EDIT: I'm leaving this essay here just because this was a near impossible piece to analyse and I doubt any school would assign it as practice. I'll trust you all enough to use this as a study tool like any other practice piece.
I've been getting a lot of PMs about Language Analysis, especially comparative and visual pieces so I thought I'd post one of my 10s from last year.
This was on the 2011 exam, the article can be viewed through the VCAA Past Exam Papers website. I haven't held back with the language, but with practice and help from my teacher I was able to turn this into a strength. There are a few instances where I lapse into quoting to summarise, but otherwise the analysis was alright
Hope this helps
Helen Day’s blog post ‘The Power of Ink’ laments that the prevalence of tattoos has undermined their intrinsic value, and has thus diminished the personal significance of the art form. Although most of society has been desensitized to the concept of body art, debates nowadays range from the intent behind tattoos, to the health risks associated with the process, to the aestheticism of the art, and to the wider cultural implications of appropriated symbolism. Day’s article was accompanied by various comments spanning this variety of responses, as well as two images depicting both an ancient and modern day example of tattoo art.
Day’s overwhelming use of references to the passing of time and the mutable meanings of tattoos forms part of her jeremiad against the “commodified” form becoming a mere “fashion statement.” Her extensive recounts of the historical implications of tattoos cement in a reader’s mind the immense cultural importance. When juxtaposed with the “roses [and] skulls” of “suburban housewives,” Day highlights the comparatively shallow and worthless nature of modern ink. That it is simply a “fashion statement” is a particularly effective term given that tattoos were once a symbol of “deviance and criminality;” of rebellion, yet have been misappropriated by the very people that traditional tattoo bearers rebelled against. Having become a commodity is therefore galvanizing for any reader who associates themselves with the deviancy of truly powerful tattoos. Whilst words like “deviance and criminality” generally connote delinquency and wrongdoing, here they seem a colourful alternative to the trivial proprietary mark of fashion. Thus even readers without tattoos are inclined to view this current trend as superficial and insincere. Day’s history of the evolution of tattoos contains many bleak and horrific events, from concentration camps to brutal slave trade, and the insinuation that modern tattoo bearers are unaware of these implications renders them insensitive and ignorant in the reader’s eyes; to some extent disrespecting the memory of the victims of infamous atrocities. In this sense, Day establishes a dichotomy between those who understand and appreciate the culture of tattoos and those concerned purely with aesthetics, positioning the reader to view the latter as uneducated, naive conformists.
This dichotomy extends further in terms of social zeitgeists and public regard for body art. Constant references that hark back to past glories of the unifying power of tattoos and their capacity to satirise and subvert even the most “indelible cruelty” serve to accentuate the disparity between the past and present. The first image of traditional Maori emblematic art contributes to this apotheosis and nostalgia for the power of ink, whereas the second image contains a much more simplistic design that is indicative of a simplistic understanding of tattoos’ significance. When outlining the role of branding in slave ownership, Day describes the function of “a sign that the bearer had a value.” This encourages readers to employ the same standards today, eliciting their contempt for “upmarket shoppers” who have brought about the fading of the art. She infers that if the tattoos themselves have faded, then so have the convictions of those who wear them; effectively angling readers to share in her disapproval of those who destabilize the potential of tattoos for self-expression. Day also utilises this tattoo imagery as a subtle reflection of its own deterioration; the “indelible” history should have been as palpable and permanent as tattoos have been throughout the ages, but it has “faded” in a most unnatural way, becoming a “cosmetic ornament”. Even a readership who does not value the nature of tattoos in the same way as Day, is disposed to rejecting a loss of culture and defending it from those who would undercut its significance. Some take the outrage further, like commenter ‘Kiwi’ who harangues with incredulity against the “identity theft” associated with appropriating culture, equating tattoo imitations to “disgraceful and immoral” acts. This engenders a reader’s indignation at the violation of “a sacred form of family and personal identification.” Not all readers view tattoos in such a light, however, as ‘Dr AB’ reveals in his comment. An authoritative figure amongst the more colloquial comments, the medical practitioner depicts the tattooing process with gruesome detail designed to repulse the reader. The doctor also conveys the threat to one’s health that tattoos pose, listing various diseases that further invoke a reader’s innate aversion to pain. Whilst Dr AB’s views contrasts greatly to that of Day and other commenters, he uses a similar appeal to sanctity and inviolability, though each author differs in what they consider sacrosanct.
Day shifts to a less polemic and more sentimental tone, as she relates her own experiences with tattoos in her youth. Having established herself as one who comprehends the true meaning of body art, Day’s “defile[ment] of [her] femininity” is seen by readers as part of the satirical defiance that tattoos represent. Conversely, the now “sexy” regard for affixed symbols is almost immature and imprudent in comparison. Day again uses the word “indelible” to lament what her tattoo has become: “not a real memory of feminist youth” but an unwanted connection to other women who adorn themselves without understanding the persistent defiance. Without something to defy, Day implies, a tattoo is meaningless. Her readership is therefore positioned to defend the deserving of their art form whilst simultaneously condemning those who seek to modify it. This notion of individualistic value is also explored in the comments; ‘Tash’ writes of her pride in displaying her uniqueness, as captured by her tattoo, whereas ‘Cleanskin’ states bluntly “I’m a rebel and an individual- I have no tattoos.” These similar appeals on behalf of opposing views show how some are gratified by a symbol of identity, whereas others see their lack of affixation as unique in its own way. In an attempt to win reader approval through anecdotal experiences and conversational language, both authors invoke their originality as reason for their stance, as Day does when describing the “reckless abandon of Carnevale” that her tattoo briefly conferred. The inference that tattoos are a form of identity concealment or disguise would be in equal parts alluring and discomforting for readers. She provokes appreciation on behalf of her fellow tattooed readers, but rather than the unease amongst some other members of society who view identity concealment as having something to hide, the connotations of ‘Carnevale’ are ones of jubilant celebration. Consequently, even readers not usually inclined to sympathise with tattoo wearers are here encouraged to feel a sense of loss as the carnival leaves town, and tattoos become conventional, “ordinary” and as commonplace as a cosmopolitan, “cosmetic quirk.”
Day’s blog post and the accompanying comments and visuals show how the protean and ever-changing values of society impact upon tattoo bearers as a collective whole and as individuals, contending that the actions of others can have a lasting effect on personal meaning and idiosyncratic value. Her strong use of dichotomies and equating of tattoos to a person’s worth is effective for a wide demographic, even people who consider body art as trivial or quotidian are persuaded by the likening of tattoos to a dying art form, and are thus disposed to espouse Day’s views.
Home
Help
Search
Login
