Laser Tattoo Removal - Essay Example

Laser tattoo Removal Tattoo has been around for thousands of years dating back from the Ancient times. It has been part of the culture of many different and even distant societies: the Mayans, Polynesians, Samoans, Aztecs, and Japanese. Aside from history books and written accounts by voyagers, a tattooed mummy that was found on a mountain between Austria and Italy in October of 1991, professes to this (Gilbert). Today, being around in almost every part of the world, it can be said that each society has its own history of tattooing. If a modern person today is asked for a reason on why he or she would want something permanently engraved on his or her skin, the probable answers would include something that is in relation to concepts like "coolness," "anger," "strength," "criminals," "soldiers," "navy," "vanity," or "fraternities" "fad." Others who knew a bit of history would associate tattoos with concepts such as "culture," "art," "tradition," "leadership," "stature," or maybe "strength." Given these reasons for choosing to have tattoo, anyone can easily observe the obscurities and contradictions. That having a tattoo is a mark of stature contradicts the idea that tattoos are marks of criminals; that people have tattoos because it is a fad is opposite of anger against the society's norms. These contradictions suggest the dependence of each reason on the context one is applied to and on the prevailing societal mainstream, usually defined by the ruling class. For example, because today, tattoos have become available to people in all walks of life (criminals, included), it would be surprising to know that there was once a time when tattoos were only available to the elite and had become a fad to the royals. This started when the King of England, King Edward VII had his arm tattooed with a cross after his visit to Jerusalem in 1862 (Gilbert). In this period, tattoos are considered as status symbols. This role of tattoo does not differ greatly from its role in some primitive societies. The different ancient societies, distant from each other as they are, had similar views on tattooing. The Mayans, the Polynesians, the Samoans, Aztecs, and the Asians of the Ancient times: all considered tattoos as symbols of strength and stature in their societies. There, the leaders were the ones who usually had themselves tattooed; each design, although similar, was unique in a way that represented the story of the wearer-the wars they had participated, their losses, wins and adventures (Skin Stories: The Art and Culture of Polynesian Tattoo). Men who were to assume titles were tattooed as soon as they reach puberty, as a symbol of the start of their special roles. Those who refused were branded as cowards and would forever be outcasts in their respective societies ("Skin Stories: The Art and Culture of Polynesian Tattoo"). This was opposite to the tradition of the Japanese and Chinese. To them, a person with a tattoo was a branded criminal. A story in the Japanese history best exemplified this. It was once said that an emperor of Japan summoned a rebel and was supposed to punish him with death as he was supposed to do, given the rebel's crime. The emperor, instead, punished the rebel with a tattoo because the emperor was feeling "benevolent." It is doubtful, however that this "benevolence" was felt by the rebel, as being sentenced to a tattoo would mean being an outcast in a society and to his family as well. As it is known to all, shame and family are two concepts that were and still are very much important to the Japanese. In their culture, tattooing was a form of punishment that was only a level short of being penalized with death. This negative view of tattoos by the Japanese was influenced by the Chinese. Prior to this, the Japanese actually viewed tattoos in the same way as the Polynesians and Mayans, being not only something that connotes one's stature but also as something that has a religious significance. This is supported by the discovery of the figures in the ancient Japanese tombs believed to be more than seven thousand years old. It had faces marked with lines that were assumed to be representations of tattoos (Fancher and Whitton). From its associations with stature and the elite to its association with criminals (which lives on until today), the technological advances, which made possible the drop in price and the safer practice of tattooing, have made tattoos more available to the modern common man. Ask every person in a certain place and it would be close to impossible not to find one or two who have a tattoo. About 10 million Americans are said to have at least one tattoo ("How Tattoo Removal Works"). With its proliferation, it seems that the ancient cultural and ideological aspects of tattooing have been left behind. It would be doubtful that most people of today even have inkling about the history of tattooing: how it expressed; what it used to express; what it used to symbolize; how what it used to represent differ in a very substantial way from what it represents now. The keyword here is "used to." Today, tattoos still serve as a form of self-expression. But self-expression defined as a means of commemorating ones struggles, achievements, adventures, travels, wins and defeats may be reserved only for today's sailors and soldiers. Today, with the dying popularity of "going with the flow," is the rise of "individuality," and thus the popularity of tattoos. The last statement is ironic. How could anyone be going against the flow when everyone is going against the flow In other words, if everyone wants to be unique, and everyone who wants to be unique asserts his uniqueness by having tattoos, would it still be appropriate to call it "uniqueness" Wouldn't they become the exact opposite of what they dream to become, that is, a victim of fad, with the theme being "individuality through tattoos" The modern-day people being referred to in this paragraph are the people who have, although unintentionally become faddists. But let us go to the "intentional faddists." If, in the Ancient times, the people had the Royal Family and the Elite to start the mob's interest in tattoos, today, the people have celebrities. And whatever the celebrities do, the "intentional faddists" also do. KidRock, Angelina Jolie, Eminem are just few of these celebrities that the mob try to imitate. While for others, having a tattoo is their choice, for some, it may not be so. Some fraternities, sororities, and gangs require their members to have a certain tattoo to consummate their membership in the organization (Fancher and Whitton). Differences in reasons may be evident as one goes through time but all these can be narrowed down to man's desire to connect with a certain object, be it a loved one, a certain place or a certain abstraction such as "popularity," through the use of symbols. And this connection is made possible by "tattoos." Tattooing oneself is a form of imbibing a certain object or concept to be part of one's self, in this case, the body being the only possible medium, which is both a manifestation of the self and an object of attachment. Now, given these ideas as to why people would want a tattoo, let us now think about why people would want to remove their tattoo when they knew for a fact even before agreeing to have one, that tattoos were designed to be permanent. There could be a multitude of reasons why anyone would want his or her tattoo removed but all of these could be narrowed down to just one rationale-the opposite of wanting a tattoo, to divorce oneself with the object that his tattoo symbolizes, through its removal. A person, whose reason for having a tattoo is because he's in the line of leaders, would not want to have his tattoo removed, because by removing it, he removes his position and stature in the society as well. The same goes with a sailor or a soldier who has documented his entire story in a tattoo. Removing it would be like parting with the very thing that made the man out of him. If a person's reason for having a tattoo is to rekindle its culture, then removing the tattoo would be a form of denying your culture. In the same way, why would an artist want to have his tattoo removed when it is his way of expressing himself. Rejecting it would be like rejecting his own child. On the other hand, an elitist or a snob who has just realized that having a tattoo has become "common" would naturally want to have his tattoo removed, and the faddist who has just realized that having a tattoo is not "cool" anymore would also want his tattoo removed. A member of an organization would want to remove his tattoo as a form of denunciation of the organization he once belonged or will no longer belong. We have been speaking of personas that have had tattoos by choice. But what about those that had their tattoos by imposition, say, a criminal punished with a tattoo. I would guess, he would not want to not part with that mark that made him a social outcast. It would only be natural for him to want to remove his tattoo. The opposite goes for the modern criminal who has tattoos by choice. What is the difference between the elitist, faddist, a punished criminal and the leader, the soldier, the sailor, the artist The difference lies on the factors that influence their decision on having a tattoo. The previous group's decision on having tattoos depends on external factors: for the elitist, the mob's choices; the faddist, the ever-volatile fad; and the punished criminal, that the tattoo was imposed to him. The latter's decision on the other hand is mainly influenced by internal factors like self-expression, sentimentality and desire for power. Between the two, the decision to remove a tattoo would be more difficult for the latter. For the previous group, the decision to remove a tattoo is simply a matter of changing the context that influenced the decision to HAVE a tattoo. This would not be difficult since contexts don't stay the same for a long time-a fad is a fad is a fad. The latter group necessitates a major reflection and reevaluation of one's beliefs and. This is difficult because one's values and beliefs are rooted in one's history and are usually defined already as one reaches adulthood: to a sailor or soldier, the decision to remove a tattoo would take realizing that tattoos are unnecessary if one simply wants to sensationalize experiences; to an artist, it is realizing that there are other ways of expressing oneself or realizing that the tattoo, in time, has become a poor representation of himself; to a man, it is realizing that strength is not defined by having or not having a tattoo; to a rebel, it is realizing that with tattoos, they have been victimized by the mainstream society's definitions. The permanence of a tattoo has not been kept secret. The openness of its permanence, if put together with the fact that newer and cheaper alternatives such as removable tattoos are proliferating in the market today, support the idea that people who decide on having a tattoo really do not intend on having their tattoos removed and their decision for wanting to remove a tattoo is influenced by the two general reasons, which are, the changing social context and some deep-rooted personal transformation. But these general reasons do not take into account the increasing number of innovations introduced in the society. Because innovations such as laser technology, it appears, are greatly redefining the term, "permanence." With its introduction, commences the blurring of the distinction between genuine and permanent tattoos, and instant and removable tattoos. Before the application of laser technology to the removal of tattoos, the prevailing methods include the use of chemical peels and surgical excision which involve removal of the skin and stitching it back. Another method is dermabrasion which involves intentional sloughing off of the cells through friction. All of which is not as painful, scar-forming and effective in the removal of tattoos compared to laser removal ("Hudson"). If not for the price, laser technology would be taking over the realm of tattoo removal, putting the primitive methods out of the picture (if it hadn't already). The process works by exposing one's tattooed dermis to different wavelengths depending on the color. As it is exposed to the waves, the colors burst and become fragmented, leaving the body with its natural processes to eliminate the pigments. Usually, the process requires many weeks to achieve the desired result with the length depending on the extensiveness of tattoo placing. As the ink particles and surface area increase, the number of treatments increases as well. Removal through laser treatment does not affect the cells surrounding the tattoo ("Tattoo Removal"). The removal of tattoos using laser could cost as high as 200-2000 dollars per session depending on the size, depth and extensiveness of color of the tattoo ("Tattoo Removal Basics"). The definition of tattooing has been mainly associated with cultural, personal and symbolic aspects. But as technology becomes a major mover of human history, so it does with the history of tattooing. With the speed in which the ease and effectiveness of tattoo removal become more available to the public, is the frequency that people's reactions become a mere product of whim and fickle-mindedness. That the mere existence of this technology is a major influence on wanting to have a tattoo (or the removal of it) is a definite probability. The introduction of laser tattoo removal is one turning point in the history of tattooing. We are, at this moment, just witnessing how the marriage of this history and laser technology would unfold. Works Cited Fancher, PJ and Whitton, T. Tattoos. 1999. PJ Fancher and Travis Whitton. 19 June 2006 . Gilbert, SG. (ed.).Tattoo History: A Sourcebook. 2006. Tattoos.com. 19 June 2006 . "How Tattoo Removal Works". 2006. HowStuffWorks, Inc. 19 June 2006 . Hudson, K. Tattoo Removal Options and Alternatives. 2006. About, Inc. 19 June 2006 . "Skin Stories: The Art and Culture of Polynesian Tattoo". 2003. Pacific Islanders in Communications. 19 June 2006 . "Tattoo Removal". 2005. Tattoos1.com. 19 June 2006 . "Tattoo Removal Basics". 2006. LocateAdoc.com. 9 June 2006 . Read More