Because a tattoo is created by a tattoo artist, a skilled worker who is paid (relatively) well. A tattoo is unique and cannot be duplicated or resold.
A T-shirt and coffee mug are manufactured in a sweatshop by a multinational corporation, and have no inherent value beyond the value of the IP itself.
It’s the difference between having a personal appreciation for Watterson’s comics, and exploiting their value to sell useless junk. Do you honestly think Watterson would be upset about a long time fan getting a tattoo of Calvin? I highly doubt it.
I feel like that’s the kind of commodification Watterson would have frowned upon.
A tattoo is not an example of commodification at all. It’s a piece of artwork, not a mass-produced plushie toy.
Yes it is. He went and paid for a licensed image for which he did not have the rights, with the intention of displaying it to society.
That’s the epitome of commodification.
The idea that tattoos are personal and therefore don’t count as commodities is bogus. Personal effects are still very much commodities.
If Watterson didn’t want Calvin and Hobbes on a t shirt or a coffee mug, why would you think he wants it on a tattoo?
Because a tattoo is created by a tattoo artist, a skilled worker who is paid (relatively) well. A tattoo is unique and cannot be duplicated or resold.
A T-shirt and coffee mug are manufactured in a sweatshop by a multinational corporation, and have no inherent value beyond the value of the IP itself.
It’s the difference between having a personal appreciation for Watterson’s comics, and exploiting their value to sell useless junk. Do you honestly think Watterson would be upset about a long time fan getting a tattoo of Calvin? I highly doubt it.