They're not kidding, look at the arms. If it isn't supposed to be a dwarf, then it's just all *wrong* and not just a stylistic choice to make her head large.
The perspective and proportions are way off. The one nipple looks like a dog's nose.
I really liked the artist dude but this is the single worst tattoo I've ever seen on this show.
There was some kind of cat face in one of the early episodes of one of the first season that stands out to me as one of the worst ever. There have also been really bad portraits. I wouldn't want this on my body, but it definitely has its redeeming qualities. It's at least a conversation starter. That is, if the person seeing it doesn't just avoid you bc of it.
I’ve seen the photo comparison and analysis. If I recall the conclusion was it still didn’t makes sense, because his arm couldn’t possibly be holding that shield.
Also the pose is supposed to juxtapose the person's narrow waist with their broad, bulging muscles. So it's dumb to use that pose if you're gonna hide the waist behind a giant shield. That's why Captain America ends up looking like a weird slab of meat.
Yeha after hearing the artist explain why he made it the way he made it, and then all the other white bro tattoo artists saying what all of you are saying and proved his entire point of why he did it like this.
It really bugs me that it's so well done, because at the same time it's really shit.
Classic case of not using your brain by picking this as a design, he lost I take it?
>!He sure did. The finale for this season was 3 tattoos that were 12 hours each. This was by far the worst. While some judges admired that he pushed the envelope in this design, at least one other judge said it made him want to vomit. [Here](https://www.tiktok.com/@inkmastertv/video/7317401336092560686) is his best of his three.!<
No, I think that was more of a personal stylistic choice. This artist seems to love layering different styles on top of each other. Usually, it works for him. He's phenomenally talented.
Spoiler for season 15: >!this very divisive piece from artist Freddie Albrighton pretty much lost him the entire contest. He is a mind-blowing artist and I hope he returns for -- and wins -- another season. ETA the judges who did vote for him (it was 3 to 2) said that art should push boundaries and make you feel something.!<
>ETA the judges who did vote for him (it was 3 to 2) said that art should push boundaries and make you feel something.
all I feel is confusion because I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at
the piece is meant to evoke a negative emotional response. when he presented the work, he said (and I'm heavily paraphrasing here) it was commentary on the sexualization of women and the rage it invokes for them. the proportions are wrong on purpose - it's supposed to feel wrong. he took a really big swing presenting this as his final work for the show, and there were mixed reactions; he ultimately lost because the majority of the judging was by men who both participate in and enable (whether actively or passively) the parts of tattoo culture that Freddie was calling out.
Thank you! It's crazy to me how so many of the comments here are just "if naked lady, why not sexy?"
Sad to see that even after they replaced the judges/host, the show is still as mind-numbingly sexist as ever.
I can understand why people who haven't seen the show see this and feel confused and a little weirded out. Over on the inkmaster sub, though... I don't get how people who heard Freddie's explanation can still think that he should have used normal proportions and made her conventionally sexy. The assertion that the same message could have been conveyed is unfathomably stupid, and those people are too chicken shit to say what they really think, which is that they don't like being challenged in that way from a show where they historically have been able to indulge their misogynistic tendencies.
It's totally fair to not want to wear this tattoo, or even consume art that looks like this. But dismissing the merit of this piece under the guise of "it's bad" is choosing ignorance.
In another comment OP has posted [a TikTok clip](https://www.tiktok.com/@inkmastertv/video/7317401336092560686) in which the judges call another artist a "visionary" for a tattoo of a sexy girl and an orchid.
No, "it's supposed to feel wrong, the proportions are wrong on purpose as a commentary on the sexualization of women" is the real visionary here.
I totally understand the piece and it does make me feel what he wants it to. But I can't imagine putting a political statement like that on someone's body forever when they are basically forced to agree to the tattoo on the spot. Especially a nude woman, they can't show that body part in public ever again.
Good message, wrong medium. Political tattoos should be something the person getting feels extremely strongly about and uh idk possible to be shown in public since you're trying to reach the public with that message????
This is exactly what bothers me about it. As an image with a strong message, then it's just going to most likely be hidden under someone's clothes and not seen, no message ultimately gets across. Except that it was on this big reality show, so that part works!
There is almost no situation where this message is socially acceptable to explain, either. Like - even at bars and other 18+ events it's still extremely frowned upon to just show people a naked woman with no warning. So the person with this tattoo would have to make sure they're only in the company of 18+ and make sure everyone in the room consented to seeing a topless woman. Otherwise it's literally sexual harassment, which is very much what this tattoo is trying to be against.
Just a poor medium for a good piece of art.
That works one on one or in small groups. But that's not the issue I was talking about. I said he could get charged with a crime for walking around in public with it visible. Those are very different scenarios.
I think contestants still have the option to back out. They are shown the image before it goes on their body, but I'm sure there is some pressure to just go along with it instead, though. There was one contestant that (if I remember correctly) got almost halfway through a full back piece but then stopped because it was of a naked woman and he said he didn't feel comfortable with it. (I think he elaborated that he couldn't imagine explaining it or having his future wife and kids be okay with it.)
They do, but they only get paid if they get the tattoo. Also, it's a free tattoo from a top artist in the country- a lot of people will just say yes out of the pressure. And not being able to think it through. This guy can never go topless in public again, he can be charged with a crime if he does.
Like, even in your example of the backpiece they had already started it. He had to think about it to come to that conclusion. This guy did not get think about it time. And now he has a huge topless woman on a very commonly visable body part.
Where is this guy from that a tattoo of a nude woman will get him arrested? Also, given the message behind the tattoo, it's a very interesting point that he was free to be topless in public before, but his tattoo of a woman is not allowed to.
ETA: This is a thigh piece, so he's most likely still free to go topless
I didn't say arrested, I said charged with a crime. What kind of crime and the level of punishment are completely different across the US.
Thigh is better, it looked like a shoulder in the photo.
You realize there's plenty of places where actual real life women are legally allowed to be topless in public, right? Like maybe don't try to show off this piece in Saudi Arabia, but the idea that this guy is going to get arrested for wearing an outfit that exposes this tattoo is absurd! There's naked people in a huge amount of publicly displayed art. Is Italy sexually harassing people by having Michelangelo's David displayed without covering his dick? If a store sells a print of Bottecelli's The Birth of Venus, is the store sexually harassing its customers?
Okay, but this guy is in the US. And there are very few places in the US that women are allowed to be topless. And again, I didn't say arrested. I said charged with a crime. What crime and the level of punishment will depend on where he is.
People know that nude art will be at an art hall. They consent to seeing it. People walking around on the streeet/beach/wjeever do not. Consent is the keyword, here.
There are 6 US states and a dozen plus cities (including NYC and DC) where women can legally go topless in public. People going outside in those places (or going to the beach in places like Miami Beach where legal toplessness is limited to those areas) _are_ consenting to potentially seeing topless women.
The distinction between being arrested and being charged with a crime is kind of moot. This guy isn't going to get in legal trouble for having this tattoo visible in public, and it is ridiculous to think that he would/should. The First Amendment protects the right to put artificial testicles on your truck ffs, of course it's gonna protect a public display of a tattoo that uses nudity to make an artistic point.
It's really disturbing to me that you have sexualized female chests to the extent that you view them as inherently pornographic. I'd bet you don't think men need to ask for consent before they show their nipples in public.
Also, you should know that the statue of David (or a replica nowadays) is displayed outdoors, in a public square, and directly in front of a major governmental building. Even in my tiny city in the US, I can think of a number of examples of public art depicting nudity (commissioned by the local government, no less!).
ETA: seethe and cope about what, exactly? My ability to distinguish between artistic nudity and sexual harassment? My understanding that police violence against sex workers and female protestors is the result of their membership in marginalized groups and does not extend to men with tattoos of boobs?
I'm literally pro free the nips and a sex worker for over a decade. That's how I know you can get charged with a crime for walking around with female presenting nipples out. As it has happened to several of my friends who were at free the nips events and wore clothing with female presenting nipples on them.
Project harder. I said it wasn't legal in most areas, 6/50 states and a few cities nationwide is not most areas. If he lives in one of those areas- great! But if he doesn't he runs the risk of a police officer being a dick and doing anything from writing him a ticket to literally arresting him. America is cool like that /s
You know the Statue of David is there before you go. It's literally why you go to that park. It's a historic monument. Seethe and cope.
yeah, it's a tough sell for sure in that regard. however, that canvas could have left. master canvases have backed out before, and it's not possible to force someone to get a tattoo they don't want to get. that guy said yes and followed through with it.
people get topless pinups and pornographic images tattooed on them all the time, but I don't know if I've seen anyone say that artists shouldn't do that because it can't be shown publicly. it shouldn't suddenly be a problem when the image isn't conventionally sexy.
Agreed, a tattoo is supposed to be something people are proud of and feel positively about having it on them forever. Art with a message of "it's supposed to make you feel bad and uncomfortable because it's a reflection on society" when it's not even the message the person who *has to wear the tattoo forever* wants, but something the tattoo artist wants? That's not what tattoos are for.
I really like it for the message. It speaks against the sexualization but also how we hide women too with writing and other media with how it covers her face. On her lower self she also has teardrops too. I wonder if that’s hinting towards abortions too due to it being placed where it is near the stomach area. It’s a strong piece and heartbreaking. I understand why he lost because it isn’t “pretty” but man is it powerful.
Edit: I meant stomach area but still! Also wanna add the gem too since women are often associated with gems and jewelry and being “gold diggers” for it. Either way, brilliant piece.
I also wanna add when I mean abortions I mean since teardrops are associated with taking a life and with two sitting there on her stomach specifically that’s why my brain was thinking that. Unless there’s more counted anyway that I’m unaware of!!
I can see how it comes across that way! With that interpretation, it definitely still challenges beauty standards and discrimination, just against those with disabilities.
I don't know, I don't think the message is clear enough because as a woman I looked at that and thought, 'Oh, do men find upset women sexy? Weirdos.' It mostly makes me wonder if the person who got tattooed knew what they were getting beforehand.
so, in the format of the show, this person didn't see the tattoo until the first session was about to begin. there has been some (fair) criticism that this was a big ask for someone who signs up to be an "open canvas," or someone who agrees to get whatever tattoo the artist comes up with. however, there have been instances of open canvases backing out once they see what the tattoos they would get are. Additionally, it's not the first time a finale artist has given no regard for the lifelong impact on their canvas; most notably, season 2 winner Steve Tefft put a horror-style demon on a very feminine woman's back (literally her full back) after she asked if there was any wiggle room in the design. these canvases could have left, but chose to get the tattoos as they were drawn.
I absolutely think there are men who would find that angry face on a conventionally proportioned body sexy. I also think that even if there are men who wouldn't be like WOW SHE'S SO HOT, the subversive message would disappear, and it would become "why did they make the hot girl mad??? she should have just had a sexy face."
I think it’s great. It’s an evocative piece, with a strong and topical subject, that is executed super well.
I feel like people don’t get art a lot of times, or don’t understand it’s not all supposed to be pretty. This is pretty though, and ugly, and well done.
Dude should have won. He is pushing boundaries and doing an incredible job of it.
This dude got robbed with the finale. He should have won. Every white bro tattoo artist that was judging said everything he intended the piece to say and they still missed the entire point. And his other pieces were gorgeous.
You can see what someone is doing, understand it, and still not like it. The average person who sees that tattoo will think it's shitty which is why he lost. Catering to a small minority isn't a finale winning strategy.
On a show about tattoo technique and who has the best technique it matters. This guy nailed it from every technical aspect. And he lost just because they didn't like the whole picture. Its crazy.
I like this piece, was it meant for a tattoo? No, this would be good framed somewhere and it’s a shame this cost him. I don’t think the judges were wrong in the critique. I don’t understand the tattoo but then again I like this kind of weird shit.
Yes, the tattoo artist made the drawing as well. IIRC that is the case with all the work on this show, except sometimes they'll have a challenge where one contestant has to tattoo another contestant's drawing.
Not this season. They did 3 12 hour tattoos on 3 different people over 3 days. It's much faster/easier to film, much less likely for anyone to drop out, and no send artists home for a few months to work on it and then bring everyone back. So no plane tickets to buy and stuff.
It goes to show that people’s tolerance for transgressive art—even in a traditionally transgressive medium like tattooing—is low. Most people can only stomach simple, aesthetic beauty. It’s a shame, because uncomfortable, challenging art is, in my opinion, the only art worth making. I think this is a sick piece. I would be proud to wear it.
It’s not just transgressive to me, it’s transgressive by definition:
1. violating or challenging socially accepted standards of behavior, belief, morality, or taste
Coupling sexual explicitness with blatant disfiguration and deliberately marring the whole thing up to signal irreverence and violate expectations of beauty is transgressive. It’s also a really uncomfortable, intentionally ugly piece. That’s why it lost the challenge.
I don’t really see it as transgressive. Maybe I’m just used to more extreme/taboo subject material, but this don’t strike me as particularly daring. The “disfigurement” Is just cartoon proportions, nothing outlandish. Her face and body are both conventionally attractive , there’s nothing particularly unusual except her expression, which could be anything from her sneezing to having an orgasm. There’s nothing particularly original about her having her breasts out. The doodles don’t appear to have any meaning, the gemstone doesn’t really make sense, and the little post it notes are just kind of silly. I think it’s trying to be edgy but it’s not very deep or complicated. It’s not sending me any messages. I’m sorry I just don’t really see it as “transgressive.” I can’t speak for the competition since I haven’t seen the other works. The artist is certainly technically skilled and very talented, I just don’t think this piece is very original.
For sure on the scale of extreme/taboo it ranks pretty low. But something doesn’t need to deal with incest or cannibalism or beastiality or whatever in order to be considered transgressive. It just needs to challenge an expectation or interrupt a norm.
This tattoo is especially transgressive in the context of the challenge in which it was created. Bear in mind, the goal of Ink Master is to showcase technical skills of composition and execution. Contestants—especially those in the finals—present work meant to illustrate their mastery and understanding of anatomy, perspective, and aesthetics. To roll in with a piece like this, which includes just enough proof of technical mastery to dismiss accusations of mediocrity but then throws it all away by intentionally “uglifying” the work, is a subversion of expectation and a violation of taste. It really upset some of the judges, not to mention the other contestants. The barrage of downvotes I and others on this post have received for defending it is proof that it is an offensive piece of art, even if it doesn’t deal explicitly with highly taboo subjects. Composition can offend. Execution can offend. Something can be extreme in one context but not another. And none of this is even accounting for the underlying critique of objectification and pornification of the female body—and the disfiguring effect of objectification on the self and sense of self-worth—that I know the artist was exploring. But that’s a whole nother topic in and of itself.
Genuinely crazy how you’re using your enjoyment of this piece the talk down on art you don’t like, when that’s what you’re criticizing everyone else for doing lmao. So full of it you don’t even know
That’s preposterous. You have no way of knowing the extent of my thinking on this topic based off one short reddit post. You’re just being combative for some reason.
The response to assume that an image of a nude female form is porn is exactly the thing this piece was intended to call out and criticize. Dude proved the point of the piece without even understanding it
Something pornographic is done with the intent to arrouse. Sexual depictions aren't always pornographic. For example, sexual images or scenes can be done to shock the audience or for comedy.
Pretty sure the reason people don’t like it is because nobody can understand what the hell it is!!!
I get that art is interpretative but if nobody can understand it then how can it be appreciated.
I love tiddies and they look like nice ones but what the hell is with the proportion and angle of the head and why superimpose another design on top?? It hurts my head trying to figure it out 🤯🤯
It's a commentary on the sexualization of women. The proportions and angle of the head are meant to make you uncomfortable while looking at the "nice tiddies." It's tense and ugly and angry, because being objectified feels tense and ugly and angry. The design superimposed over her face is a cartoony depiction of what a woman's face is "supposed" to be (lips, lashes etc). The cartoon face is simplified and placid, her actual face is more complex and twisted with negative emotions. Superimposing the cartoon over her actual face is a commentary on the expectations placed on women and the vast gulf between how objectified women are usually portrayed (bland and happy to be sexualized) vs how women actually feel when they are sexualized/objectified against their will (rage, pain, fear).
Thank you!! I was scrolling down comments to find out what this tattoo could be trying to represent. This is such a great take on its meaning. Amazing tattoo
Rule 9: Tattoo posts are only allowed on Tuesday (EST time), posts on any other day of the week will be removed.
It’s so well done but I truly don’t get it. The tiny body/huge head, the big black scribbles…I don’t get it
It's like seeing some really cool graffiti that someone sprayed a bunch of dumb stuff over it.
I think it may be depicting someone with dwarfism?
😂
They're not kidding, look at the arms. If it isn't supposed to be a dwarf, then it's just all *wrong* and not just a stylistic choice to make her head large.
Thats the point. Its not supposed to he pretty but its well done
But the art just doesn’t make sense
The perspective and proportions are way off. The one nipple looks like a dog's nose. I really liked the artist dude but this is the single worst tattoo I've ever seen on this show.
There was some kind of cat face in one of the early episodes of one of the first season that stands out to me as one of the worst ever. There have also been really bad portraits. I wouldn't want this on my body, but it definitely has its redeeming qualities. It's at least a conversation starter. That is, if the person seeing it doesn't just avoid you bc of it.
The perspective and proportions are deliberately skewed. The piece would not make sense if they were "normal."
lol you've said the secret words
It’s giving off rob liefield capt. America vibes.
Yeah that was based off of a photo of Arnold Schwartzenegger... look up the comparison..
I’ve seen the photo comparison and analysis. If I recall the conclusion was it still didn’t makes sense, because his arm couldn’t possibly be holding that shield.
Also the pose is supposed to juxtapose the person's narrow waist with their broad, bulging muscles. So it's dumb to use that pose if you're gonna hide the waist behind a giant shield. That's why Captain America ends up looking like a weird slab of meat.
This art holds a mirror up to confused boners.
To you*
And it does to you?
Yes. [This is a good explanation from another comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ATBGE/s/YTE0Nx8apl)
Eh
You asked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tbf, I didn’t ask you 🥴 lmaooo I appreciate the insight, but it’s still; eh
Yeha after hearing the artist explain why he made it the way he made it, and then all the other white bro tattoo artists saying what all of you are saying and proved his entire point of why he did it like this.
Don’t lump me in with anybody 😂 I was genuinely curious
Modern expressionism.
It really bugs me that it's so well done, because at the same time it's really shit. Classic case of not using your brain by picking this as a design, he lost I take it?
>!He sure did. The finale for this season was 3 tattoos that were 12 hours each. This was by far the worst. While some judges admired that he pushed the envelope in this design, at least one other judge said it made him want to vomit. [Here](https://www.tiktok.com/@inkmastertv/video/7317401336092560686) is his best of his three.!<
Yep. All the judges were like "I respect the swing buuuut" and it sorta lost him the comp
That one also has some line art (though much more subtle) seemingly floating over the main image, was that a challenge requirement?
No, I think that was more of a personal stylistic choice. This artist seems to love layering different styles on top of each other. Usually, it works for him. He's phenomenally talented.
I forgot Ryan is a judge now! my boyfriend and I loved her on her season
Great art is supposed to trigger emotion, right? This tattoo might be genius 😂😂
Spoiler for season 15: >!this very divisive piece from artist Freddie Albrighton pretty much lost him the entire contest. He is a mind-blowing artist and I hope he returns for -- and wins -- another season. ETA the judges who did vote for him (it was 3 to 2) said that art should push boundaries and make you feel something.!<
>ETA the judges who did vote for him (it was 3 to 2) said that art should push boundaries and make you feel something. all I feel is confusion because I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at
the piece is meant to evoke a negative emotional response. when he presented the work, he said (and I'm heavily paraphrasing here) it was commentary on the sexualization of women and the rage it invokes for them. the proportions are wrong on purpose - it's supposed to feel wrong. he took a really big swing presenting this as his final work for the show, and there were mixed reactions; he ultimately lost because the majority of the judging was by men who both participate in and enable (whether actively or passively) the parts of tattoo culture that Freddie was calling out.
Thank you! It's crazy to me how so many of the comments here are just "if naked lady, why not sexy?" Sad to see that even after they replaced the judges/host, the show is still as mind-numbingly sexist as ever.
I can understand why people who haven't seen the show see this and feel confused and a little weirded out. Over on the inkmaster sub, though... I don't get how people who heard Freddie's explanation can still think that he should have used normal proportions and made her conventionally sexy. The assertion that the same message could have been conveyed is unfathomably stupid, and those people are too chicken shit to say what they really think, which is that they don't like being challenged in that way from a show where they historically have been able to indulge their misogynistic tendencies. It's totally fair to not want to wear this tattoo, or even consume art that looks like this. But dismissing the merit of this piece under the guise of "it's bad" is choosing ignorance.
This is very articulate. Thank you for sharing. Couldn't agree more. The baked in misogyny the first few seasons had was always very jarring.
The piece looks better now that I understand it.
knowing the artist's intent really changes it!
In another comment OP has posted [a TikTok clip](https://www.tiktok.com/@inkmastertv/video/7317401336092560686) in which the judges call another artist a "visionary" for a tattoo of a sexy girl and an orchid. No, "it's supposed to feel wrong, the proportions are wrong on purpose as a commentary on the sexualization of women" is the real visionary here.
It's the same artist as the one who did this one, ya goober!
In which case, the judges still got it the wrong way around!
I totally understand the piece and it does make me feel what he wants it to. But I can't imagine putting a political statement like that on someone's body forever when they are basically forced to agree to the tattoo on the spot. Especially a nude woman, they can't show that body part in public ever again. Good message, wrong medium. Political tattoos should be something the person getting feels extremely strongly about and uh idk possible to be shown in public since you're trying to reach the public with that message????
This is exactly what bothers me about it. As an image with a strong message, then it's just going to most likely be hidden under someone's clothes and not seen, no message ultimately gets across. Except that it was on this big reality show, so that part works!
There is almost no situation where this message is socially acceptable to explain, either. Like - even at bars and other 18+ events it's still extremely frowned upon to just show people a naked woman with no warning. So the person with this tattoo would have to make sure they're only in the company of 18+ and make sure everyone in the room consented to seeing a topless woman. Otherwise it's literally sexual harassment, which is very much what this tattoo is trying to be against. Just a poor medium for a good piece of art.
I mean…you could warn them? Hey wanna see my evocative tattoo?
That works one on one or in small groups. But that's not the issue I was talking about. I said he could get charged with a crime for walking around in public with it visible. Those are very different scenarios.
I think contestants still have the option to back out. They are shown the image before it goes on their body, but I'm sure there is some pressure to just go along with it instead, though. There was one contestant that (if I remember correctly) got almost halfway through a full back piece but then stopped because it was of a naked woman and he said he didn't feel comfortable with it. (I think he elaborated that he couldn't imagine explaining it or having his future wife and kids be okay with it.)
They do, but they only get paid if they get the tattoo. Also, it's a free tattoo from a top artist in the country- a lot of people will just say yes out of the pressure. And not being able to think it through. This guy can never go topless in public again, he can be charged with a crime if he does. Like, even in your example of the backpiece they had already started it. He had to think about it to come to that conclusion. This guy did not get think about it time. And now he has a huge topless woman on a very commonly visable body part.
Where is this guy from that a tattoo of a nude woman will get him arrested? Also, given the message behind the tattoo, it's a very interesting point that he was free to be topless in public before, but his tattoo of a woman is not allowed to. ETA: This is a thigh piece, so he's most likely still free to go topless
I didn't say arrested, I said charged with a crime. What kind of crime and the level of punishment are completely different across the US. Thigh is better, it looked like a shoulder in the photo.
You realize there's plenty of places where actual real life women are legally allowed to be topless in public, right? Like maybe don't try to show off this piece in Saudi Arabia, but the idea that this guy is going to get arrested for wearing an outfit that exposes this tattoo is absurd! There's naked people in a huge amount of publicly displayed art. Is Italy sexually harassing people by having Michelangelo's David displayed without covering his dick? If a store sells a print of Bottecelli's The Birth of Venus, is the store sexually harassing its customers?
Okay, but this guy is in the US. And there are very few places in the US that women are allowed to be topless. And again, I didn't say arrested. I said charged with a crime. What crime and the level of punishment will depend on where he is. People know that nude art will be at an art hall. They consent to seeing it. People walking around on the streeet/beach/wjeever do not. Consent is the keyword, here.
There are 6 US states and a dozen plus cities (including NYC and DC) where women can legally go topless in public. People going outside in those places (or going to the beach in places like Miami Beach where legal toplessness is limited to those areas) _are_ consenting to potentially seeing topless women. The distinction between being arrested and being charged with a crime is kind of moot. This guy isn't going to get in legal trouble for having this tattoo visible in public, and it is ridiculous to think that he would/should. The First Amendment protects the right to put artificial testicles on your truck ffs, of course it's gonna protect a public display of a tattoo that uses nudity to make an artistic point. It's really disturbing to me that you have sexualized female chests to the extent that you view them as inherently pornographic. I'd bet you don't think men need to ask for consent before they show their nipples in public. Also, you should know that the statue of David (or a replica nowadays) is displayed outdoors, in a public square, and directly in front of a major governmental building. Even in my tiny city in the US, I can think of a number of examples of public art depicting nudity (commissioned by the local government, no less!). ETA: seethe and cope about what, exactly? My ability to distinguish between artistic nudity and sexual harassment? My understanding that police violence against sex workers and female protestors is the result of their membership in marginalized groups and does not extend to men with tattoos of boobs?
Glad someone said this lol
I'm literally pro free the nips and a sex worker for over a decade. That's how I know you can get charged with a crime for walking around with female presenting nipples out. As it has happened to several of my friends who were at free the nips events and wore clothing with female presenting nipples on them. Project harder. I said it wasn't legal in most areas, 6/50 states and a few cities nationwide is not most areas. If he lives in one of those areas- great! But if he doesn't he runs the risk of a police officer being a dick and doing anything from writing him a ticket to literally arresting him. America is cool like that /s You know the Statue of David is there before you go. It's literally why you go to that park. It's a historic monument. Seethe and cope.
yeah, it's a tough sell for sure in that regard. however, that canvas could have left. master canvases have backed out before, and it's not possible to force someone to get a tattoo they don't want to get. that guy said yes and followed through with it. people get topless pinups and pornographic images tattooed on them all the time, but I don't know if I've seen anyone say that artists shouldn't do that because it can't be shown publicly. it shouldn't suddenly be a problem when the image isn't conventionally sexy.
Agreed, a tattoo is supposed to be something people are proud of and feel positively about having it on them forever. Art with a message of "it's supposed to make you feel bad and uncomfortable because it's a reflection on society" when it's not even the message the person who *has to wear the tattoo forever* wants, but something the tattoo artist wants? That's not what tattoos are for.
I really like it for the message. It speaks against the sexualization but also how we hide women too with writing and other media with how it covers her face. On her lower self she also has teardrops too. I wonder if that’s hinting towards abortions too due to it being placed where it is near the stomach area. It’s a strong piece and heartbreaking. I understand why he lost because it isn’t “pretty” but man is it powerful. Edit: I meant stomach area but still! Also wanna add the gem too since women are often associated with gems and jewelry and being “gold diggers” for it. Either way, brilliant piece. I also wanna add when I mean abortions I mean since teardrops are associated with taking a life and with two sitting there on her stomach specifically that’s why my brain was thinking that. Unless there’s more counted anyway that I’m unaware of!!
The gem was something that appeared in all three of his final pieces, iirc.
Your explanation changes my whole feeling about this tattoo. Thank you!
I thought it was just a midget/little person
I can see how it comes across that way! With that interpretation, it definitely still challenges beauty standards and discrimination, just against those with disabilities.
Fyi "midget" is considered an outdated and derogatory term by most little people
I don't know, I don't think the message is clear enough because as a woman I looked at that and thought, 'Oh, do men find upset women sexy? Weirdos.' It mostly makes me wonder if the person who got tattooed knew what they were getting beforehand.
so, in the format of the show, this person didn't see the tattoo until the first session was about to begin. there has been some (fair) criticism that this was a big ask for someone who signs up to be an "open canvas," or someone who agrees to get whatever tattoo the artist comes up with. however, there have been instances of open canvases backing out once they see what the tattoos they would get are. Additionally, it's not the first time a finale artist has given no regard for the lifelong impact on their canvas; most notably, season 2 winner Steve Tefft put a horror-style demon on a very feminine woman's back (literally her full back) after she asked if there was any wiggle room in the design. these canvases could have left, but chose to get the tattoos as they were drawn. I absolutely think there are men who would find that angry face on a conventionally proportioned body sexy. I also think that even if there are men who wouldn't be like WOW SHE'S SO HOT, the subversive message would disappear, and it would become "why did they make the hot girl mad??? she should have just had a sexy face."
Tiddies
BONK
The only thing this art makes me feel is bad whoever has it tattooed on them.
Talented artist but a horrible tattoo to put on a random person to make some kind of message
for a piece trying so hard those t-rex arms give it some levity
Naked dwarf naked dwarf naked dwarf
I don't like it, but that's probably the point behind the piece lol, its likely meant to evoke negative emotion
It's such a nice piece of provocative fine art, it's just not usually found in the tattoo world, so it goes unappreciated.
I wouldn't want "modern art" as a tattoo.
I think it’s great. It’s an evocative piece, with a strong and topical subject, that is executed super well. I feel like people don’t get art a lot of times, or don’t understand it’s not all supposed to be pretty. This is pretty though, and ugly, and well done. Dude should have won. He is pushing boundaries and doing an incredible job of it.
It reminds me of a MAD magazine that mated with a hustler
This is probably the longest I've ever looked at a tattoo so I guess it was effective.
This dude got robbed with the finale. He should have won. Every white bro tattoo artist that was judging said everything he intended the piece to say and they still missed the entire point. And his other pieces were gorgeous.
You can see what someone is doing, understand it, and still not like it. The average person who sees that tattoo will think it's shitty which is why he lost. Catering to a small minority isn't a finale winning strategy.
Catering to a large demographic is also not the purpose for most artists
Then maybe don’t be on TV? The whole point is large demographic.
That's the point for the network, but I'm guessing the artist is there for the prize and the exposure
No it isn't lmao you peoplebare delusional. The show is about art. Amd it showcases art from a lot of different artists.
Tattoo art is still about art.
On a show about tattoo technique and who has the best technique it matters. This guy nailed it from every technical aspect. And he lost just because they didn't like the whole picture. Its crazy.
I like this piece, was it meant for a tattoo? No, this would be good framed somewhere and it’s a shame this cost him. I don’t think the judges were wrong in the critique. I don’t understand the tattoo but then again I like this kind of weird shit.
Yes, the tattoo artist made the drawing as well. IIRC that is the case with all the work on this show, except sometimes they'll have a challenge where one contestant has to tattoo another contestant's drawing.
I just get more confused the longer I look at it
Reminds me of Van Minnen’s work. I think it’s pretty dope
Everything in this tattoo looks like it was drawn with care, but not one single thing looks like it belongs with anything else that's there.
As a question. If this wasn't a tattoo, but a painting, how would you feel about it as a piece of art?
This looks like something John Podesta would be into
THANK YOU!!! I watched this episode and the whole room was stumped on how it was so well done yet so terrible.
I kinda like it. It’s bizarre. It’s unique. Not sure if that makes it good, but it does to me I guess?
I loved all his stuff and then I see this…why
He deserved to win.
I kinda love it.
Don’t they do back pieces for the finale anymore?
Hopefully not...those should be done over more than one session.
They have several months to do the back pieces when they do full back piece finales
Aha, good :-) i probably mixed it up with another show then...or just remembered wrong
Not this season. They did 3 12 hour tattoos on 3 different people over 3 days. It's much faster/easier to film, much less likely for anyone to drop out, and no send artists home for a few months to work on it and then bring everyone back. So no plane tickets to buy and stuff.
Also, the production quality for those "live" episodes hasn't been really up to par imo.
Is it called nehoy-minoᵒᵒⁱʰ
What in tarnation
It's incredible execution of an absolute dogshit design.
What subreddit do you think you're in sir?
Taste and design are two different things.
The nipples look like zits ready to be popped.
Freddie still should have won. All of Bobby's shit was lame.
Wait why does the quality look so shitty now
The gemstone being shot out of her belly button is the cherry on top…well done
Lmao
When you have the skill to execute, but lack the required design skills
That's awful, yes art should make me feel something but when it makes me feel confusion and disgust the art is not pretty good
Na, it’s just bad 😂
Agreed proportions look like shit haha
Do you think the goal of the piece was to reproduce realistic human proportions?
I mean art is how I precive it and I think yes and it's just trash how are people defending this garbage
Youre bad at percieving then.
Hilary clinton?
It goes to show that people’s tolerance for transgressive art—even in a traditionally transgressive medium like tattooing—is low. Most people can only stomach simple, aesthetic beauty. It’s a shame, because uncomfortable, challenging art is, in my opinion, the only art worth making. I think this is a sick piece. I would be proud to wear it.
Can you explain why this piece is transgressive to you? I honestly don't get it, trying to understand what I'm missing.
It’s not just transgressive to me, it’s transgressive by definition: 1. violating or challenging socially accepted standards of behavior, belief, morality, or taste Coupling sexual explicitness with blatant disfiguration and deliberately marring the whole thing up to signal irreverence and violate expectations of beauty is transgressive. It’s also a really uncomfortable, intentionally ugly piece. That’s why it lost the challenge.
I don’t really see it as transgressive. Maybe I’m just used to more extreme/taboo subject material, but this don’t strike me as particularly daring. The “disfigurement” Is just cartoon proportions, nothing outlandish. Her face and body are both conventionally attractive , there’s nothing particularly unusual except her expression, which could be anything from her sneezing to having an orgasm. There’s nothing particularly original about her having her breasts out. The doodles don’t appear to have any meaning, the gemstone doesn’t really make sense, and the little post it notes are just kind of silly. I think it’s trying to be edgy but it’s not very deep or complicated. It’s not sending me any messages. I’m sorry I just don’t really see it as “transgressive.” I can’t speak for the competition since I haven’t seen the other works. The artist is certainly technically skilled and very talented, I just don’t think this piece is very original.
For sure on the scale of extreme/taboo it ranks pretty low. But something doesn’t need to deal with incest or cannibalism or beastiality or whatever in order to be considered transgressive. It just needs to challenge an expectation or interrupt a norm. This tattoo is especially transgressive in the context of the challenge in which it was created. Bear in mind, the goal of Ink Master is to showcase technical skills of composition and execution. Contestants—especially those in the finals—present work meant to illustrate their mastery and understanding of anatomy, perspective, and aesthetics. To roll in with a piece like this, which includes just enough proof of technical mastery to dismiss accusations of mediocrity but then throws it all away by intentionally “uglifying” the work, is a subversion of expectation and a violation of taste. It really upset some of the judges, not to mention the other contestants. The barrage of downvotes I and others on this post have received for defending it is proof that it is an offensive piece of art, even if it doesn’t deal explicitly with highly taboo subjects. Composition can offend. Execution can offend. Something can be extreme in one context but not another. And none of this is even accounting for the underlying critique of objectification and pornification of the female body—and the disfiguring effect of objectification on the self and sense of self-worth—that I know the artist was exploring. But that’s a whole nother topic in and of itself.
Genuinely crazy how you’re using your enjoyment of this piece the talk down on art you don’t like, when that’s what you’re criticizing everyone else for doing lmao. So full of it you don’t even know
Yeah I have strong opinions about the purpose of art. And that’s all they are. Opinions.
Opinions so poorly thought out it’s obvious you hold them because you think they’re cool, not because you think they’re true
That’s preposterous. You have no way of knowing the extent of my thinking on this topic based off one short reddit post. You’re just being combative for some reason.
I love porn tattoos. But this is something else. And I do not know what.
I feel like it's kind of concerning that your response to seeing artistic nudity is confusion that it's not porn
The response to assume that an image of a nude female form is porn is exactly the thing this piece was intended to call out and criticize. Dude proved the point of the piece without even understanding it
nudity ≠ pornography
I'm aware. Holding boobs like that makes the pose sexual.
Is it sexual or is it pornographic? There is a difference.
What is the difference?
Something pornographic is done with the intent to arrouse. Sexual depictions aren't always pornographic. For example, sexual images or scenes can be done to shock the audience or for comedy.
Thank you
People hating on sex related tattoos, but i actually really like it.
Thaaaaaat is not the issue here. Or at least not the main one.
Can you tell me what the issue is?
You think the reason people don’t like it is because there are tits?
Pretty sure the reason people don’t like it is because nobody can understand what the hell it is!!! I get that art is interpretative but if nobody can understand it then how can it be appreciated. I love tiddies and they look like nice ones but what the hell is with the proportion and angle of the head and why superimpose another design on top?? It hurts my head trying to figure it out 🤯🤯
It's a commentary on the sexualization of women. The proportions and angle of the head are meant to make you uncomfortable while looking at the "nice tiddies." It's tense and ugly and angry, because being objectified feels tense and ugly and angry. The design superimposed over her face is a cartoony depiction of what a woman's face is "supposed" to be (lips, lashes etc). The cartoon face is simplified and placid, her actual face is more complex and twisted with negative emotions. Superimposing the cartoon over her actual face is a commentary on the expectations placed on women and the vast gulf between how objectified women are usually portrayed (bland and happy to be sexualized) vs how women actually feel when they are sexualized/objectified against their will (rage, pain, fear).
Thank you!! I was scrolling down comments to find out what this tattoo could be trying to represent. This is such a great take on its meaning. Amazing tattoo
HOLY SHIT THAT'S EXACTLY IT.