Thursday, May 24, 2007

isThis Gratuitous? Cover to PVP #33


PVP #33
Originally uploaded by Heidi Meeley
Well it's official, Gang. Scott Kurtz is down with the "tramp stamp" ( a "How I Met Your Mother" reference, as to not seem overly offensive). The lower back tattoo on young, fit women is like a badge of honor. It can look fantastic to be sure. God knows if I had a lower back like that and drank a bit too much whiskey, I might consider it... well, probably not now, but maybe 15 years ago.

Kurtz uses the lower back tattoo as his logo and it does look groovy, but in my mind it could be construed as gratuitous. Readers will either love the cover or hate it. I doubt there will be a lot of middle ground.

I just keep thinking of Wedding Crashers, and Vince Vaughn's infamous quote: "Tattoo on the lower back... might as well be a bullseye". Nice. Real nice. Makes a girl feel... awkward.

Any gals out there with a hot lower back tattoo? Was it painful? What kind of reaction do you get? I am really curious.

Guys, what do you think?

Last but not least: Is this gratuitous?

12 comments:

Carl said...

I swear I've seen a cover similar to this recently. I can't remember it though. Hmmmmm, I don't know, it's pretty much getting the 'tramp stamp' is pretty common these days. I remember gasping when one of my 'good girl' friends once bent over in front of me and her shirt rode up and there was one. I'm not sure, it's really not a buttocks-cupping pair of super-tight jeans or really cut back-side, nice but average. While I hate tattoos (gosh, I want to stand out, ssssssooo the fact that everyone including grandma who just turned 75 has one doesn't mean anything) but this one and the pose wouldn't bother me much...

Paul McCall said...

I'd rate it low on the gratuitous scale, very low due to the prevalence of those things these days. Why get a tattoo? You can't see it and appreciate any artistic value because if you can see it at all it's either upside down or reversed as you see it in a mirror! And the things invariably go all green with age, even if you keep it out of the sun. Does it make you look sexy? Maybe to someone else with tats but in my opinion if a woman has one in a private area and shows it to me then that just means she had that private area hanging out in a retail environment. Not terribly romantic or sexy! As an artist I can't think of any image I'd want permanently applied to my body for the "benefit" of people looking at me, publicly or privately. Also as an artist I wouldn't design any comic character with tats because it's one more thing to remember to get right in every panel, like an overly detailed costume.

Mark Engblom said...

I personally detest tattoos of any kind, on male or females. It's always seemed vain and desperate.

Swinebread said...

Nah, not gratuitous… it too humorous with the cartoony style

Lisa said...

Honestly, I love the cover. It's not like she's got the logo tattooed on her breast. Nothing overly gratuitous about lower back ink, in my opinion.

My sister has a cool lower back tattoo. I have a tattoo, but not on my lower back. My mom has a cool tattoo on her back between her shoulder blades. I'd get more tattoos if my husband wasn't so set against them. Personally, I consider them body art and don't find them to be tacky at all.

spleenal said...

not gratuitous enough!

raistlinsghost said...

Not at all gratuitous in my opinion. Not a lot to make a case for degradation about the female lower back, tattooed or otherwise.

I have a few tats myself and in moderation, I love them on either sex.

But your post did remind me of a billboard I once saw that showed a woman's naked back and a prominent tattoo displayed, with the caption 'Tattoo Artists of America: Letting you know which girls like it from behind for over 40 years' or something to that effect.

Now that, on a comic cover, would be gratuitous.

Heidi Meeley said...

Carl, for some reason it looked familiar to me as well. I can't place it.

Heidi Meeley said...

Paul and Mark: I know of several men, including my husband, that detest tattoos. I personally don't have an objection to them other then I don't want one myself.

When I was 20 years old I wanted a Motley Crue style tattoo. Being scared to death of my father and his hatred of tats, I promised myself that I would wait until I was 30, and if I still wanted a tat I could get it. Well, 30 rolled around and I didn't want it, so I am glad I waited. Personally, it is not for me.

On the other hand, I have seen a tattoo that was a loving tribute to a lost family member on a friend. It choked me up and I thought it was lovely.

I guess it just depends on the situation.

Heidi Meeley said...

Swinebread, Spleenal, Raistlin's Ghost:

I am going to agree that this just really isn't gratuitous. It is mostly just cute. I am so glad that I have started this feature though- it gives me a chance to hash it out with excellent people like yourselves!

Heidi Meeley said...

Lisa, thank you for sharing that! I think that a tattoo can be well done and be lovely. It just depends on the person and the situation.

Where I work out, there is a 63 year old lady with a large flower tattooed on her breast. I personally don't think it is at all flattering, and that is not a place I would get a tat, but she wears it with pride. Her hubby has several on his arms and they are really a cute couple, so it works.
I think it is all about personal preference. While it is not for me, it is much like most art- a deep personal expression. Who am I to judge?

samax said...

not particularly gratuitous to me... i thought it was clever...