Tattoos: immediate gratification and addiction

In the world of tattooing there is a common phrase, “tattoos are addictive”. Once the newly inked ones are received, they are said to begin contemplating other possible designs, locations, and projects. Perhaps this propensity could be simplified in economic terms and, considering the highly detrimental long-lasting effects of bad tattoos, correctly classified as an addiction.

Outside of genuine cultural practices, popularized tattoo trends can be broadly considered a postmodern flattening of heritage. It is now perfectly common to see people of clear Caucasian descent wearing full traditional Japanese sleeves. Non-Buddhists covered in Thai temple script they couldn’t read or translate if their lives depended on it and Polynesian bracelets on Americans who haven’t left the country. The intent is not to restrict or judge your choice simply to state that the brands themselves have now been frequently reclassified as stylistic preferences.

There is no way to objectively classify taste. As the story is often overlooked or mixed up, skill in application and design is everything. The ‘authenticity’ now stays with the tattoo artist. Regardless of the theme, there are two differentiating principles: talent and uniqueness. In the same way that Picasso would not have painted a great Jackson Pollack, talent arises from selection and dedication to a specific set of techniques. This does not imply that the content must remain uniform. Each artist has a particular skill set that is best suited to their own formula for creativity. Talent connotes a representative skill set, while uniqueness means that the artist does not rely on already completed works. Without his skill set, the job is reduced to duplication. In tattooing, technique is an additional consideration. Using the skin as a canvas, an artist may have the gift of recreating classic paintings or portraits. The uniqueness here stems not from the designs themselves, but from the artists’ ‘proprietary’ technical application.

The talent and uniqueness classifiers set a reasonable benchmark of quality. The difference between good and bad body art is potentially harmful duplication without a proprietary or noticeable technique. A bad tattoo is then an inferior and culturally empty replica. Also, tattoos, except for painful and expensive removal, are permanent. A bad tattoo can not only be artistically flawed, but it can also damage the skin and remain an indelible public scar (damage here refers to both potential physical and cosmetic detriment). The changing personal or cultural meaning of these marks is, by its time-locked, unpredictable nature. The full extent of the damage a bad tattoo can cause is then all too understandable long after the procedure.

When judging the number of bad tattoos becomes a tax concern. A single bad tattoo can stand out as such when viewed in isolation. Whereas a person who has dedicated significant portions of skin to bad tattoos can transform these pieces into a ‘collection’. Dedication itself lends authenticity or credibility to substandard work that can then be viewed as a whole. In a ‘strength in numbers’ type of mentality, a bad collection of tattoos can often be seen as a justifiable choice after the fact.

In the pre-Internet years, ignorance of the various levels of quality possible in body art might have been a plausible justification for the selection of substandard work. This, coupled with much higher barriers to entry for international travel and the likely geographic proximity of average studios, meant that options appeared to be limited. Today, the average cost of getting tattooed classifies it more as a luxury pursuit. If one could afford a large tattoo from a typical studio, one would most likely also have the means to acquire adequate disposable income for others. Which means the average tattoo seeker could research several studios and travel farther from home for the appointment.

In an open economy, the fact that there are still artists who produce exceptional work and artists who produce poor work confirms two points. First, there is wide recognition of the differentiation between the two. Second, there continues to be a demand for both. Here we can explore the choice of good or bad tattoos in economic terms. The most influential psychological selection factors are immediate gratification and addiction.

Immediate gratification:

Actions can be simplified into perceived costs and rewards. Cost actions are those that require resources to be carried out. Filing your taxes, paying your bills, going to school, or finishing chores around the house could all be considered costs. Actions with anticipated benefits are rewards. Rewards usually make you feel good or add value. The question of gratification, immediate or deferred, comes down to the perceived costs and rewards of an action within a time line.

A person can be said to be ‘sophisticated’ or ‘naive’ when it comes to understanding the perceived costs and rewards of their choices. The more in line your own understanding of the actual costs or rewards of a given situation is with your choices, the higher the level of sophistication. A naive is someone unable to reason properly or consider the effects of his actions. Immediate gratification has negative connotations because costs are avoided and only perceived instant rewards are sought, which can lead to higher, albeit delayed, costs. A sophisticate might be distinguished by his capacity for delayed gratification.

However, self-awareness should not be celebrated too much just yet. It has been concluded in numerous studies that the recognition of a problem with self-control could, on the contrary, make the situation worse. Sophisticates may reason that since they know they might have a problem with something in the future, they better get it out of the way and do it now. Here we venture into the idea of ​​addiction. In consideration of immediate or delayed gratification, the addict mindset may reason that the worse the possible future indulgence, the less harm the current indulgence poses. The predilection for indulgence or immediate gratification then becomes a justifiable pursuit based on self-predictable behavior. In both the sophisticated and the naive, the timeline upon which actions will be properly judged is often evaded for a variety of reasons.

Addiction:

Although traditionally linked to chemical dependencies such as drug and alcohol use, addiction encompasses a variety of behaviors. Being addicted is being psychologically hooked on a certain action or set of actions despite the consequences. Just as smokers inhale regardless of the cancer warnings on the packages, sex addicts continue their promiscuous behavior despite knowing they can harm themselves. Once classified as an addict, the choice may also be affected physiologically. There have been descriptions of the addicted brain that is programmed to pre-accept a chance for indulgence in said addiction. Meaning that if you were to ask the drug addict to make another decision, it may have been made in the affirmative before you could consciously process or even answer the question.

An argument could be made for tattoos to be exempt from an addiction classification. There is certainly no evidence that tattooing poses long-term health risks in the same way that nicotine or alcohol abuse does. And in most countries it is a legal activity generally restricted to consenting adults and generally does not pose a risk of imprisonment. However, proceeding with permanent bodily alterations with knowledge of one’s own inferior selection can be considered a form of self-harm.

As classified in the Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMV-IV-TR), self-harm is listed as a symptom of borderline personality disorder. It is often used as a coping mechanism for deep-seated feelings, usually of stress, inadequacy, anger, anxiety, or depression. Bad tattoos, if viewed as self-harm, can satisfy both attention-getting and anger-seeking dissociative behavior symptoms (two motivations commonly attributed to self-harm). Far from splurging on an unhealthy meal, having a big night out, or treating yourself, a tattoo is a permanent mark with little to no chance of alteration. People can lose weight, take medication, and even scars can heal. However, the placement of ink in the dermis that remains visible for a lifetime is a one-time, largely unalterable action. The deliberate selection of a bad tattoo and the possible subsequent conscious or unconscious repetition is more like a type of body dysmorphia.

To reiterate the differentiation above, bad body art is potentially damaging and culturally void duplication done without a proprietary or noteworthy technique. Selection implications are commonly overlooked due to an often non-temporary misalignment of associated actual costs and rewards. In other words, the timeline for the presence of tattoos is generally inconceivable. Therefore, the rewards of immediate gratification are inflated. A reality that is later masked through the commitment to the ‘collection’. In a world of choice, the conscious choice of an inferior tattoo, whether attributed to any range of emotions from subculture participation to ease of application, is a form of self-harm.

This conclusion could raise the question, why choose to get tattooed? The sophisticated course of action would be the initial selection of a unique piece from a talented artist. Despite the higher upfront costs, gratification is delayed for the sake of experience and distinction. Therefore, regardless of personal preferences or changing points of view, a good tattoo in itself is still artistically valuable. However, only when consciously deliberated in light of the facts does this choice become yours.