In the June 1, 2009 issue of Time Magazine, Anita Hamilton wrote a brief article detailing a new method of tattoo ink removal. This revolutionary ink type was modified from its original version for the sake of tattoo appearance, but slightly increases the amount of laser removal sessions than its novel predecessor to remove.
I sent a copy of the following scan to the Flickr: HanziSmatter.com group for Tian to see. Hopefully, he’ll get a kick out of it:
My sister and I have talked about getting tattoos together. This has been an ongoing debate for years, but I never seem to imagine a design meaningful enough to get placed on my skin permanently. The tattoo would have to be customized and completely pertinent to something integral to my life philosophy if I were to get one. It’s difficult to encompass that much in one graphic, and another challenge completely to make it worthwhile enough to embed on my body. The only problem I have with the aforementioned article is that the title seems to promote impulsive action by people to run out and get tattoos. The term ‘fickle’ doesn’t seem appropriate here either, with its definition suggesting a characteristic of one lacking “steadfastness, constancy, or stability.” Indecisiveness and uncertainty are not markers of the fickle in this situation, but of one recognizing the weight of such a decision. LOLTatz showcases those who could have used a sense of hesitancy before committing to a tattoo. It’s my goal to avoid placement on this site, if I ever get inked.
I am a fan of lolliebottoms on BlogTV though. She is a well-known tattoo artist who livestreams when putting her creative talent to use on clients in ink. It’s entertaining to watch, if slightly bloody at times, but she creates beautiful work. You can also stop by and take the chance that I’m broadcasting; have a chat.
Article Source:
Hamilton, Abigail. “Too Fickle for a Tattoo? Easier-to-remove ink is now available.” Time 1 June 2009: 53.
