supercilious

Strange. I'd never given it much thought, but it makes sense that a tat would required different techniques, just like any other variation. I think my instinct would be to focus too much on the tattoo, which would be a mistake.

It reminds me of times when I've written something, only to find that I took completely the wrong bent on it. Like, I wrote a novella from the perspective of the wrong character, or the tone was completely inappropriate for the piece. Sometimes it's not even about that the piece is wrong, so much as afterwards I can see that there was a better way to go. It's rather vexing sometimes.

My kneejerk question is: is it possible to present an edgy subject in a way that takes away the edge but still leaves it interesting? What I mean is, would it be possible to take a tattooed, pierced, edgy girl and present her as extremely innocent without taking away the tattoos and piercings? We know the opposite is true; you can take the virgin-skinned, doe-eyed girl and present her in an edgy type way. I just wonder if there'd be anything to be gained from attempting to reverse it. Just the way my mind works sometimes.

I see the concept of the Nevaro type problem and how it would relate to tats/edgy factors. Instead of a pic presenting an overall aesthetic, you've got a pic of Nevaro that just happens to look good, which is fine if you're doing publicity type work, but kinda sucks if you're trying to do a little more with the medium that simply present a hot guy. I can see how good tats would quickly reduce to the same type of thing. I wish I knew more about photography so I could actually speak intelligently about this. It's an interesting dilemma that I've never given much thought to but am starting to see the problems with.