College Ink: Less Rebellious Than We Think

One of my favorite music artists of the past decade (Kim Schifino of “Matt and Kim”) once told Nylon TV that a tattoo is best deserved only when it has been strongly considered for a full year. I like to think that this sentiment is shared amongst tattoo bearers, but as a somewhat impulsive 19 year old I have a feeling that few of my peers spend that much time weighing the permanent decision. And as studies show that a huge percentage of college students who have tattoos get them during their undergraduate experiences, it seems like a lost hope on my part. But what may be more important is that these facts disprove the assumption that college is the age of rebellion; rather, it is a time of externalized self and artistic expression.

I would like to clarify from the onset that I am not anti-tattoo, but I certainly understand the argument made by those who are. I can tell you now that just from researching this topic I have seen enough pictures of tattoos gone wrong to say some harsh things, but conscious “tattooism” (dare I make up a new word) happens to be an art form that I can understand. And, apparently, it happens to be one that a surprising number of people my age act upon regularly.

Despite what public media may call immature behavior, surveys insist that most college students who get tattoos in their undergraduate years (ages 18-22, roughly) are not the stereotypical love-deprived social outcasts or angry bikers/punk rockers that we often anticipate. In fact, in a recent Journal of Adolescent Health survey of tattooed and pierced college students it was shown that 86% of participants with at least one tattoo (and no piercings) “feel close to God.” In the same study it was found that only 24% of participants in that same category of one tattoo or more take drugs “very often.” So, I suppose if I ever went to church I would be more likely to see some great body art than I will at the concert I’m attending tomorrow night.

Despite all of this, there are some subsections of tattoo art that I have to question: the first, tattoo removal. Webster's Dictionary (1993) defines tattoo as “an indelible mark or figure fixed upon the body by the insertion of pigment under die skin or by the production of scars." Thus I have to question the modern concept of tattoo removal; aside from the way in which it contradicts the definition, I cannot help but feel that tattoo removal is a cowardly move, an action on regret that at one point in time was a surmountable. This is why I support (and I am assuming why Kim supports) conscious tattoo decisions – not necessarily ones made by those who can ensure that they will feel no remorse later on, but rather those made by people who feel the statement is important enough to never be erased.

My other qualm, which I do not mean as a criticism but rather as a point of concern, is the true veganism of vegan tattoos. According to a long lost episode of “House,” low-quality tattoo ink has enough lead in it to cause problems with modern medical equipment. And according to tattooinfo.net, all but one brand of tattoo ink contains some type of animal glycerin that immediately cancels out the vegan component of tattoos like these ones. Furthermore, that ink companies are not legally required to fully disclose the contents used in their specific ink production means that tattoos – especially vegan ink tattoos – are far less user friendly than they pretend to be.

With all of this I cannot help but wonder why it is so easy to spontaneously stumble into a tattoo parlor at 3 a.m. and permanently brand oneself artistically. I still support it all, but as it turns out there is much more involved in the process than the mere thought that a white dove would look nice on my newly tanned shoulder. And I suppose that is what Kim means to tell us.