Biblioposse, I need your fashion advice once again. I did, as the popular will demanded, die my hair burgandy (well, I tried to dye it burgandy, but I left the color in a wee too long, and it's rather more aubergine, or rather nearly black, at the moment. But it will wash out over time. The voice of the people has been heard).
And now the time comes for your input on an even bigger decision: where to place my dazzling new Mucha tattoo. There are various considerations involved for me: the location of my other (upper back, left arm) and possible future (lower back? lower arms?) tattoos; the necessity of getting tenure and hence having at least moderate discretion; the way that it will look on my body. I'll have to sort through this rather complicated calculus, somehow, between now and Saturday at 1PM. But your thoughts/instincts/gay eye for the tattooed girl would be welcome indeed. There are really just two options for this one. Let me know where you think I should ink.
And just to clarify the options: the tattoo will be, I hope, about 5-6" long, and it will be in full color (my other two are basically black only, though one has a couple of spots of color). Option 1: If I put in on my right upper arm, it will face outward, and occupy the negative space that the left arm tattoo doesn't fill. In other words, the two will be staggered, not mirror-imaged, and their shapes would be nicely complementary. One benefit of placing it here is that I won't need to change how I dress, really, on days when I have to cover up--anything t-shirt length or more will do the job, just as it does now. It would look damn good, and I'd get to see it easily, and it would aesthetically balance the rather chunky, bold tattoo on the left arm. However, it would make me a bit top-heavy and maybe too symmetrical, with one tattoo on my upper back and one on each arm.
Option 2: If I put it on my right leg, it will go on the outside of the leg, somewhat above the ankle bone. It will hurt more, but whatever. It will balance things out nicely (upper left arm, upper back, lower right leg). There would be a nice congruity between medium and message: the design is Mucha's "Dance," and it implies movement, and so the leg would kinda make sense. The negative of this placement would be that on days where I have to cover up, I'd have to cover up more of me--now we're not talking only t-shirt, but t-shirt and boots, or opaque stockings, or pants. Bibliogal does like to trounce around in skirts. But on the third hand, there is something less--confrontational? aggressive?--about a tattoo on the lower leg than on the upper arm. So maybe I decide not to wear sleeveless shirts/dresses to school, but not worry about the leg, at least after I've been there a few months. For really, who would object to one feminie tattoo above the ankle? It's a piece of art, after all. And what's the point of getting all these lovely tattoos if I'm only going to hide them?
These, my friends, are the considerations. I have 48 hours to decide. You can help. Please vote!
Recent Comments