They've got these hi tec guns and stuff now, so the ink bottle and one of Mum's needles is restricted to an underclass, but tattooing is still pretty basic.
You want a tatt, absolutely 100% fine by me (as if you give a fuck), but the end result seems to be defined by the limitations of the process. Sticking an inked bit of metal in your skin.
And you get a piece of graphic art, a picture, or writing, script, and that's your lot.
A good artist can get a 3D effect with colour and composition but it's still a static image, a snapshot, paradoxically often expressing more abstract values.
So 20th century, static stuff. In this new century, on the move is the way, whole countries with no copper wire telephones but smart phones, multi dimensional tasking made essential in order to cope with the privations being forced upon us by out banking Lords, to pay their gambling debts. To make us able to buy 24/7, fulfill our capitalist obligations as the Consuming Serf.
Everything is moving, marketing fish waiting for your credit card to snap them up swim all around you in virtual shoals, infinitely breeding with depthless digital fecundity. We will never be able to eat enough, and their greed will never be satiated.
Anyway, what about nanotechnology? I first came across this as a sceptical green, reading with grim horror about nanosilver socks that stop your feet smelling by killing bacteria. Everything above the size of nothing, apparently. Which is cool if you're a lazy cunt who can't be bothered to wash his feet, but not so good for Good Old Mother Earth and her groovy ecosystem.
Because not all somethings above the size of nothing are bad for you, that's why, but nanosilver doesn't give a monkey's about that. You're a toasted microbe.
To cut to the chase, I was wondering if you could graft an 'active' skin onto your body, made with computerised elements at the nanolevel, and have
To be continued...