Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
But you are still gonna have scarring and roughening. If you're gonna get ink, be prepared to have it for life.
Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs? I'd pay money to see that. :)
But they are talking about tattoos that fade because they are broken down by a biological process, which makes me giggle picturing Arnold The Pig with "Born 2 Trot" on his hock.
Disgusting and shameful behavior, I can't believe that attitudes like this still exist.
For fuck sake dude, it's a pig. If you actually care about living things, do something about the slave labor used to source raw materials for the computer you wrote that on. I'm going to guess your conviction is about living creatures in pain, not about pigs in particular. One of these is much more disgusting than the other. Honestly who gives a flying fuck about a pig getting a tattoo.
This translates to "if you can't save everybody 100%, then you shouldn't help anybody." It's a self-defeating attitude that if something can't be done 100% perfect that it shouldn't be done at all.
Would you tell someone that devotes their lives to working in soup kitchens and helping the poor in first-world countries that they "aren't doing enough" because there are people that "have it worse" than the first-world poor somewhere else in the world?
The above would contradict that maxim. A better fit would be "don't waste resources on less important things, over more important things".
> Getting a tattoo isn't even close to the worst thing that can happen
Isn't the same as "it's ok"; or "anything up to" (the distance is mentioned, implying it might be relevant to context).
- Torturing an animal to death for fun.
- Killing an animal quickly and eating it.
They both end up with the animal being dead. Does that mean that they are equal and that you can't find one "disgusting and shameful" but not the other?
My point is that a pig in captivity that is treated well and protected from predators, oh and that happens to get tattoo or two, is still doing better than a pig out in the wild, which is subject to much worse things happening to it. The pigs in captivity even get health care!
Perhaps ear piercings with giant holes?
Hipster hogs.
Scarring isn't guaranteed, and to a large extent depends on the artist knowing what they're doing, but still something to consider.
On the other hand, a beautiful part of this art form is that it is basically permanent. To my mind, a tattoo loses a lot of its value of it's only temporary.
The 'story' point reminded me of my response to people who say "Yeah, but what will your tatts look like when you're 80? They'll look terrible": "What, you mean at the end of my time, after I've enjoyed them all my life?"
Which is a good point. Current tattoos are also limited in life span. Even before a person dies, the tattoo will start to blur. So really these guys are just lowering the life span of a tattoo to something within a persons life. Which is already a thing since you can get tattoos removed by laser.
So all they have done, should they succeed is make things more convenient.
If it is temporary how is it any different than a hair cut?
I live in Sydney and I've also noticed other sub-genres: - Middle class women with tattoos of silouettes of a flock of birds in flight. - Women who dress in 30s fashion with tattoos of swallows usually around their collar bones. I have not spotted any in the last few years. - Asian girls of the Lotita sub-culture with tattoos of antique cutlery.
It would be strange if the value of tattoos is in large part due to many people walking around with tats they don't want.
I'm sure the designs will change, as will the motivations for getting them. Beyond that, this technology would be difficult to differentiate from a traditional tattoo whereas henna and temporary tattoos are visibly different.
Not sure that it will change an often spur of the moment, possibly rebellious or first love, decision. When asked the question do you want it in permanent ink I still think the answer will be mostly yes.
PS... how convenient, they own the ink and the way to remove it. SV... sigh
Also a concern. If it's gone in a year, what does it look like in 6 months? Are you going to look like you have a nasty blob-bruise for 6 months as the definition fades and the ink migrates?
Once the nature of the decay is worked out I could see an awesome opportunity for tattooists to artistically incorporate it for evolving designs.
In 2016, it is estimated that the risk of an individual being diagnosed with cancer by their 85th birthday will be 1 in 2 (1 in 2 males and 1 in 3 females).[1]
According to at least one source[2] 14.5% of Australians have a tattoo.
I'm going to go with tattoo ink not being a major cause of cancer. If it were you would expect to see more skin cancers local to the tattoo, or some other particular type of cancer more common among those with tattoos.
I think we've got bigger problems than any potential cancer risk form tattoos. Bigger problems like alcohol, cigarettes, benzene in petrol, vehicle exhaust, combustion of coal for electricity, consumption of processed meats - these are all known carcinogens[3].
1. https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/what-cancer/c...
2. http://www.disappearink.com.au/post/tattoo-statistics-austra...
3. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/g...
It's probably worth keeping future regulation in mind for them, lest they accidentally get themselves regulated out of business.
This is very noticeable in the tattoo decision tree: it goes "so I really want a tattoo, where do I want it and which motive?" instead of "so I really want a picture of X on my arm, do I get it painted or do I get it tattooed?"
Sure. But how can you be certain? I have no idea what it's like to have a tattoo, or whether I'd regret it. Would I be too self-conscious about having it? Or would I enjoy seeing it in the dark?
I've had one specific one in mind for most of my life, but I don't know if I want it. If I were able to get a fading one, I'd be way more likely to jump on it. The increased cost is nothing compared to being able to decide if I actually like the damn thing.
Ultimately I ended up taking another four or five years before I finally settled on a version of the design I liked, and spent eighteen months getting it tattooed on me. It's been finished for about two years and I'm still delighted to see it every now and then.
If you've wanted the same design for most of your life, I say go for it. Iterate on the imagery until you have a version that you look at and say "yes, this is perfect, I want this on me now because I have been waiting long enough already". If you're not an artist like me then find one whose work you like and ask if they're taking commissions. Then put it on yourself: stencil it on with a magic marker if it's a tribal thing, get it done in henna, or even print it out on temporary tattoo paper. Which is a thing that exists, that you can shove into any inkjet printer. No need for hassling with the incredibly slow and painful process of having needles stuck in the same part of your skin twice.
Take ownership of yourself by putting your own mark on your body.
I jumped the gun and got mine having been in the same predicament and don't regret it. Having thought about it for years, it was easy with just a little nudge.
You're not. That's the whole point.
You get a tattoo and then you live with it. It's a part of your body. It's just there. It's not something you really think about on a day to day basis. At least I don't.
I have 3 tattoos and sometimes forget they're even there until something reminds me.
The only reason I don't have more is that they're expensive and that you have to stop working out for a week or two when they're fresh.
Many (most?) people, for instance, get tattoos to commemorate important events or people. The entire point of a tattoo in those cases is that it's permanent.
Black ink, for example, colors the lymph nodes within the area of the tatoo completely black. Black ink is made out of soot which often contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a carzinogen.
So if they say their product is "designed to break down after a year" and "By using smaller molecules, we’ve encapsulated them inside this spherical structure that’s big enough that your immune system doesn’t take it away. But when you remove it, it essentially eats away one of the components and the dye molecules are flushed out", i really wonder if this could quickly develop into a real health problem.
Smaller molecules really sound like nano particles and since tattoo dye is not flushed out of your body, i tend to assume those nano particles will accumulate inside the lymphatic system. And what about that "spherical structure" stuff, what is it made of? And that "removal solution" they talk about on their website, the symbol next to it looks like its also tattoed into the skin.
Ötzi is the oldest tattooed body we have and thus the oldest hard evidence of that practice.
While there is peripheral evidence of probable earlier tattooing (Cucuteni-Trypillian sculptures, and how wide-spread confirmed tattooing practices are circa 1000~2000BCE), we don't have anything hard before Ötzi (circa 3000BCE).
Incidentally, Ötzi's tattoos seem to be therapeutic rather than artistic.
Meanwhile, my tattoo artist still keeps a huge blade in his drawer from when parlors in NYC were illegal, and prime targets for robberies. To be an artist then required a commitment.
Since criminals don't have resumes, tattoos used to be their signaling mechanisms. As suburban kids began to make that signalling useless, a few years ago I read that criminals had moved on to painful eyelid tattoos. A quick Google search shows that didn't slow the posers down very much. I wonder how criminals signal how badass they are these days?
Though if it lasts 12 months, by month 8 will I have a half-faded looking thing that I either have to retouch, or deal with until it fades completely?
If you are getting a tattoo because it looks cool right now, save your money and just get a better wardrobe.
Imagine fashion week 2050 where models are rocking temp tattoos designed to last the season. Could be rad, could also be really obnoxious.
Everyone (including myself) that has been tattooed KNOWS they were going to be permanent before they got them. If they wanted a removable option they wouldn't have got them in the first place.
A lot of the appeal of tattoos is because of their permanence and the commitment that resembles.
Edit: Down-vote me if I offend your tattooed rebellious self-image, it's fine, but there's a real point to be made. This technology will lead to a lot more tattoos, and a lot more homogeneity and poor designs. I know people with tattoos that most people would actually call legitimate "art", and I know some of them wouldn't be particularly thrilled by the further "watering down" of what they consider an important part of their identity.
Sitting down with a good tattoo artist can mean many things. For some people it is getting a tattoo in the spur of the moment and making sure it is what they want. For others it is building a complex relationship and speaking your design through the artist. Other artists rather just do their own thing and have people lend their bodies. Cheap technology will never replace a good artist, and good artists won't be threatened by it.
I'd argue your salty response to tribal tattoos as proof that they are an effective form of art. Not exactly my taste, but still legitimate art. What else offends you?
And also for not really thinking this through. When a medium doesn't allow for iteration, people tend to a) make obvious choices, b) make conservative choices, and c) end up with regrets. As our ability to iterate in software has improved, we've ended up with more interesting work.
My bet is that we will see more total tattooings but fewer tattoo-years of flesh, so I think there will be a net decrease in seeing boring and/or shitty tattoos. I think the ones that people renew and/or make permanent will actually be better because they'll be more likely to get their dumb and/or exploratory tattoos done with temporary ink that they'll eventually let fade.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names
Most people learn this as children, but since you didn't, stick to the guidelines around here.
For many years, Wikipedia had a useful page called "Don't be a dick":
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_be_a_je...
They've more recently renamed it "don't be a jerk", so if your delicate sensibilities can't handle my original comment, feel free to read it as "jerk".
In particular, you took something that a lot of people like and were shitty about it. You set yourself up as lord-high judge of them and their self expression. The people you were being condescending toward surely include people here.
Then, rather than just accepting the downvotes, you accused downvoters of working from offense to their "tattooed rebellious self-image", assuming bad faith and again acting superior.
I'm happy to call that being a dick.
As long as you're being a stickler for following the guidelines, perhaps read on down to "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
Maybe take a step back. Someone expressed an opinion you didn't like, but one that didn't attack anyone personally. You proceeded to immediately call that person a dick -- oh, sorry, you said he's being a dick, because that's a distinction that's meaningful in this world...
You seem like a smart guy, so I bet you'd agree that dissenting opinions are something we want around here. They make this place better. Truly out-of-line comments are handled with the downvote system (and I note, mine apparently wasn't widely perceived to be out of line, judging by the votes.. it was just controversial). Now, would you say saying people are being dicks also makes this place better? You can do better than that.
Yes, calling you the d-word was also against the "please don't call names" rule (at least arguably).
If handles looked like this though: solipsism1, solipsism34, solipsism85, solipsism87, solipsism21, solipsism3485, solipsism_is_cool, solipsism_4thewin, solipsism111.... well, I can see being annoyed at seeing the same thing over and over again. It wouldn't bother you I guess. That's cool, there's no accounting for taste.
I think I touched a nerve. It's okay! My comment doesn't threaten the coolness of your tattoos!
I'm not sure I would have downvoted your original comment, but your edit about "rebellious self-image" seems uncalled for. Not everyone is trying to be rebellious all the time.
Just thinking out loud here... I wonder what would happen if we all stopped being so superficially judgmental and making nasty comments about people based on assumptions. Maybe people would actually end up making better choices on the whole because of a lack of pressure and there being nothing to rebel against.
I admit I'm annoyed by a lot of fashion. Obviously I wear clothes -- not only are they practical, I wouldn't function well in society without them. But I'm annoyed by the way some people seem to go so far out of their way to brand themselves part of some particular subculture. This takes many forms. I'm annoyed by die-hard Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, meat-eaters, vegetarians (the die-hard ones who use it as yet another tribe to be a member of.. not anyone who eats meat or doesn't), punk rockers (it's my favorite kind of music, but the attire at a punk show is much less individualistic than that of the general public), bumper stickers, etc. And when this homogenization is sold as being rebellious or individualistic, it annoys me even more.
I could go on at length about why I have a problem with homogeneity and why it's a little more than simple annoyance, but I suppose I've lost my chance. I could go on at length about how important I think it is for every person to express hisself/herself however he/she chooses, even if it happens to annoy me, but this is also not too relevant. Most people probably wouldn't agree with me, but that's hopefully okay in the marketplace of ideas.
My original point, which was understood by basically no one (this is my fault, of course), was that I feel this technology would lead to more of homogeneity, which I would consider a bad thing. I said it poorly, and then acted poorly afterward as well.