On second thought, if she really wants to try Berkeley off, give her a sharpie and have her try it out for a couple weeks.
On second thought, if she really wants to try Berkeley off, give her a sharpie and have her try it out for a couple weeks.
I'm not sure I've ever considered what is written on someone's foot when dealing with them. It's just not the place I tend to look to for guidance on how to interact with them or to try to figure out what makes them tick. Hopefully her battles with substance abuse are not permanent, but this proposed tattoo will be. Choose carefully.
SVreX wrote: While I agree with your sentiment regarding the statue, I also recognize the criticisms. It's not really an "addition" to the statuary- it is a defacing of it which completely undermines the artist's intent. The artist who created "Raging Bull" is more upset than anyone. It is the artistic equivalent of painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. Plus, it wasn't done for social or altruistic reasons at all. It was created by a company for purely commercial purposes. They wanted attention, and are getting it. So, yes I like it, but I also understand why it is inappropriate.
Anyone up for a GRM field trip to the Louvre'? I'll bring the sharpies.
As far as being commercial, so was the bull. It's Wall Street. Everything is commercial and about money. (see the # of lawsuits the artist has filed over his "Guerilla Art". I don't mind him making money off of it. Just call it what it is.)
as far as the the tat.
In reply to ultraclyde:
A good friend has that tattooed on his arm. He does B2B sales though, so it's always concealed - even on golf outings. 
In reply to FlightService:
I don't agree with you about the commercial nature of "Charging Bull".
It was paid for by the artist (at a cost of $360,000), installed without permit by the artist (which makes it "Guerilla Art"), confiscated by the city, and now sits in it's place under a temporary permit (which has been in place since 1989). The artist retains ownership.
Yes, he has sought to profit from it. That just makes him an artist trying to earn a living, like every other artist.
It was not commissioned by any Wall Street entity.
"Fearless Girl" was commissioned by State Street Global Advisers as an advertisement, and placed the day before International Women's Day, to promote their gender-diverse index fund (which trades as SHE). The plaque at the base reads, "Know the power of women in leadership. SHE makes a difference". (Capitalized for emphasis regarding their NASDAQ index fund). It was placed with a permit (therefore not "Guerilla Art")
Those are rather different approaches.
Additionally, "Fearless Girl" requires the presence of "Charging Bull" to have meaning at all. Without it, she's just a silly girl with her hands on her hips.
She changes the meaning of "Charging Bull", just like a moustache would change the Mona Lisa.
All of these are exactly the reasons why I suggested the image for this young woman. The statue (and the controversy around it) are what she seems to be trying to communicate.
A skull and crossbones don't communicate anything to me other than today might be "Talk like a Pirate Day". 
Edit: There is also a BIG difference between an artist seeking compensation for his artwork, and an investment agency seeking to profit by using another artist's intellectual property for their own gain, without compensation.
In reply to iadr:
No one has suggested it (for good reason), but this may be the symbol you are looking for:
Possibly not relevant here, but the other night Mrs. VCH and I were at a playground and another couple showed up, dressed in black, tatted out, with their kids. We struck up a conversation with them and the woman asked my wife about her leg tattoo (she has a '68 Camaro there). The lady then proceeded to tell us about her OVER 20 different tattoos.
In the same conversation, the couple bemoaned the general cost of housing, health care, child care, food, etc etc.
Later on, I asked my wife how much a decent tattoo costs. She told me when she had her last one done (she has two, total) it was about $200. That was 10 years ago. So this woman from the park has roughly $4000 (at least) of permanent markings on her body, all of which have essentially zero value (they can't be sold back, that is).
EDIT: not to mention the unknown (but very likely) negative effects the numerous tattoos have had on her earnings potential.
Yeah. Housing costs sure are a bitch. 
I have to say getting "berkeley Off" tated on you is close equivalency to get a neck tattoo. May seem cool at the time, but quickly regrettable when you get older or mature. Seriously, she's 19. Think of all the bad decisions you made when 19...
I always trip out when I see moms around my kids school with questionable tats. Maybe having a mom that looks like a stripper from a skanky strip club is cool?
That being said, the Anarchy symbol would be a cool and nearly matching tattoo to put on the other foot. even a middle finger would be classier than "berkeley Off". Not that she's going to appreciate any of our input.
Just make sure it can be easily covered up. At all times, including everything short of the locker room.
My niece has to have the most inappropriate tattoo I've seen in the flesh. It's not the bear claws on her cleavage, oh no it's m much worse than that. You know how 2pac had "Thuglife" on his stomach? Yeah? Well replace "Thuglife" with "homewrecker". Seriously.
She could omit the lettering and it would 'match' but be ying yang right left.
Not a tattoo guy but thought about something like this when I was younger...liked the book and the cover art. (Glad I didn't)
'Duality of man' sort of thing is what she's going for...of course this covers both...so probably not a good choice.
Three posts in a row...I must have issues.
Check out @suckytattoos on insta... Not safe for work, funny AND depressing.
It's her foot, her message. Berkeley off.
No tats as I am too frugal and also avoid pain, but do people actually ask what one's tats mean?
In reply to etifosi:
I do.
I used to keep quiet about it. Now, I figure someone spent a lot of time and money choosing to paint in themselves whatever it is. They must WANT to be seen.
So as a rule, I ask. Usually leads to a good conversation.
In reply to SVreX:
I find it humorous that no one cares about the backstory, how it was paid for by a Wall Street firm as advertising and given a place after a number of sneaky workarounds once the board members of that firm put money in the mayor's PAC.
Look at the photos and you can see it's not actually in the park the bull is in, but on an extension that was added to the island. If it went in the park the community board would have had a notice ruining the faux surprise placement of it and they could possibly veto it. By placing it on the newly built traffic island it falls under DOTs jurisdiction and requires no approval from anyone but the mayor. This guys corruption is incredible but being on the correct team it all goes pretty much unreported.
In reply to Wall-e:
You're right.
In reply to etifosi:
No. Never. Unless she is hot.
Have many tattoo's, most of them have no serious meaning. I just think they look cool. I'm tired of this overly pretentious desire for everything to have some "deep meaning."
Why is "I like it, I think it looks cool" not a good enough reason to do whatever you want to your body?
If you can't "justify" a tattoo to society without attaching a bunch of drama to it, then don't get one. Geez.
Wall-e wrote: In reply to SVreX: I find it humorous that no one cares about the backstory, how it was paid for by a Wall Street firm as advertising and given a place after a number of sneaky workarounds once the board members of that firm put money in the mayor's PAC. Look at the photos and you can see it's not actually in the park the bull is in, but on an extension that was added to the island. If it went in the park the community board would have had a notice ruining the faux surprise placement of it and they could possibly veto it. By placing it on the newly built traffic island it falls under DOTs jurisdiction and requires no approval from anyone but the mayor. This guys corruption is incredible but being on the correct team it all goes pretty much unreported.
I didn't actually know about it until this thread.
Now, I just don't care on purpose. But, I like the idea that I could create a time series by making a statue of a child impaled on a bull's horn and placing it across the street.
SVreX wrote: In reply to iadr: No one has suggested it (for good reason), but this may be the symbol you are looking for:
Without the guise of heritage, I'm still a bit stumped about what the rebel flag is supposed to represent outside of the south.
Don't worry to much about what she gets, its a foot tattoo, its no big deal. Its easily hidden with socks, shoes or tattoo concealer. I'm sure her feet aren't exposed 24/7.
Even if she comes to regret or dislike it in the future, its nothing that can't be sorted out. Cover up tattoos happen all the time and laser tattoo removal is quite effective these days and will only get better with time.
Concealer. LOL.
I interviewed a young man for a sales position, dressed well, meeting went well.
I was driving to Minneapolis a week later and ask if he wants to see the shop and have a second interview. We will cover his expenses and even pay him for 3 days.
He meets me at a local spot and he is all gang banger, terrible for a business interview. I ask about the neck tattoo I missed. Concealer on the first interview.
He gets the job and proceeds to do nothing. Fired.
You'll need to log in to post.
