Friday, January 25, 2019
Language Analysis the Power of Ink Essay
Helen twenty-four hour period is a part-time journalist and blogger. She maintains her blog entitled Street beat on a variety of authoritative social issues. This blog inlet, The Power of sign, is somewhat tattoos and it has drawn a variety of responses from readers of her blog.In recent years, the trust of inking your body, or having tattoos indelibly imprinted on your skin has become almost de rigueur for many in our society, especi completelyy the young. There is a wide variety of views about this rehearse and Helen Day, a regular blogger, has her say in her en adjudicate The Power of Ink. Rather than lecturing her substantial audience of followers, Day chooses simply to study the floors of the history of tattoos, focusing on the changes in their meaning and significance. Her use of examples and diction with negative con nonations is effective in arguing that people who choose to dress themselves with tattoos are retributory as much victims or prisoners as those for wh om they were before intended. Her blog attracted four extremely varied responses within the next twenty dollar bill four hours, showing that this is indeed a contentious issue. Helen Day begins by establishing the ubiquitous nature of tattoos. In a light-hearted, humorous room, she mentions that people from all walks of life, including suburban housewives, newsreaders and sitcom stars have words and pictures drawn on their skin.Even at this early stage, she mentions prison and readers whitethorn feel uncomfortable with this reference, which is just what the generator intends. She understandably states her contention that the power of ink has diminished. Day begins her short letter by clearly establishing the original purpose of tattooing, using examples from millennia as support. She mentions the origins of the practice where the unconsenting backs of prisoners and hard workers were marked to show that they were owned, deviant or incarcerated. She goes further to remind readers of the tangible and metaphorical indelible cruelty of the tattoos forced upon inmates of the Nazi concentration camps during k straight offledge domain War 11. Her words are carefully chosen at this stage of her occupation to create a feeling of unease and repulsion in her audience at the idea that tattoos represented ownership or tick off and that those on whom they were imposed were considered to be somewhere between property and railcar.By associating tattoos with lack of free will or self-determination, she predisposes her readers to think negatively of the practice of tattooing, even before she considers what it represents in contemporary society. Day goes on to provide an illustration of how those forced to wear tattoos resented this imposition and how they showed their refusal to be lockled, satirising their owners by adopting their own version of an owners mark. She connects this act of defiance to the motif behind her decision to demonstrate her feminist princip les in the 1990s, wryly remarking that her elbow grease to protest and be unique fell flat be work now even the British Prime Ministers wife has an ankle tattoo. The phrase the writer uses here is quite mocking of her young self. She separates herself from the young Helen, representing her actions as clich and immature, in an attempt to position her readers to view it in the same way. The input signal from young Tash (written late at night) is a perfect example of much(prenominal) (some might say misguided) youthful impulsiveness.Readers can hear the excitement in Tashs voice as she describes how she designed her own ankle fallal and how she kindreds to show it off. The use of language much(prenominal) as like and yeah, suggests that she is very young and whitethorn one day atone her decision just as Helen Day does. The comment from Cleanskin also echoes Days point that tattoos fade and stretch over time and may not suit an older person. These responses underline the writers heart and soul of act in haste, repent at leisure and young readers may cringe when reading Tashs enthusiastic comment. Day concludes her blog entry by redefining the social meaning of tattoos in todays society. She describes them as having been commodified, that is, just something else to be bought and sold and with no real significance. She uses the expression try hard, suggesting that people who have tattoos are doing so to create a false image of themselves in order to find acceptance. Readers would certainly not like to be included in this category. By describing tattoos as fashions proprietary mark, she is claiming that those who decide to tattoo themselves are just as much slaves and prisoners as the original bearers of these marks, it is just that their owner is now fashion.In suggesting that tattoo wearers are still under the control of an outside force, that fashion trends are dictating their actions, she hopes that readers will review their attitude to the practice. The compare between the two accompanying images starkly demonstrates the writers argument that the meaning of tattoos has changed. The Ta Moko on the arms of the three Maori men clearly mark them as members of the same clan. The three tattoos are identical to item-by-itemly other, suggesting that the design is traditional and has a particular significance for the wearers. Kiwis indignant description of non-Maoris imitating the sacred Ta Moko as identity thieving would act as a strong disincentive to readers to undertake such a disgraceful and immoral action. The other shoulder tattoo of a star, shown on the front cover of Sam de Britos 2006 book, might soundly have been designed by the wearer, but it has none of the cultural weighting of the Ta Moko designs.The images reinforce the idea that it may be fashion that is dictating the current trend to tattoo ones skin. This blog is certainly cause for thought. Although Helen Day sets out to argue that the power of ink has diminish ed, she very argues against this. In establishing the contention that tattoos are still just as almighty a message about ownership, but that the owner has changed from government and slave owner to the tyrant of fashion, she prompts her online audience to rethink whether in deciding to ink themselves they are actually being a unique rebellious individual or just another fashion victim.