Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism. Become a Member »

Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism.

All images from “London Tattoos” taken by the author for Hyperallergic.

Photographer and photojournalist Alex MacNaughton’s latest book titled London Tattoos (Prestel 2011), is a lighthearted book of portraits featuring Londoners and their tattoos. Shooting his portraits in the studio against a neutral white background, reminiscent of white gallery walls, MacNaughton treats tattoos, and the bodies they are etched upon, like works of art. Showing only one image of each person fully covered in street clothes, MacNaughton crops and edits his photographs to show different parts and pieces of the body.

In London Tattoos, MacNaughton’s photographs draw our attention away the tattoo owners, and forces us to look instead at the color, shape and design of each individual tattoo. The photographs feel like intimate portraits, yet they function conceptually more like documentations, with skin as an ever-present stand-in for a traditional canvas. As it states in the forward of London Tattoos, “all are united by the decision they have taken to donate their own skin to an artist for the creation of an image.”

In its brief introduction, London Tattoos reminds us that the history of tattooing is a long and complicated one, and how tattoos have been culturally digested differs greatly from place to place. Though here in the states they are still tied to a certain counter-culture aesthetic, in London, thanks to the popularization of tattooing by the aristocracy, they were considered from the beginning to be exotic and desirable — the boredom of the rich might have, in this particular case, mitigated the low class associations many people still have with the practice. The first tattoo parlor opened in London in 1870, and by the 1880s it was “all the rage amongst the most fashionable of London’s high society.” It’s important to remember, London Tattoos suggests, that the manner in which tattoos were brought to a particular place greatly affected how that society viewed them afterwards. Similar to how attitudes toward street art and graffiti differ in other parts of the world, where neither is considered vandalism, it’s refreshing to realize that other societies also find tattoos less controversial, distasteful and emblematic than our own.

In London Times, MacNaughton’s Londoners have a spread to themselves, all of which begin with a clothed portrait, and across from it that person’s name, age and an explanation for his or her tattoos: what they mean, if anything, where they got them, if they remember, and what they hope to get next. Each person seems to have been asked a similar series of questions, as their answers read almost like a survey. The text is highly personal, like an oddly specific bio, covering how Londoners feel about body art, modification, and embellishment, and it’s also very individual — no one else knows, or could explain, just why you picked that particular thorny rose, the serpentine snake coiled around your belly button or a busty pin-up girl sitting in a champagne glass. It’s surprising, however, how similar the sentiments and stories are behind so many different people and tattoos. MacNaughton’s book includes different age groups, genders, races and professions, as well as impromptu, detailed, small and large tattoos — the overlap between Londoners is great despite these differences. Similar to other fashions, we also learn that the whys behind tattoos can be deeply personal or purely aesthetic.

If you read London Tattoos like it’s a case study of how people with tattoos see their tattoos, you get a more nuanced look into generic terms like “meaningful” and “personal.” Many Londoners see their tattoos as mementos, talismans, memories or dedications. Ness, a 35-year-old woman sleeved in colorful and playful floral tattoos, says, “my tattoos are a snapshot in time as well as a loose representation of the people I love.” Ashley Jagdeo, an ethnic looking young man with black & white tattoos scattered over his entire body, many of them stylized female faces, says of his tattoos, “they are indelible marks that represent times in my life that will be with me forever.” 22-year-old Coral Davies gains self-confidence from her tattoos, “they make me feel more comfortable in my own skin,” although the large cover-up on her body might cause us to wonder if they are actually succeeding.

Many of the people in London Tattoos go beyond this type of meaning and see their tattoos as powerful, almost superstitious, images. For them, wearing a tattoo is like wearing a locket or wedding ring, type of jewelry we put on in order to remember, protect and cherish others.

Other Londoners interviewed in London Tattoos see their tattoos as aesthetic, a statement of difference, or a way to separate themselves from others. Their tattoos are about the consequences of getting and wearing a tattoo — they are tattoos for tattoos sake — and how society responds to them is often more meaningful or telling than the tattoos themselves. Piece together their individual sentiments to form a collective opinion, this group of Londoners sees tattoos more as pieces of art than a chosen image of self-expression. Pinnetto, a 34-year-old male artist says, “tattoos are to me a pure form of decoration and artistic expression.” Andrew Shirley, a young man with a bear-like frame states that, “people get too hung up on tattoos needing meaning.” Heavily tattooed from head to toe, his tattoos are a colorful mash up of things he likes or has liked. Lucrezia Testa Iannilli, an elegant dancer in her thirties also sees her tattoos as “purely aesthetic.” A few people even express a feeling of otherness that their tattoos give them, and the pride they feel in not looking like anyone else.

Paging through London Tattoo’s I was forced myself to ask some hard questions about tattoos. Is tattooing an art form? Are tattoos art? Tattoos have long been integrated into the art world, both as body art worn by artists, and as independent artworks based upon the technique. Just a few weeks ago I attended an opening at 7Eleven gallery, where the artist Nick Doyle was giving patrons free tattoos with his personally crafted gun, for the opening reception of a new show. Artists like the Belgian sculptor and installation artist Wim Delvoye, have found new ways to turn tattoos and skin into something truly amazing. Delvoye runs an “Art Farm” in China, where he humanely raises, tattoos, skins and stuffs pigs.

While searching for answers to the questions raised about art and tattoos in London Tattoos, I was reminded of the art critic Peter Schjeldahl who suggested in a lecture at SVA last fall, “when in doubt, make distinctions.” In that vein some tattoo artists are artists, and some tattoos are art. Not all tattoos, however, need to be or even try to be art, and it’s important to distinguish between the two: most things are not art by default, and almost anything can become art through intention. The majority of Londoners in MacNaughton’s photographs don’t consider their tattoos works of art, and they don’t value them any less because of it. As one Londoner states, “let’s face it, art’s a personal thing at the end of the day.”

Alex MacNaughton’s London Tattoos is available on Amazon and other online booksellers.

12 replies on “A Photographer Looks at London’s Tattoos”

  1. “an ethnic-looking young man”? what’s THAT supposed to mean? why do his looks, of ANY sort, matter to this discussion?

    1. I thought about that when I edited it but since this is based in London and that’s the home of the land that loves to through the term around, I let it stand. I personally dislike (ok, I HATE) that term but it seemed subject appropriate in this case.

      1. We are also talking about bodies and what they have on them, and what people look like in this book and their tattoos seemed to go hand in hand. Rockabilly women who dressed in the fashion also had tattoos in that fashion, this particular man’s tattoos had a very ethnic vibe that I could not exactly place, I guessed Indian but thought being general was better since there was no way to know for certain. I didn’t mean to be offensive, I’m half Mexican and half European and get asked about my ethnicity all the time. Daily!

  2. It would be better to state specifically what his ethnicity is than use the term ‘ethnic-looking’. It’s not just orientalist, it’s bad English. 

    1. It’s a term that is often used, so I don’t have a problem with it. Actually, it’s not orientalist, since ethnic can mean many things, including South American, many of which aren’t Eastern. But I understand your concern and appreciate you voicing it.

  3. In this context, “ethnic looking” means he looks (through dress, skin colour etc) kind of non-white, i.e. exotic. Anything but Anglo, which is the ethnicity that isn’t one. Saying that it can mean a variety of things is basically an outgroup homogeneity bias, which lumps a whole spectrum of difference into the concept ‘not us’.

    1. Non-Anglo. Not non-white. Which means he or she could look many things. But orientalist has a more specific meaning of eastern, so you often don’t use it when the person doesn’t appear from the east. Greeks can be ethnic, for instance. Or even Irish. I think we’re both in agreement, to be honest. I just thought the use of the term here was context specific and worked, even if it was jarring (and trust me, I read it twice because that term grates on my nerves!).

    2. He was actually very white, much whiter than I, and his dress and the style of his tattoos were ethnic. I am ethnic, and didn’t realize it had become a bad word. Obviously I should have described him better. I actually did have a longer description about him and his tattoos, but edited it out for the sake of the piece, I tend to make everything a bit long, perhaps I edited out too much and it left it confusing as to why I mentioned him in the first place. Certainly not to cast him in any kind of bad light, I really enjoyed his quotes and tattoos!

  4. Ok, orientalist is maybe not the best choice of word (although I think certain orientalist patterns of thought actually did inform racism within the British Isles such as popular theories about where those dirty Welsh came from). But this is still a lazy mental shortcut for dealing with difference, and it undermines the writer’s authority as a cultural critic.

  5. “but this is still a lazy mental shortcut for dealing with difference”…I wasn’t trying to deal with difference at all, I was trying to describe him so others could picture who it was I was quoting. I would have said exactly what his ethnicity was had it been avilible to me, but I agree you could say it was lazy description.

  6. UltraDawn and Kittenteenth are both being overwrought in their despair over the author’s use of the (problematic yes) term. Looks DO matter, especially when discussing aesthetics. Descriptors and terms of identification exist for a reason. The term Ethnic bugs people because it implies an otherness based on a white standard. So yes it’s a bad term, but let’s be a little careful about throwing around terms like “orientalist” or hand wringing for a colorblind society. 

Comments are closed.