I think the designer should have the call about visible tattoos. I'm personally not one to enjoy seeing tattoos, but if a designer is ok with the model shot, there should be no problem. I just don't want the tat to deter from the design. I believe that's a designer's call, not mine.
Is it possible to see a picture of the models in question? In lieu of that, I suppose my answer would be: depends on the subject matter of the tattoo. If the tattoo is obscene or questionable (a very hard thing to define as it's subjective), i would say it has no place in any magazine aimed at a large audience. If it's not than I really don't care ... I even enjoy having my horizon broadened by things I may not myself support or participate in. I have to admit, that as a logical person but especially as an artist, I find this line of thought a bit disturbing in this day & age where we would all like to consider ourselves more enlightened and accepting of the differences among us. I'm curious if the offended parties would also be offended if Interweave used mentally or physically handicapped models in their magazines?
Using the same line of reasoning from the "I'm completely against it" posts, i could argue that leg braces, or a wheelchair, or anything similar could be considered "distracting" from the purpose of the article. I would be willing to bet that not so many of your readers would jump on that particular bandwagon, especially in such a public forum. Now, I'm sure the defense mechanisms of the nay-sayers immediately jump to "but those aren't a result of choices the models made!" ... "that's a totally different circumstance" or any such other lame excuse/nonsense, but you really have no way of knowing that from a picture in a magazine, now do you?
How about, instead of immediately jumping to condemn that which you might not necessarily believe in or support, you take a moment to turn the page ... pick up a different magazine ... or go on your merry way with your thought firmly stuck in your brain instead of plastered all over the internet like a spoiled child who hasn't gotten their way. Maybe we should all try to be a little more open-minded, understanding, and accepting of those who don't share our beliefs or look exactly like us. Maybe instead of condemning that which you don't understand or like, you simply choose to let it go instead. The world is not YOUR oyster ... it belongs to all of us, and I don't particularly like being told what is or is not apropriate for my eyes to look upon in a magazine.
I just have to say that I was pleasantly surprised to see models with tattoos! As a knitter with a few tattoos of my own, I appreciate that Interweave does not discriminate against a model because she has some body art, or air brush the tattoos out so as not to "offend" anyone. In my opinion, none of the models had tattoos that distracted from the garment being showcased. I enjoy Interweave Knits and will continue to be a loyal subscriber!
As a knitter with tattoos, I also appreciate seeing models in knitting mags with tattoos as well. I know many people who don't like tattoos ( my husband among them) and my advice there is "Don't get any". I am not a 20-something who makes decisions she may regret a couple of years later, but a 50-something who has some tattoos that are over 30 years old. I still love them. I also love seeing real people modeling in magazines so that I can see what my handknitted creations will look like in real sizes on real people ( like me) I am happy that magazines are beginning to use models other than ONLY small and so generic that you don't notice them. And btw: I loved the model's tattoos.
I remember this issue and I distinctly remember the tattoos. Unfortunately, they contrasted so much with the sweater design that I DO NOT remember the knitted items the models were wearing. When the tattoo sticks out from the edge of a garment and detracts from the clean lines of the sweater or garment, it diminishes the impact of the knitting design. When the tattoo is especially large and only a portion of it shows, it adds an element of chaos to the photo because the tattoo itself is not complete.
As the parent of a two handicapped individuals, I am keenly aware of the treatment of people with disabilities. I would like to let the previous commenter know that there have been models in wheelchairs, with braces and with mental disabiities in several of the magazines already. I do not find their handicaps and necessary braces or wheelchairs as detracting from the sweater design. I think the real issue is that the art work within the tattoo contrasts with the design of the sweater. It's not the size, shape, color, disability or ethnic heritage of the model (I'm plus size and the patterns are never large enough), but the fact that attention is drawn away from the designer's wonderful work and to the tattoo work instead.
Those who enjoy tattoos will readily admit that their interest was drawn to the tattoo artwork. Tattoo haters will also admit that their interest was drawn to the tattoo artwork. The point is that in both instances is that the tattoos were the center of interest rather than the sweater. If the idea is to promote the pattern, the yarn, and the magazine, then having large and obvious tattoos certainly distracts the reader from the subject matter of the magazine/design. If I wanted to sell my design, I'd like it on the most complementary model for the design.
I can respect the objection that having a tattoo adds visual chaos to a photo, though I might not agree. I just wish that the discussion had started out on that note, rather than insulting people with tattoos as "tastless" and expressing horror that a tattooed model had ever been hired.
I love seeing models that are closer to realistic than not. Tattoos are realistic. If a person hyper focuses on the tattoo to the exclusion of everything else then that is a perception issue on their part. It isn't hard to take the time to move ones focus from a single element of a picture to the picture as a whole and even then refocus again on a different single element, if that person wants to do that. Many times people won't take the time to appreciate every aspect of an image. The fault does not lie with the composer/designer/publisher at that point. It is the choice of the consumer to not look past their own prejudices and opinion and look at something without judgement.
Keep up the good work Interweave and bring us more realistic models of every shape, size, handicap, ethnicity, and body mods. I appreciate it.
yes thanks for your comment. if we do not have the freedom to speak our minds what do we have? It is a basic constitutional right. But not doing so to undermine, belittle, or bully anyone for his or her beliefs or ideals. If we keep that in mind, we can promote communication & understanding.
And all the women who were wise of heart spun with their hands, and they kept bringing as yarn the blue thread and the wool dyed reddish purple, the coccus scarlet material and the fine linen. Ex. 35:25
Thanks for your comment. I agree 100%!
I absolutely agree with dawgfan. Those who are defending tattoos seem to be putting words into the mouths of those who don't like them. I also agree that tattoos can be distracting and can ruin the looks of certain garments. After all, nothing goes with everything and once you have a tattoo, it's there forever for all intents and purposes.
Yes, spinninyarns, that's exactly the point!
Strangely, I do not remember anywhere near the response to the model years ago in Vogue Knitting who was in her 60's and had a neck tat at a time when they weren't that common in general circulation ( the tattoos, not the magazine) I recall the model being striking, the tattoo being tasteful and the clothes she modeled being very nice as well. When I look at the sweaters being modeled by the tattooed model in Knitscene, it is not hard at all to see the garment, including its clean lines. I would hope that anyone looking at the design could distinguish something made out of yarn and having texture from something 2-dimensional made out of ink. Just saying that prejudice shouldn't keep us from seeing what we are trying to look at.
I agree that tats are realistic, and some of them are quite attractive and ingenious. I also agree that we can and should look past them to the garment and not let our prejudices determine whether we like the pattern or not. If not, the looker is as shallow as the tattoo.
I have a question
what this? cach giam beo