You don’t tell a hairdresser/barber or a tattoo artist to surprise you!
In theory one gets tattoos that are meaningful. Pierce gets tattoos for the sake of tattoos, and therefore doesn’t care what they are. The joke is just “wait, he’s getting this permanent, painful procedure done with that little thought?” I’m not entirely sure if it’s supposed to be mocking teenagers for their lack of judgement or mocking the socially normative forms of rebellion.
Christine, I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be mocking any
group. I think it’s just another example of “Pierce is weird.”
As Folly pointed out, Pierce does indeed have tattoos covering his torso, so this comic is not consistent with the storyline. Once in a while when we go out to dinner at our usual restaurant with our usual waiter, we will say “surprise me” instead of choosing our meals ourselves. This may be a play on that. Your usual waiter or tattoo artist would not want to do something you would not like and sabotage your future business.
I have a buddy who has another friend who’s Greek. We all went to a local Greek restaurant one time. When waiter tried to give us menus, this guy just bellowed, “Tell the chef to cook for us!”
I thought similar to Mona.
“Pierce does indeed have tattoos covering his torso, so this comic is not consistent with the storyline.”
Just because he already has tattoos doesn’t mean he can’t get new work done, interlocking and modifying the work that was done previously. And that work could be done on a “surprise me!” basis. The problem is that the medium of comics doesn’t really lend itself to detailed depiction of tattoos on comic characters.
But here he doesn’t have inadequately depicted tattoos, he has none at all. At least on the right of his torso.
Clearly he prefers wash-off tattoos.
“But here he doesn’t have inadequately depicted tattoos, he has none at all.”
Or, he DOES have them, and they just aren’t drawn in. Or the colorist made a mistake coloring in his torso.
Seriously, look for some examples of comic characters who have tattoos. They tend to be highly simplified, because that’s how comics are drawn. Popeye had an anchor tattoo. Sometimes, a guy who’s supposed to be tough-looking will have a “mom” tat. But you don’t really see any realistic-looking tattoos on comic characters, because the essence of cartooning is to suggest a who complex picture with only a few lines (to see what I’m talking about, note that Dilbert’s resting face has no mouth, and several other comics characters have no nose, and the entire landscape in a B.C. comic is often a horizontal line to indicate the ground and a squiggle to indicate distant mountains.)
Yes, James, but Pierce CLEARLY has tattoos on his arm. And multiple piercings in his ear. And even his underwear has been rendered in surprising detail. I don’t think lack-of-detail is an issue here.
Yeah…he has no (visible) tattoos on his chest to facilitate the joke – just like the tattoos he has change with regularity for the sake of the joke. (His piercings also change up from time to time as the joke demands.)
And, while intricate tattoos are difficult (and, more importantly, tedious*) to draw, that doesn’t justify not drawing them, when they’re significant to the character and/or joke, as they are here – simplifying them, yes, but removing them altogether, no. The portfolio pics/flash on the walls would be a more logical place to skimp on the work than Pierce’s tats.
* One of my RP characters is heavily inked, and whenever I set down to draw her, I seriously regret one of them (chains around both arms and across her shoulders).
Maybe this is backstory.
MiB, That was my thought as well, and I looked for some indication of that.
Comics I Don't Understand 
His tattoos are so inconsistent that it must be a running gag.
http://www.thecomicstrips.com/store/add.php?iid=141662
http://www.thecomicstrips.com/store/add.php?iid=162779
You don’t tell a hairdresser/barber or a tattoo artist to surprise you!
In theory one gets tattoos that are meaningful. Pierce gets tattoos for the sake of tattoos, and therefore doesn’t care what they are. The joke is just “wait, he’s getting this permanent, painful procedure done with that little thought?” I’m not entirely sure if it’s supposed to be mocking teenagers for their lack of judgement or mocking the socially normative forms of rebellion.
Christine, I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be mocking any
group. I think it’s just another example of “Pierce is weird.”
As Folly pointed out, Pierce does indeed have tattoos covering his torso, so this comic is not consistent with the storyline. Once in a while when we go out to dinner at our usual restaurant with our usual waiter, we will say “surprise me” instead of choosing our meals ourselves. This may be a play on that. Your usual waiter or tattoo artist would not want to do something you would not like and sabotage your future business.
I have a buddy who has another friend who’s Greek. We all went to a local Greek restaurant one time. When waiter tried to give us menus, this guy just bellowed, “Tell the chef to cook for us!”
I thought similar to Mona.
“Pierce does indeed have tattoos covering his torso, so this comic is not consistent with the storyline.”
Just because he already has tattoos doesn’t mean he can’t get new work done, interlocking and modifying the work that was done previously. And that work could be done on a “surprise me!” basis. The problem is that the medium of comics doesn’t really lend itself to detailed depiction of tattoos on comic characters.
But here he doesn’t have inadequately depicted tattoos, he has none at all. At least on the right of his torso.
Clearly he prefers wash-off tattoos.
“But here he doesn’t have inadequately depicted tattoos, he has none at all.”
Or, he DOES have them, and they just aren’t drawn in. Or the colorist made a mistake coloring in his torso.
Seriously, look for some examples of comic characters who have tattoos. They tend to be highly simplified, because that’s how comics are drawn. Popeye had an anchor tattoo. Sometimes, a guy who’s supposed to be tough-looking will have a “mom” tat. But you don’t really see any realistic-looking tattoos on comic characters, because the essence of cartooning is to suggest a who complex picture with only a few lines (to see what I’m talking about, note that Dilbert’s resting face has no mouth, and several other comics characters have no nose, and the entire landscape in a B.C. comic is often a horizontal line to indicate the ground and a squiggle to indicate distant mountains.)
Yes, James, but Pierce CLEARLY has tattoos on his arm. And multiple piercings in his ear. And even his underwear has been rendered in surprising detail. I don’t think lack-of-detail is an issue here.
Yeah…he has no (visible) tattoos on his chest to facilitate the joke – just like the tattoos he has change with regularity for the sake of the joke. (His piercings also change up from time to time as the joke demands.)
And, while intricate tattoos are difficult (and, more importantly, tedious*) to draw, that doesn’t justify not drawing them, when they’re significant to the character and/or joke, as they are here – simplifying them, yes, but removing them altogether, no. The portfolio pics/flash on the walls would be a more logical place to skimp on the work than Pierce’s tats.
* One of my RP characters is heavily inked, and whenever I set down to draw her, I seriously regret one of them (chains around both arms and across her shoulders).
Maybe this is backstory.
MiB, That was my thought as well, and I looked for some indication of that.
Of course, his arms are heavily inked here…
I think as Kamino Neko suggests, they just draw him as appropriate for the gag, ignoring continuity. Besides the examples Folly offers, there is from last month this (which seems to show no tattoos at all except on his feet):
http://zitscomics.com/comics/january-5-2018/
and these 2 from 2014 that show heavy tattoos, but completely different from any of the other examples:
http://zitscomics.com/comics/january-14-2014/
http://zitscomics.com/comics/july-7-2014/