Kat Von D - Airbrushed and Tattoos Concealed

Lemming

As G'em and a couple of others have already said; she looks nice in a 'generic' and very forgettable sort of way in the airbrushed photos. Just another faceless model on the cover of some magazine or advert.

The tattoos look great on her.


So .. with tatts. Definitely.

FewFew

G86 wrote: »

That's a fair enough opinion Do you mean prettier in the pic where she's not airbrushed to look slimmer? Would you actually say 'prettier' though, or just that she appears more approachable to you?

Oh I didn't even notice she was slimmed down, it was more the eye make up and expression that did it for me. She has a pretty face, think the strong eye make-up takes away from it. Plus I always think tattoos are prettier close up, at a distance all I can see is black lines and the patterns aren't pleasing. Up close it'd be a case of "oh that's cool, that too, and that. Not keen on that one. Oooh, pretty" etc.

Galvasean

Lemming wrote: »

As G'em and a couple of others have already said; she looks nice in a 'generic' and very forgettable sort of way in the airbrushed photos. Just another faceless model on the cover of some magazine or advert.

The tattoos look great on her.


So .. with tatts. Definitely.

I don't think the part I have put in bold is very fair on her. Personally I find the most attractive part of a good looking woman is the face. It's what I like to focus on. But saying she is 'Just another faceless model' seems very harsh IMO. She has a beautiful face. While the tatoos do indeed help her stand out, I also feel that they distract (or even detract) from her face.

Exile 1798

The people who are very into tattoos like Kat Von D, or the fellas who have their full arms done are one thing. They're into it, it’s art, I get it.

However the people who get one or two ****e little tattoo’s I don’t understand. If a women has one of those it’s a major turnoff, not just physically but mentally as well. To me it screams of someone who’s tried to buy themselves a personality.

Kya1976

G86 wrote: »

I came across these pics of Kat Von D recently, where her tattoos were concealed for photoshoot. There's also a pic of her before she was slimmed down with airbrushing for the shoot. I'm curious as to which picture the guys here would go for, I think she's striking and personally think that her tattoos are what make her interesting, without them she's just another pretty face. If you were in a bar and you saw a woman tattoo'ed to that extent, would it stop you approaching her? Or make you more likely to? Which one would you go for?

Tattoos concealed/before airbrushing (apparently the patchy parts are from the concealor and an uneven skin tone or something!)

I think she looks pretty in all pictures tbh.

Being quite heavily tattoo myself I've noticed that I would definitely get approached more by people(both men and women), most of them just want to ask you about the tattoos(and show you theirs:p).

And I would agree with G86, tattoos are a reflection of your identity/personality, for me I did not get them done to get more attention of people.:)

Dr Galen

Like Morrie, my tattoos are all in places that aren't immediately visible. Unfortunately in my line of work, it just not accepted to be showing a tattoo. For example, I would absolutley love to have some work done on my lower arms, but it just wouldn't work as I'm constantly having to be in short sleeves. I've compromised though and am going for upper arms

Its funny, because I've been told I don't look like a "tattoo person" and when I let people see my back and stuff they are quite taken aback tbh as I'm working my way towards a full back piece.

The_Morrigan

Dr Galen wrote: »

Like Morrie, my tattoos are all in places that aren't immediately visible. Unfortunately in my line of work, it just not accepted to be showing a tattoo. For example, I would absolutley love to have some work done on my lower arms, but it just wouldn't work as I'm constantly having to be in short sleeves. I've compromised though and am going for upper arms

Its funny, because I've been told I don't look like a "tattoo person" and when I let people see my back and stuff they are quite taken aback tbh as I'm working my way towards a full back piece.

What the hell is a "tattoo person" - I get that a lot too :rolleyes:

Show and tell at the next beers Dr. G!

Larianne

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The people who are very into tattoos like Kat Von D, or the fellas who have their full arms done are one thing. They're into it, it’s art, I get it.

However the people who get one or two ****e little tattoo’s I don’t understand. If a women has one of those it’s a major turnoff, not just physically but mentally as well. To me it screams of someone who’s tried to buy themselves a personality.

What number of tattoos is it appropriate to have to say its art? It's either all art or its not.

Although I don't like tattoos myself, it wouldn't and hasn't stopped me from talking to someone with tats. I have gone "ew" a few times though coz the designs were shít!

jester77

I like the tattoos but the makeup is horrendous and a total turn off.

Galvasean

jester77 wrote: »

I like the tattoos but the makeup is horrendous and a total turn off.

Hmmm.... Would anyone else agree that makeup is essentially a temporary tattoo... or am I miles off the mark?

augustus gloop

kat von D is my number 1 hottest thing ever woman:D
personality, make up, tatts... she is the razzamatazz, meeeeoooow sexiest woman i have ever seen
i would sacrafice the left nut for a shot at the title:p

Lemming

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't think the part I have put in bold is very fair on her. Personally I find the most attractive part of a good looking woman is the face. It's what I like to focus on. But saying she is 'Just another faceless model' seems very harsh IMO. She has a beautiful face. While the tatoos do indeed help her stand out, I also feel that they distract (or even detract) from her face.

You've picked me up wrong here. I'm not saying she doesn't have a beautiful face. What I'm saying is that with the airbrushing out of what makes her in-part unique among models/celebreties/etc., she simply becomes another generic - and consequently forgettable - 'beautiful people' model.

parker kent

Lemming wrote: »

You've picked me up wrong here. I'm not saying she doesn't have a beautiful face. What I'm saying is that with the airbrushing out of what makes her in-part unique among models/celebreties/etc., she simply becomes another generic - and consequently forgettable - 'beautiful people' model.

In fairness, the air brushing cannot truly show what she would now look like without tattoos. It is just a projected image of what she may look like.

I'd disagree about the generic model issue too.

G86

parker kent wrote: »

In fairness, the air brushing cannot truly show what she would now look like without tattoos. It is just a projected image of what she may look like.

I'd disagree about the generic model issue too.

The first pic isn't airbrushed - her tattoos have simply been covered with the concealor she's promoting.

jester77

Galvasean wrote: »

Hmmm.... Would anyone else agree that makeup is essentially a temporary tattoo... or am I miles off the mark?

I wouldn't agree, but this is my personal preference and everyone is different. Tattoos like the ones she has is art, whereas I find makeup like what she is wearing or tattooed makeup to be a right turn off. No art to masking oneself and hiding under a mound of makeup.

FewFew

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The people who are very into tattoos like Kat Von D, or the fellas who have their full arms done are one thing. They're into it, it’s art, I get it.

However the people who get one or two ****e little tattoo’s I don’t understand. If a women has one of those it’s a major turnoff, not just physically but mentally as well. To me it screams of someone who’s tried to buy themselves a personality.

I'd disagree with this. For a lot of people a tattoo is a symbol of something or someone. If your daughter died and you had her name tattooed on your arm, your only tattoo because nothing before meant that much to you... would that be trying to buy yourself a personality? If anything I'd generalise that the more tattoos someone has, the more they're using them as an outward projection of their personality.

... of course then you do have the stars on people's feet/wrists... those I don't get at all.

G86

Fewcifur wrote: »

I'd disagree with this. For a lot of people a tattoo is a symbol of something or someone. If your daughter died and you had her name tattooed on your arm, your only tattoo because nothing before meant that much to you... would that be trying to buy yourself a personality? If anything I'd generalise that the more tattoos someone has, the more they're using them as an outward projection of their personality.
.

+1!:)

Galvasean

jester77 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree, but this is my personal preference and everyone is different. Tattoos like the ones she has is art, whereas I find makeup like what she is wearing or tattooed makeup to be a right turn off. No art to masking oneself and hiding under a mound of makeup.

Okay, I want to play Devil's Advocate now...
If you are hiding/masking yourself under a mound of makeup that is not art.
Yet, tattoos which hide/mask potions of your natural skin complexion are art?

G86

Galvasean wrote: »

Okay, I want to play Devil's Advocate now...
If you are hiding/masking yourself under a mound of makeup that is not art.
Yet, tattoos which hide/mask potions of your natural skin complexion are art?

But is it 'hiding' or 'enhancing' your features? There's a difference.

Elmidena

There used to be grafiti on what I think is now a carpark on the quay in Dublin that said "What is not art?" A simple phrase but quite the thought-churner. Art is all about expression. Expression and interpretations are a personal thing. Something can be visually displeasing, but at the end of the day it's still an artform, and this applies to makeup and tattoos alike. (Deffo for me, I always doodle something on my cheek in eyeliner before I head out!)

Galvasean

G86 wrote: »

But is it 'hiding' or 'enhancing' your features? There's a difference.

*Deep*
Well a tattoo by very definition is hiding something, ie: the natural skin tone of that particular area. It may well be enhancing other traits such as projecting part of one's personality outward for the world to see.
Make up can also be used to do both. You an hide spots/blemmishes or use eyeliner or whatever to bring out your eyes etc.

Zulu

I have to agree with Galvasean.
If you accept that some tattoos are art, then some makeup must also be art. Some people "express" themselves using make up, just as some people "express" themselves using tattoos. And by extension, if some people "hide" behind make up, others "hide" behind tattoos.
Personally, I think it's just snobbery to look down ones nose at make up, while trying to defend the "art" of tattoos.

Will

Heavily tattooed women are still very taboo I think. It's socially acceptable in most circles for men to be inked to the eyeballs but a woman with anything more than a lil dainty piece on her back is still seen as 'out there'. Specifically fully sleeved women. Throw fame into the mix like Kat Von D here and you have this whole can of works just sitting there gawking at you.

I like tattoos, I consider some art. The woman is a tattoo artist and she's showing off her work, and her mates/co-workers. She looks well in both pictures I think.

People get tattooed for many different reasons, I think you can't just throw them all into one bucket and go 'there ya are now'. There are those who get tattooed for attention it may bring. Some people get them as memorials for passed loved ones, others to signify they're part of a gang or of a particular sub-community.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Will wrote: »

Heavily tattooed women are still very taboo I think. It's socially acceptable in most circles for men to be inked to the eyeballs but a woman with anything more than a lil dainty piece on her back is still seen as 'out there'. Specifically fully sleeved women. Throw fame into the mix like Kat Von D here and you have this whole can of works just sitting there gawking at you.

Not at all. Heavily tattoo-ed guys are thought of as weird just as much as heavily tattoo-ed girls. Its not like you see many bank managers of either gender covered in tattoos.

Dr Galen

You mean you don't see them displaying their tattoos in fairness. There is a difference.

Snowie

Dr Galen wrote: »

You mean you don't see them displaying their tattoos in fairness. There is a difference.

were the hell have you been man ?

sorry for the derailing....

vangoz

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not at all. Heavily tattoo-ed guys are thought of as weird just as much as heavily tattoo-ed girls. Its not like you see many bank managers of either gender covered in tattoos.

I would agree with will , as in that its still more taboo for women to be covered in tatts rather than men. Me personally, I dont see the difference.
I work in a conservative office environment and have plenty of tattoo's and one of my mates has a full sleeve and works in citi group. You just cant see it, as its not shown in our day to day jobs

Dont think ocupation is a factor tbh...... except of course tattoo artists.

Galvasean

Will wrote: »

People get tattooed for many different reasons, I think you can't just throw them all into one bucket and go 'there ya are now'. There are those who get tattooed for attention it may bring. Some people get them as memorials for passed loved ones, others to signify they're part of a gang or of a particular sub-community.

Sorry to keep bringing up the same point, but the opinions of someone of your experience in relation to body modification would be quite valuable in relation to my queries. What about emo/goth types? They use makeup to identify themselves as part of a sub-culture and to express themselves outwardly. Would their use of makeup be considered artistic in the same sense that the woman in the OP?

Raze_them_all

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not at all. Heavily tattoo-ed guys are thought of as weird just as much as heavily tattoo-ed girls. Its not like you see many bank managers of either gender covered in tattoos.

Actually i remember seeing one guy, completely covered head to toe and was a bank manager, and I've met a guy before come into a shop in a suit looking for a nipple stretch, covered everywhere apart from what his suit can't cover

Will

Galvasean wrote: »

Sorry to keep bringing up the same point, but the opinions of someone of your experience in relation to body modification would be quite valuable in relation to my queries. What about emo/goth types? They use makeup to identify themselves as part of a sub-culture and to express themselves outwardly. Would their use of makeup be considered artistic in the same sense that the woman in the OP?

There's a huge difference between putting on some eyeliner and doing a full sleeve tattoo. Like comparing apples with oranges, both may fall under the heading of fruit but that's where it ends.

Art is subjective and depending on who you speak to about a particular piece you may hear that it is art or a pile of steaming p¡ss.