Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Ask DB1: Are all Tatts Douchey?


—-
my humble narrator-

love your site. i myself work in a d-bag haven, a motorcycle shop. there’s enough affliction and ed hardy in there to choke a horse. but i digress.

my question is why do tattoos deserve douchebag status?

while many people have regrettable tattoos, myself included, there are many great tattoos and tattoo artists that deserve recognition for their artwork. do all tattoos denote douche? or are some acceptable? i have some of my full sleeves done and i looked at many artist’s online portfolios, reviews and shops before deciding who to use. it’s been a great experience and i know for a fact i’m not a douchebag or dress like one.

— american bagger
—-

Good question, A.B. This brings us back to the conceptual tagging of adouchrements as we saw in last week’s car discussion. How abstract can we go in conceptually placing a category or item as douche?

My first instinct is to resist too broad a douchal categorization. For it is in the specific use of iconography, myth, signifier and item that douchery is created. Therefore tatts are not inherently douchey, by definition.

But the overt display of tatts, done as masculine proving ground and predicated on the notion of spectacle to attract the boobie hottie, always is.

# posted by douchebag1

Leave a Reply

What is 15 + 3 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)