tattoos against the grain

"drawing contains all the fundamental aspects of the "higher" plastic arts ... 

it precisely measures the artist's thought process with a raw expediency 

and an economy of form which shares no equal in all of the arts ... 

yet it rides content in the back seat of art's luxury ... 

and harbors no pretension, 

as honest and visceral as a two year old child. "

-©happell

lately i have been giving a lot of thought to the process of tattooing, wishing that people would be more amenable toward being tattooed less like a tattoo and more like a drawing.

this comes from the fact that drawings for tattoo designs have a charm and a presence which diminishes when they are translated into the "expected norm" for tattooing: 

the expectation is for one to translate the drawing into a more or less graphic design, with clean bold outlines and appropriate shading or coloring for both the piece and the client's skin tone.  

this is not to say that there are not realists and/or super realists who translate tattoos in a more painterly or photographic style, which carries a "wow" factor for sure ... where people are mesmerized by the way something can look so "real". 

i personally don't understand the desire for something in the skin that looks "real" ...  

it seems to be an idea mislead. 

that is, we all know that what is in/on the skin in the form of a tattoo, is indeed a tattoo, and not the "real" thing.

my question is: why aren't tattoos more like art and less like tattoos?!