What I like best about SKIN&INK is "hearing" the many voices of our contributors. As an editor, I am thrilled with my reporters' diversity of opinion and, for the most part, leave well enough alone. Which brings me to Bruce Litz's commentary on the Second Annual Long Beach Tattoo Convention (page xx). Since my dear friend Bruce's overall experience of the Queen Mary event differs from mine, the question arose in my mind, do I squelch his article because I disagree or do I let it stand? After all, I love controversy, but the magazine, I feel, has an overall obligation to the tattoo community to take a stand when it senses a disturbing trend.

I refer to the proliferation of tattoo events that are more concerned with numbers of people through the gate than the welfare of the art form. First of all, there were no seminars. Not one presentation of tattoo history or lesson on technique was given. The intent of the event, it seems to me, was not to bring tattooists together for the good of the art but simply to use them to attract a lot of people (the majority of whom came for the music, the hoopla and the carnival atmosphere). Sure, the big name artists made money, but what about the guys and gals who have been around the industry for years? It's troubling to me that many of the very tattooists highlighted on the promotional flyers have to pay for their transportation, hotel rooms and booths. It's like being invited to a banquet in your honor and having to pay for dinner. And advertising "180 artists from 11 countries and 12 states" doesn't sound like it's about art to me. What it sounds like is packing them in, artists and ticket holders alike. Imagine if this were the 1870s and it was Impressionist art we were talking about. Would the flyers read like this?

Come one, come all.
See Edouard Monet, Claude Manet, Vincent van Gogh,
Paul Gouguin, Paul Cézanne…plus 175 other artists!

Not very respectful, if you ask me. I thought we were striving to make tattooing "fine art." Is this how you sell fine art? It's sounds more like those horrific warehouse shows with 10,000 assembly-line landscapes at discount prices. Tattooing is art with a rich heritage, not swap meet fodder, not a car show. The main reason these bigger-is-better, non-industry promoters are putting on events is "tattoos are hot" and there's money to be made. I half-kiddingly told some friends that walking down the stairs into the bowels of the great Queen Mary, crammed with beef jerky booths, plastic samurai sword vendors and booth after booth of tattoo shops I've never heard of was like descending into Dante's inferno. Yes, some great, world-class artists were in attendance and there's an amazing roster of up-and-coming men and women with extraordinary talent dotted about, here and there, but the overall intent was focused on bringing in a crowd, no matter who, no matter how. Was there a screening process? And just how discriminating can the promoters be, when they have to fill nearly 200 booths? How does it feel to have some rubbernecker snap a digital photo from your flash book, then go booth to booth asking, "How much to do this one?" I know that artists need to participate at these cattle calls in order to remain visible and be competitive, but at what cost?

Winning the respect for the art begins with respecting those who have come before, continually striving to be better and honoring your God-given talent. So, what do you think is the best venue to further those lofty goals?

Bob Baxter
Editor in Chief