It is a hard fact that fair talent may not be taught or fostered within the aforementioned time frame. And the necessary negative repercussion would be the propagation of dreadful tattoos and 'scratchers' who work out of home or from equally un-hygienic venues. Acceptance that similar works can be produced by untalented hacks would more offend those who operate under delusions of grandeur in regards to the quality of their work or those who have settled for similar works under the delusion of it being art. The TLC 'Tattoo School' is truly an appalling creation yet, its very existence raises deep seeded questions of acceptability and standards in tattooing as a practice.
First we face the ask of why the TLC 'Tattoo School' was even green-lighted. Standard Western mass entertainment can be neatly summarized in two words: 'reality television'. Highly staged shows with star-struck participants claim to offer viewers some recent stance that is magically one step closer to exact life than other productions. From the Jerry Springer indicate, to Cops, American Idol and tremendous Brother inquire of for reality T.V. has only been on the rise. Speaking from a South East Asian viewpoint the television productions of "Miami" and "LA Ink" did wonders for titanic public acceptance of tattooing.
Tattoos moved from an underground practice reserved for criminals to, if not a type of collectable, then at least a noteworthy more acceptable lifestyle choice. Reality television in this case had a distinct influence in intelligent outdated perceptions. Yet the two aforementioned tattooing programs featured established artists in studios of some repute. Therefore the quality of tattoo work produced had already been voted as acceptable through basic economics of the studios continued presence. 'Tattoo School' is the litmus test of how far the public's acceptance of any kind of tattoo can be pushed. In a kind of Hegelian dialectic tattoo acceptance was initiated ('LA Ink'), tattoo standards are now in ask ('Tattoo School'), and the result should be a synthesis of quality and acceptability. In the same insultingly hypocritical vein as Jerry Springer's closing remarks of "... capture care of yourself and each other", TLC's 'Tattoo School' is a reflection of the standards we possess each other accountable to. Here the synthesis being initiated with the acknowledgment of the contrast between 'markings classified as tattoos' on the one side and 'tattoo art' on the other.
Could the negative reaction to the 'Tattoo School' be considered a execute of artistic elitism? Perhaps there were no other possible avenues that the 'Tattoo School' participants could have explored? An extremely well known television personality by the name of Bob Ross popularized landscape painting. His half hour program opened with him standing in front of a blank canvas, brush and palette in hand. After some suitable hints and gentle commentary one ended the program faced with a comely, albeit sometimes clichéd, nature scene. Art and construct do not need to be taken in concentrated doses.
In most branches of art there is room for those who dabble in drawing, paint for recreation and rob up sculpture in their garage. And the grandest of educations does not guarantee aptitude. Yet tattoo art is the personalized culmination of acquire, physiology and artistic vision that is evidently not accessible to all. Options of amateur participation should extend only to activities that pose no physical concern to participants. In the same method that one must sit for a drivers' license or contemplate for a nursing qualification - control must be placed on activities that pose serious risks to health and safety if carried out by unqualified individuals. The 'Tattoo School' program has fundamentally failed in this respect.
If the 'Tattoo School' was produced by a single studio on a shoestring budget then the idea of the school itself as well as the supposed training offered would be dismissed as a joke. Reality shows like Donald Trump's The Apprentice or The Dragons Den can develop an illusion of proximity and therefore ability. The incongruence of perceived versus steady ability coming from long term indoctrination. Simply, value is attributed to that which people judge ample to characterize. The camera's presence helps substantiate most any action recorded, an attain that worthy of MTV's Jackass popularity relies on. Therefore participants of these shows have a kind of automatic authority. With viewers, possibly connecting to or empathizing with the participants' course of logic, then being validated for congruent capabilities. Mr. X is someone worth watching. Mr. X did something I could have done! I am as generous as Mr. X. Psychologically, the chain of logic is massively noteworthy considering the perceived potential audience of these 'reality' shows. If 'monkey peek - monkey do' works anywhere, it certainly does not pertain to tattooing. The core foundation of TLC's 'Tattoo School' seems based around the convoluted logic that the cameras will somehow provide the authority of action so desperately lacking.
The production of the 'Tattoo School' was fundamentally pre-approved through long term public acceptance of sub-standard tattooing. TLC's 'Tattoo School' is simply a culmination of complacency. If the differentiation between unpleasant work and tattoo art is made definite, then the school itself will be publically rejected as hastily as a Nigerian phising scam. Quality standards of tattoo art are appropriately being called into demand. Yet instead of berating the symptom, end the cause. If abominable tattoos are truly not acceptable - TLC's 'Tattoo School' won't be either.
