In the end does the tattoo image itself have any importance for the entirety of tattoo art and its history? Tattoos are known to be body decorations or identity markers, but can these be considered art? At first ShContemporary in Shanghai was skeptical and dismissed it as art altogether, refusing to exhibit the idea. Maybe the tattoos themselves weren’t even important for conveying his idea, but simply the only medium that makes sense to use on a human’s skin for canvas to get this controversial reaction. Controversy doesn’t necessarily mean art, so what was artistic in this art piece? Is it the intent to shock or the creative process- because every person with a tattoo on their back is not a work of art and they don’t have suitors wanting to buy their skin postmortem.