

[JAllen]

In a word, it's all about structure.

absolutely

[CABS]

I'll get a watercolor tattoo so I can get a blastover it later.

Half kidding half serious.

[SeeSea]

I'll get a watercolor tattoo so I can get a blastover it later.

Half kidding half serious.

Me too. It's definitely a thought for a large piece - plan ahead and get the temporary tattoo first.

[Fala]

I'm reviving this because I've seen several watercolor style tattoos in the past couple of weeks - I don't know how old they were, they were old enough to be settled in the skin but still bright and they looked not so hot - super blurred out, leaving the viewer thinking, "what is that? Why does that look so bad? Oh, that's a watercolor cherry..." Wah-wah-waaaaaah.

[jimstanley]

I dont really think these woodcut tattoos will last long either, but I don't actually know. Looking at how fat the lines are on old tattoos, i wonder how big they were originally, and how a woodcut would look once all the lines get that much fatter. Anyone seen any aged ones, or heard of them being done?

Watercolor tattoos always looked like a baby who ate some crayons and messed your arm up to me. So, I figure, at least it'll just look like some crazy disease eventually.

[misterJ]

http://www.tattoosnob.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/KaneMelbourne.jpg?dc330c

I like the line work in this, it's more cross hatch-ish, sticking with the theme of the thread, and it is super cool.

My beef with watercolor tattoos is that some of them (besides the typical complaints) are designed very poorly to fit the body. The one linked has a single black line running throughout the arm. God forbid he/she would want anything else on that arm it would have to fit around the single black drip line.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-04/enhanced/webdr05/20/19/enhanced-7715-1398035435-2.jpg