Tattooed and Tenacious: Developing and Designing a...

Running Head: TATTOOED AND TENACIOUS 1

Tattooed and Tenacious:

Developing and Designing a Museum Exhibit without a Team

by

Amy E. Cohen

July 31, 2015

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in

Museum Studies

in the

Graduate School of Professional Studies

at

John F. Kennedy University

Approved by:

__________________________ __________________________ ______________

Adrienne McGraw Susan B. Spero, Ph.D. Date

Program Chair, Museum Studies Professor, Museum Studies

TATTOOED AND TENACIOUS 2

Abstract

This paper explores the exhibit development process for “Tattooed and Tenacious: Inked

Women in California’s History,” an exhibition created by a sole developer/designer and shown

from July 9 to September 9, 2015 at the Hayward Area Historical Society, a small institution

located in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. The literature review examines meaning-

making in museum exhibitions and reveals the importance of having a dedicated visitor advocate

on exhibition development teams, interactive experiences in exhibits, and a narrative- or story-

based approach to exhibits. The methodologies discussed in this paper include informal

interviews and Google Consumer Surveys, as well as the research and planning process related

to the development of an exhibit on women and tattoos. The content of the project, including all

label text, images, and graphics, can be found within the Project Content section. Conclusions

and recommendations, tailored to graduate students and exhibit professionals creating exhibits

without a team, conclude the master’s project.


Acknowledgements

In spite of the title of this paper, nothing is ever really accomplished alone. I offer special thanks

to the following people for their unflagging assistance, encouragement, and good humor.

David Cohen, Mary Danaher Cohen, and Laura Cohen

Adrienne McGraw and Susan Spero at John F. Kennedy University

Diane Curry and John Christian at the Hayward Area Historical Society

Lyle Tuttle at the Lyle Tuttle Tattoo Art Museum

and

the amazing women in my cohort who are nothing short of inspirational!


Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5

Literature Review 9

Methodology 21

Project Content 35

Conclusions and Recommendations 62

Reference List 72

Appendix A: Google Consumer Survey Data 78

Appendix B: Informal Interview Questions 81

Appendix C: Project Timeline 82

Appendix D: Budget 85

Appendix E: Kickstarter Summary and Reward Levels 86

Appendix F: Floor Plan and Photographs of the Exhibit 94

Appendix G: Sample Graphic Design Elements 100

Appendix H: Adobe Trails Article 103


Executive Summary

For my master’s project, I developed, designed, and installed a museum exhibition at the

Hayward Area Historical Society in Hayward, California. The exhibit, entitled “Tattooed and

Tenacious: Inked Women in California’s History,” explores the stories of California women and

tattoos, pre-World War II. On display between July 9 and September 9, 2015, the exhibition

featured historical photographs, tattoo flash (premade tattoo designs) drawn by female tattooists,

and tattooing artifacts from the time period, as well as engaging interactive elements. To create

the exhibit, I spent the better part of a year researching the relationship between pre-WWII

women and tattoos through a variety of sources, including personal communication with well-

known tattoo artists and historians. I also performed front-end evaluation, using online surveys

and in-person interviews to help inform the topics covered in the exhibition. The major content

areas that emerged from research and visitor feedback included: Native tattoo traditions;

sideshow/circus’ tattooed ladies; the first female tattooists; wealthy women and their ink; and the

mechanics of tattooing.

Before developing the physical exhibit and designing the various interactive elements,

however, I reviewed exhibit-related literature significant to the field. Because the topic of

“exhibit development” is so broad, I approached this literature through the lens of meaning-

making. As I believe that developing a space where visitors can create their own personal

meaning is one of the most important goals for any exhibition, I reviewed a few approaches that

lend themselves to achieving this objective. The first method that I examined was the role of the

“visitor advocate” in the exhibit process: a staff member already involved in the development

and/or design process that is, ideally, tasked with keeping the needs of the visitor at the forefront.

To create an exhibit that allows visitors the opportunity to make meaning, the visitor advocate


must, as her name suggests, keep the visitor experience at the forefront of every decision and

continuously champion the needs of the visitor (Kamien, 2001; Kamien and McKenna-Cress,

2013; McLean, 1993; Heumann Gurian, 2005; and many more). Whether working alone or as

part of a team, the visitor advocate ensures that the exhibition is not about the whims of a curator

or exhibit developer, but instead about helping visitors connect with content in a powerful and

meaningful way.

Another way that the literature suggests that visitors can make their own meaning is

through the inclusion of interactive experiences. Hands-on interactives provide visitors with

entry points into content that may not have been easily accessible through traditional exhibit

techniques (such as reading labels or looking at objects), and learning and intelligence theories

help to explain why some visitors learn best through hands-on approaches. Some of the theories

embraced by the field include Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences, David Kolb’s

experiential learning theory, Bernice McCarthy’s 4MAT system, and Lev Vygotsky’s theory of

learning through social interaction (Gardner, n.d.; SUNY Cortland 2004; Excel Inc., 1992;

Vygotsky, 1978). Valuing interactive experiences within exhibits reflects a now-common trend

in exhibit development: a move away from behaviorist approaches to exhibits (namely, thinking

of visitors as empty vessels, waiting to be filled with knowledge from the museum) and towards

a constructivist approach (one in which the visitor retains the power of constructing their own

learning, and creates their own meaning based on their personal knowledge and life experiences

[Hein, 2012]). Exhibit developers can and should accommodate different learning styles,

personality types, and types of intelligence to make it easy for visitors to connect with exhibit

content, and providing interactive experiences is one such way to do so.


Using a narrative approach to exhibit content is the third and final method of fostering

meaning-making discussed in this thesis. To explore this, this paper uses Leslie Bedford (2014)’s

definition of a “narrative approach:” a method that creates or tells stories to engage visitors,

sharing larger, universal messages through specific narratives rather than traditional

chronological or thematic interpretations that express information in generalized terms (p. 64).1

Coupled with the narrative approach is a strong focus on visitor emotions within the exhibit.

Rather than expecting visitors to connect with material in an academic or intellectual way,

exhibit developers are creating spaces in which visitors can have emotional or imaginative

reactions to exhibitions (Roberts, 1997; Worts, 1995; McLean and Pollock, 2010; Kamien and

McKenna-Cress, 2013). These emotions can create powerful connections for visitors, and

provide yet one more point of entry for visitors’ meaning-making.

Briefly explored at the end of the literature review is the ongoing debate of the

importance of objects within exhibitions. Unsurprisingly, many members of the field argue that

objects can trigger emotional responses in visitors, and, as such, can foster a deeper connection

between the museum, the exhibition content, and the visitor (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-

Halton, 1987; Conn, 2009; Tisdale, 2011; Latham, 2013).

Though I kept this literature in mind throughout the exhibit development and design

process, I also had to deal with the realities of creating an exhibition with several constraints.

The first constraint was that I was effectively developing the exhibition as an individual, rather

than with a team. Luckily, I was able to lean on members of my cohort, friends, family, advisors,

members of the Hayward Area Historical Society staff, and mentors in the field, asking their

advice and opinions during different parts of the process. Even so, exhibition development is

1 It is worth noting that my exhibit attempts to integrate the thematic and narrative approaches.


most successful when it is a team effort, and I recognize the limitations of creating an exhibit as

a largely solo – though still visitor-focused – effort (exhibition development teams are explored

by many authors; see McLean, 1993; Kamien, 2001; and Kamien and McKenna-Cress, 2013 for

just a few discussions).

Other constraints for the project included the abbreviated timeline (approximately nine

months from the conception of the idea to installation) and the small budget. To overcome the

monetary limitation, I successfully ran a crowd-funding campaign through Kickstarter to raise an

additional $2,500 (the Hayward Area Historical Society generously funded $1,000 of the

exhibit).

In conclusion, this project brought with it insight into my personal and professional

processes, as well as recommendations for others developing and designing exhibitions on their

own. Some of these recommendations include taking advantage of the knowledge and opinions

of museum professionals, friends, and family around you; being open to input and collaboration

for all aspects of the exhibit; seeking out members of any community represented within the

exhibit for their knowledge and content expertise;2 and, of course, remembering to stay excited

about and engaged with the content of the exhibit. Without a continual spark, the exhibit will fall

flat for both the developer and the visitor.

2 For this exhibit, the tattoo community was absolutely supportive. Their kindness and generosity, mentioned throughout the paper below, made the process much easier and the end result much more intriguing.


Literature Review

In this literature review, I will be discussing literature relevant to the final product of my

master’s project: an exhibit on California women and tattoos. Because I developed and designed

the entire exhibit, it was difficult to decide how to narrow down this literature review; the exhibit

development process, learning theories, visitor motivations, exhibit design, and other relevant

topics could all have been at home here. However, I have chosen to focus on a topic closely

related to exhibits, and, perhaps, one of the most important reasons to create exhibitions in the

first place: how adult visitors make meaning within museums, and, specifically, within an

exhibition. As such, this literature review will explore museum and educational thinkers’

perspectives on how exhibitions can be developed to foster opportunities for adult visitors to

create and make meaning, especially in light of the field’s concerted shift from “thinking about

visitors as an undifferentiated mass public to…active interpreters and performers of meaning-

making practices within complex cultural sites” (Eilean Hooper-Greenhill as cited in Macdonald,

2007, p. 150).

Meaning-Making

Before we can begin, the term “meaning” must be defined, albeit loosely. As interpreted

by Leslie Bedford, Lois Silverman (2002)’s four definitions for “meaning” in the museum

experience include:

The communicator’s intention; a particular understanding of something, i.e., an

interpretation on the part of the visitor; an individual’s subjective valuing of

something, i.e., the reason that something is personally meaningful; and meaning


as ‘deep, pivotal, memorable, life-changing significance’ [Silverman, 2002, p.5].

(Bedford, 2014, 41).

Lois Silverman’s definitions can provide a framework for understanding meaning within the

context of this literature review; although other museum thinkers have different definitions of

meaning, they are similar to Silverman’s remarks above.

Many museum professionals have written about the importance of creating spaces

wherein adult visitors can define and create their own personal meanings, and that visitors come

to museums to make meaning through objects and ideas (Roberts, 1997; Macdonald, 2007;

Bitgood, 2013; Falk & Dierking, 2012; Wilkening & Chung, 2009; Bedford, 2014; and Burd

Schiavo, 2013 provide just a small sampling of this). Kathleen McLean and Wendy Pollock

(2010) provide a short overview of why it is important to foster these spaces within the walls of a

museum:

It is not enough to simply bring people together…Convivial museums deepen the

conversation and foster a genuine meeting of minds by offering up some ‘third

thing’ as a focus of common interest and concern. That third thing could be an

inspiring object or work of art, a program about a pressing local issue, an

intriguing phenomenon, a provocative story. Sharing these experiences with

others and grappling with what they mean transforms a museum visit into a

convivial experience that opens the way to engagement. (p. 105)

In other words, it is important for museums to act as places where visitors can develop

and engage with highly individualized meaning both internally and socially.

In addition, Falk and Dierking (2012) emphasize that meaning is highly individualized

and constantly changing. Not only will different visitors have different experiences in the same


exhibit, but that the same person who attends on two different days will have two different

experiences in that same exhibit (Falk, 2012, p. 213); they also highlight that visitors will create

or find different meanings based on their visit agenda (Falk, 2012, p. 213-214). So, to ensure the

creation of exhibits that allow for this exploration of meaning, the exhibit development team

must also recognize the significance of this process. This is where the visitor advocate comes in.

The Visitor Advocate

While a variety of approaches to the exhibit development process have been detailed and

tested over the years, the team approach is the most common within larger museums (Kamien,

2001). Janet Kamien’s 2001 article on different team-based approaches to exhibit development

examines different team models, and is still widely cited by the field (and, it should be noted, her

work heavily influenced the Smithsonian’s 2002 report, “The Making of Exhibitions: Purpose,

Structure, Roles and Process”). In her article, she details six different exhibit development team

structures:

• the developer model, in which a content interpreter (exhibit developer) is supported by

specialists that may include curators, evaluators, writers, and researchers;

• the team approach model, in which a curator, designer, and educator share equal

responsibilities and authority;

• the curatorial model, in which the curator holds the power over the final outcome;

• the broker model, in which a project manager reports to the client, keeping the exhibit

designer and exhibit developer on task;

• the architectural model, wherein the designer holds the most authority as supported by the

institution; and


• the theatrical model, where a director utilizes the expertise of the entire team, each

member of which has their own specialties (2001, p. 116, 121).

Kamien revisits these approaches with co-author Polly McKenna-Cress in 2013’s

Creating Exhibitions: Collaboration in the Planning, Development, and Design of Innovative

Experiences. In both texts, Kamien (2001), and then Kamien and McKenna-Cress (2013), note

that it is the exhibit developer, educator, or some combination thereof that must act as an

advocate for the visitor experience. As they write,

Whatever the model, the basic idea remains important: Although all exhibitions

are indeed ‘about something,’ the most important outcome is that they be of

interest, meaning, and utility to the end user and that nothing should be allowed to

get in the way of that ultimate aspiration. The most straightforward way to make

sure that this necessity is actually carried out is to personify it on the team, usually

in the form of an exhibit developer. (Kamien and McKenna-Cress, 2013, p. 27)3

In Planning for People in Museum Exhibitions, Kathleen McLean (1993) notes that this notion of

advocating for the visitor met with resistance in the field. Although this text is now over two

decades old, her writing is still relevant today, specifically in detailing how some museum

professionals feel about the visitor: “…some of us still see the public as the inevitable irritation

in an otherwise glorious profession. We often act as if visitors are intruders, running amok in our

well-designed sanctuaries. We’re pleased when people attend our museums, but irritated if

visitors don’t behave in a reverent manner” (McLean, 1993, p. 2).

3 Indeed, McKenna-Cress and Kamien suggest having five different bases for advocacy: 1. Advocacy for the Institution; 2. Advocacy for the Subject Matter; 3. Advocacy for the Visitor Experience; 4. Advocacy for the Design (physical and sensory); 5. Advocacy for the Project and Team (2013, p. 22).


Other museum thinkers, including but not limited to Elaine Heumann Gurian, Judy Rand

and Paul Orselli, also advocate for an approach to exhibition development that includes a

dedicated visitor advocate – a person who can not only translate the academic work of the

curator, or the technical language of the scientific phenomena, into a visitor-friendly, accessible

exhibit, but also keep the visitor and their quest to find relevance and meaning in exhibitions at

the forefront of every decision. To reiterate the above literature, we can again turn to McKenna-

Cress and Kamien (2013) for an apt summary: “The team of advocates needs to ensure that the

exhibition experience is comfortable, engaging, memorable and ultimately meaningful. Visitors

who are comfortable and confident are more likely to have meaningful experiences” (p. 133).

Interactive Experiences

Current thought leaders in the museum field have posited a number of ways in which

visitors can deeply and meaningfully engage with exhibition content. One way for this to occur is

to include interactive experiences within the exhibition. No longer do visitors expect or desire to

be a sponge, soaking up information presented by the museum; rather, they want to actively

engage with exhibits to create their own, personal, relevant meanings. Nina Simon (2010)’s The

Participatory Museum and accompanying Museum 2.0 blog highlight how to engage visitors

through active experiences, as well as provide evidence as to why this is so important. Bonnie

Sachatello-Sawyer and her co-authors (2002) also suggest that adults need to be actively engaged

to make meaning. In Adult Museum Programs: Designing Meaningful Experiences, the co-

authors often reiterate that adult learners “prefer to be actively involved in the learning process,”

and not just act as passive vessels being filled with knowledge (Sachatello-Sawyer et. al, 2002, p.

4). Although these sentiments refer to adult programming needs, they are still quite applicable to


exhibitions. Even Beverly Serrell (1996) touches upon this in her text Exhibit Labels, reflecting

on the importance of creating exhibit elements that actively engage different types of learners (p.

66).

Interactive experiences are especially important because they are inclusive of differing

learning styles and preferences. Two early champions of interactivity in museum exhibits include

Frank Oppenheimer and Michael Spock, former directors of the Exploratorium and the Boston

Children’s Museum, respectively. They were pioneers in the museum field for their inclusion of

interactive exhibit elements that deftly incorporated a variety of learning modalities. As Elaine

Heumann Gurian (1991) writes, “The major experiments Oppenheimer and Spock initiated –

introducing contextual, direct-experience interactivity to the exhibition floor – changed the face

of museums permanently by inviting the audience to participate in their own learning” (p. 153).

So, to properly discuss meaning making through exhibition-based learning, it is necessary to

include a brief review of notable educational theories that have made their way into the museum

world and now inform the exhibition development process.

The following educational theories, only lightly touched upon here, have made a major

impact on the museum world and have informed museum professionals’ reasoning for including

more interactive experiences within exhibits. Howard Gardner’s (n.d.) theory of multiple

intelligences expanded upon the written and aural intelligences so often favored by scholars by

introducing seven personal intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-

kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal; he later added naturalist, for a total of eight

different types (Gardner, n.d.). Including exhibit elements that incorporate entry points for

visitors of these eight different intelligence types – rather than just linguistic and logical-

mathematical – can allow more visitors the opportunity to feel engaged with the element and to


make their own meaning. For example, an exhibit that teaches visitors about gravity could

include a text panel with charts explaining the scientific concept to appeal to visual and logical-

mathematical learners; a small ledge from which bodily-kinesthetic learners could jump down,

physically experiencing how gravity pulls on their bodies; and a poetic excerpt from Isaac

Newton’s diary detailing how he felt when he first understood the concept, with opportunities to

craft their own poems, to appeal to linguistic learners. According to Gardner, these three entry

points would provide more visitors with more opportunities to connect with the material and act

as a more inclusive approach to exhibit development and design.

Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning also provided museum professionals with

another reason to incorporate interactive elements. In his 1978 text Mind in Society: The

Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Vygotsky posited that learners construct

knowledge through social interaction. According to Vygotsky’s theory, exhibit elements that

necessitate social interaction, rather than silent contemplation, allow visitors to more fully

connect with the material at hand; social interaction encourages visitors to not only learn from

the institution and the content it chooses to present, but also from the other visitors in their party

or at the museum. Other museum thinkers, such as Marilyn Feinchel and Heidi A.

Schweingruber (2010), and educational thought leaders, including Etienne Wenger (1998) and

Ann L. Brown and Joseph Campione (1996) build upon Vygotsky’s work, suggesting the

importance of social interaction for learning and meaning making.

Other notable learning theories provide further reasons to incorporate additional

opportunities for visitors to create meaning. Popular theories that have influenced the museum

field include experiential learning, the 4MAT system, and constructivism. David Kolb’s (as cited

in SUNY Cortland, 2004) experiential learning theories also provided a new lens for looking at


learning. He suggested that learners go through a cyclical process while learning a new concept

or skill; these four steps are concrete experience, observation and reflection, applying abstract

concepts, and active experimentation (SUNY Cortland, 2004). Bernice McCarthy’s 4MAT

system, created in the 1990s, expanded upon Kolb’s theories, assigning questions to his

categories: 1. Why?, 2. What?, 3. How?, and 4. What If? (Excel Inc., 1992). And, the oft-cited

George Hein’s work on constructivism – an educational philosophy that gives the power to the

learner herself, one that emphasizes that all meaning and knowledge is constructed by the learner

– has been highly influential.4 Of progressive education in museums, Hein (2012) writes that

“Visitor contributions to museum interpretation goes back at least fifty years and requires

recognition that information transfer is not a sufficient basis for developing museum exhibitions.

Rather, by applying…dialogue between visitors and exhibit developers…an exhibition’s

meaning is enlarged” (p. 183).

The above approaches to learning and meaning-making have influenced many museum

workers. There has been a concerted move, at least in scholarly literature, away from behaviorist

approaches to education (when a visitor simply responds to stimuli presented by the museum)

and towards this constructivist approach, which emphasizes the input of the learner. In addition,

John Falk’s (1993, 2000) notion of free-choice learning has also affected the way in which

exhibitions are developed and designed. Chandler Screven (1987), a museum exhibition

evaluator, agrees, noting that “Museum learning is self-paced, self-directed, non-linear, and

visually oriented” (as cited in Gurian, 1991, p. 154). It is with this understanding that educators

instruct exhibit developers to provide for and accommodate different learning styles, personality

types, and types of intelligence (Roberts, 1997, p. 140-143; Serrell, 1996, p. 62). It is by

4 Hein’s work is based on the even more oft-cited John Dewey.


including multiple points of entry into a topic – often done so by keeping the above theories in

mind – that visitors can then have the opportunity to make their own meanings, as borne out by

studies completed by many of the above-cited authors (Samis & Michaelson, 2013, p. 59).

The Narrative Approach

In addition to creating exhibits with interactive experiences that cater to visitors’ different

learning styles, museum professionals have been creating more opportunities for personal

meaning-making by incorporating narrative within exhibits. While chronological and thematic

interpretations are still well-used, Leslie Bedford (2014) argues for a story-filled approach in her

book, The Art of Museum Exhibitions: How Story and Imagination Create Aesthetic Experiences.

As she writes,

For exhibition makers, [a narrative exhibition] means engaging all our senses

including the somatic or physical, speaking to our emotions, using the specific to

generate connections to the familiar and universal, and telling us something about

someone we are going to care about. Something happens in the imagination in the

face of a real story; it creates a new one [emphasis added]. (Bedford, 2014, p. 64)

For Bedford, a successful exhibition is one that uses a narrative approach – one that shares a

specific story to represent the larger, general concepts presented – as it allows visitors to deeply

engage with the material and make their own meaning.

Lisa C. Roberts’ (1997) seminal work, From Knowledge to Narrative: Educators and the

Changing Museum, also reflects the importance of a narrative approach to exhibitions, and is a

text upon which Bedford (2014) built. Roberts’ text examines education in museums, which she

describes as “not just interpreting objects but also deciphering interpretations – anticipating and


negotiating between the meanings constructed by visitors and the meanings constructed by

museums” (p. 3). Though Roberts explores education through multiple lenses, including

education as entertainment, empowerment, experience, and ethics, it is her last lens that fits best

within the context of this literature review: education as narrative endeavor. It is important to

note, however, that Roberts uses the term “narrative” slightly differently that Bedford does,

noting that narrative is not just sharing a story in an exhibit, but "…the creation of a story.

[Narrative] aims to establish not truth but meaning; explanation is achieved not through

argument and analysis but through metaphor and connection" (Roberts, 1997). According to

Roberts, visitors compose narratives about what they see, whether through reminiscences,

fantasies, or other types of personal involvement, and use the museum’s narratives of an object

or exhibit to inform their own (1997, p. 138). It is through these deep, personal associations that

visitors can create meaning for themselves, though Roberts often cautions that it is up to the

museum – and not the visitor – to take steps to negotiate the differences between the museum

narrative and the visitor narrative.

Though couched under the idea of playing to emotions, McKenna-Cress and Kamien

(2013) argue for a similar narrative-based approach, though for a different reason than Bedford

(2014) and Roberts (1997): “Museums have found they must offer something that is both

different from and complementary to the learning we can do online, and one way to do that,

which has always been important if unacknowledged, is by engaging the visitors’ emotions” (p.

71). Even as early as 1995, Douglas Worts noted the importance of allowing visitors to create

meanings through an emotional or imagination-based approach: “…museums generally

encourage visitors to defer any personal idiosyncratic meaning-making process to the meanings

that conform to the expert consensus…By encouraging people to experience objects with all of


their perceptual capabilities (cognition, emotion, imagination, intuition and physical interaction)

the museum can become a much richer forum” (p. 129). McLean and Pollock (2010), too, are

proponents of attracting and impacting visitors through a narrative and/or emotional approach to

exhibitions.

A current debate in the field is whether meaning is held in objects (as Serrell [1996] aptly

puts it when she reminds her readers of “a very powerful modality: the real thing”) or within the

larger thematic concerns of the exhibition (p. 67). While there had been a move away from the

importance of objects within exhibitions for non-art museums, the pendulum has now begun to

swing back towards appreciating physical objects as holders of meaning. Kiersten Latham (2013)

suggests that objects significantly shape visitors’ experiences; her analysis of “numinous”

objects looks to answer how and why some objects cause powerful visitor reactions. Steve Conn

(2009) resoundingly answers “yes” when he asks the question Do Museums Still Need Objects?

in a book title; Rainey Tisdale’s (2011) of that book also agrees, writing that “objects are a

crucial element of our approach to authenticity” (p. 20). In her writings, Gurian (2005) highlights

the importance of visitors connecting with objects in an emotional manner. Gurian (2005) also

cites numerous thinkers on the importance of objects; “Objects in exhibitions can elicit

emotional responses. The presence of certain artifacts can evoke memories and feelings. Mihaly

Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton’s (1987) book The Meaning of Things suggests

that it is the emotional overlay we place upon impersonal objects that transforms them into

objects of meaning” (as cited in Gurian, 2005, p. 154).

Regardless of the use of objects, however, it is clear that most many thought leaders in

the museum field agree that an emotional and/or narrative approach to an exhibition provides

abundant opportunities for visitors to connect with each other and the museum (Serrell, 1996, p.


67). It is worth noting that, although this literature review examines current trends in the museum

field, many of these ideas have been around for many years. As McLean (1993) reminds her

readers, the use of narrative and storytelling in exhibitions had made its way into museum

missions by the 1800s (p. x). However, the use of an emotions-based approach to exhibitions still

raises questions in the field; a 2013 Museums Association conference in Great Britain asked

museum professionals, “Is your museum devoid of emotion?...Museums need to become places

where emotion is encouraged, where stories are told, and where a visceral response is preferable

to an intellectual one.”

Conclusion

In summary, this literature review explores how current museum professionals create

opportunities for visitors to make their own meanings within museum exhibitions, and how

elements of the exhibit development process can support this. These include having a visitor

advocate on the exhibit development team; including hands-on, interactive exhibit elements (or,

at the least, a variety of elements that play to the strengths of adult visitors with myriad learning

styles); and revealing the themes of an exhibition through narrative- or emotions-based

approaches.


Methodology

Developing and designing my exhibition was a relatively smooth process. Beginning with

copious amounts of research on women and tattoos, I honed in on the topic of California women

and tattoos, pre-WWII. After completing this research, I began to develop themes and a Big Idea

for the exhibition, as well as a detailed timeline and budget. In the chapter that follows, I

examine my content and exhibit development processes and constraints.

Research

To begin my research, I browsed the web to find out what information was readily

available on women and tattoos before the 1960s, the time period when tattooing again became

popular. To my surprise, I found that there were many blog posts, articles, and images already

online. However, as I explored further, I noticed that most of these sources repeated the same

limited biographical information, placing these early women in the context of their male

relationships (rather than celebrating the women for their own lives), and lacking citations of

credible sources. Even so, this quick scan gave me a baseline for my research.

I next turned to tattoo sourcebooks and academic texts on tattoos. These resources

provided the foundation for the exhibition. Exceptionally helpful academic texts were Margot

Mifflin’s 2013 book Bodies of Subversion: A Secret History of Women and Tattoo (3rd ed.) and

Amelia Klem Osterud’s 2014 text, The Tattooed Lady: A History (2nd ed.). Both books were

written by scholars and deal almost exclusively with women and tattoos. There are also a variety

of online sources that have excellent photographic archives, but little in the way of source credit

or biographical information (often, even the name of the photograph subject is missing). I also

used JFK University’s “One Search” tool, accessed through the library website. To find articles,


I used search terms that related to women and tattoos, including combinations of the following

terms (I have notated them as if doing a Boolean search): “tattoo*,” “body art,” “body ink,”

“ink*,” “tattooist,” “tattoo artist,” and “woman,” “women,” “female,” “lady,” etc. In addition, I

searched for specific people and/or occupations, such as “Artoria Gibbons,” “Betty Broadbent,”

or “Tattooed Lady.”

I also spoke with tattoo artists and historians for this project. I visited Madame

Chinchilla, a well-known California tattooist and curator of the Triangle Tattoo Museum, at her

tattoo studio/museum in Fort Bragg, CA. She shared insights into early women and tattoos and

loaned me tattoo-related texts from her personal library, as well as provided me with

introductions to other tattoo historians (or, at the least, gave me permission to identify myself in

initial introductions as referred by her). I also spent upwards of 10 hours with Lyle Tuttle, a

famous (or, perhaps, infamous) San Francisco tattoo artist and historian.5 We combed through

his archives, providing me with supplemental information for many of the tattooed women I had

researched. He also shared knowledge of a female tattooist in San Francisco that I had never seen

referenced previously. In addition, Lyle generously offered important artifacts from his

collection for display during the exhibition, including Tattooed Lady/tattoo artist Betty

Broadbent’s portable tattooing kit (complete with tattoo machines, footswitch, and ink),

Broadbent’s stage costumes, and a sideshow circus banner – all connected to tattooed California

women.

I also connected with seminal tattoo historian Chuck Eldridge of the Tattoo Archive

(formerly of Berkeley, CA, and now located in North Carolina) and New York tattoo artist

Spider Webb (nee Joseph O’Sullivan), both of whom have excellent collections of tattoo

5 Lyle has been tattooing since 1949, has tattooed on all seven continents, and helped start the tattoo craze in the 1960s when he tattooed Janis Joplin.


paraphernalia and/or historic photographs. And, though not for a specific research need, I talked

to my personal tattoo artist, Hannah Wednesday (Miller) at Tuesday Tattoo, about the feasibility

of exhibit components related to contemporary artists. She connected me with other

contemporary female artists in the Bay Area as well as participated in the creation of a tattooed

mannequin for the exhibit.

One of the most difficult parts of this project has been tracking down appropriate credit

lines and/or getting permission to use images. Initially, very few people responded to my

inquiries, so I continued my search to acquire the correct permissions and/or pay the correct fees

to use specific images in the exhibition. However, I broadened my search and contacted seminal

tattoo artists/tattoo historians to acquire images, and was extremely supported by the tattoo

community. Special thanks must go to Lyle Tuttle of San Francisco’s Lyle Tuttle Tattoo Art

Museum and Studio and New York tattoo artist Spider Webb for allowing the use of images or

objects from their collection at no cost, as well as to Chuck Eldridge of North Carolina’s Tattoo

Archive, who approved altering and editing images from his collection so that they could be used

within engaging interactives within the exhibition.

Of course, I also completed research related to the exhibition development process to

complete my literature review. As with my tattoo research, I used the JFK University’s “One

Search” tool and Google Scholar, as well as previous course readings and museum texts that I

acquired throughout my studies. When researching online, I used combinations of search terms

that included (again, in Boolean terms): “exhibit*,” “development,” “visitor advocate,” “meaning

making,” “narrative in exhibit*,” “storytelling in exhibit*,” etc. I also used the names of specific

authors and educators, such as “David Kolb” and “Lisa Roberts,” to find texts written both by

and about them and their ideas.


Project Content

Through my research, I found that the history of tattoos in California is distinctly divided

into two sections: pre- and post-1960s. Major events in the 1960s – most notably the feminist

movement and famed rock star Janis Joplin flaunting her tattoos on stage – marked a turning

point in who got tattoos and set the stage for a tattoo explosion that has continued in earnest

today (Mifflin, 2013; L. Tuttle, personal communication, April 19, 2015). The themes that arise

in this later period are quite different from that of pre-1960s tattooing, and trying to incorporate

the important ideas and figures of both time periods created, in my mind, a disjointed exhibition.

So, due to the size of the space and the amount of time I had to develop and design the

exhibition, I decided to focus on the stories of the foremothers of modern tattooing: pre-WWII

women.

Honing in on this specific time period gave me the opportunity to delve more deeply into

the world of women and early tattooing.6 Within the exhibit, I cover the following topics (I write

this in the present tense as the exhibit continues to tour throughout California):

• Tattoo traditions of Native women and their tribes

• Wealthy women and early tattoo fads

• Tattooed ladies as circus sideshow attractions

• Female tattooists

• And, briefly, tattooing culture after World War II

6 For my purposes, “California women” included any person who self-identified as a woman, though as far as I can tell from my research all of the women in the exhibit were female, assigned female at birth. I also included any woman with a tie to California, no matter how tenuous. Since many tattooed women were itinerant, I chose to share the stories of women who were documented as living in California for even the briefest periods of time.


An introduction panel begins the exhibit and informs visitors’ expectations by explicitly denoting

what will be explored – and what will not be covered – in the exhibition, while a conclusion

panel anchors the show and provides brief information on post-WWII tattooing. To provide

additional context for the exhibit, I also briefly discuss the mechanics of tattooing, including

tattoo machines and ink. Threaded throughout these exhibit text panels are discussions of gender

and gender stereotypes, and the recognition that women have been tattooed and shaped tattoo

culture for years. The Project Content chapter of this thesis includes all of the labels and text

found in this exhibition. In addition, the exhibit features five interactive pieces, explained in

more detail in the Project Content section. All of the interactives have instructional/directional

text that had been briefly prototyped before the exhibition opened. I shared drafts of each

interactives’ text with friends and family to ensure that the directions were clear, succinct, and

engaging.

I specifically chose to explore the history of women and tattoos because of visitor

feedback. One-fifth of the respondents to my online survey selected this as a topic they were

interested in learning about (“the history of women and tattoos” was the survey’s second most-

selected choice; “different styles of art in modern tattooing” came in first place by a non-

statistically significant margin of ~1%).7 The informal interviews conducted at HAHS had

similar results; even when unprompted, respondents noted that they would like to learn about the

history of women and tattoos. My evaluation methods and results are explored in depth in the

following section.

7 I included a mannequin featuring artwork by contemporary Bay Area female tattoo artists in the exhibition to address this, even though tattoo art itself is not a focus of the exhibit.


Visitor Feedback

To inform the content of this exhibition, I incorporated a variety of front-end evaluation

activities. Informal focus groups, online surveys conducted through Google Consumer Surveys,

and informal interviews at the museum shaped the ways in which I developed the exhibit.

Informal focus group. The first time I gathered visitor feedback was in an informal

focus group with students at the high school where I worked while in graduate school. Although

this was an unplanned session, I am including it within the parameters of this project’s front-end

evaluation because it provided me with a useful starting point for thinking about the exhibit. For

example, the students – who knew me well and felt comfortable sharing their candid (and

brutally honest) opinions with me – questioned the relevancy of some of my proposed

interactives, while also supporting the direction I was planning to go with others. This group also

confirmed that the topic was interesting to this age group, validating the “cool” factor of the

project.

Online surveys. I also created two online surveys related to California women and

tattoos. Both were administered through Google Consumer Surveys, a service which asks visitors

to specific sites to answer a survey question in exchange for access to content. Because Google

collects demographic data from anyone who uses its services, I did not need to include any

specific demographic questions in my survey; that information was already readily available for

each survey taker. Because of this, surveys administered through Google Consumer Surveys can

be sent to specific groups of respondents, pre-sorted by age, gender, location, etc. As such, I

chose to administer each survey to Californians specifically. I did not further narrow by age or

gender.


I created two different surveys for this online platform. The first survey was open-ended,

asking the question “When you think about women and tattoos, what comes to mind?” I did not

expect to receive thoughtful answers from this question;8 rather, I was simply interested in

finding out knee-jerk reactions to the concept of “women and tattoos” from a broad range of

people. The 252 responses were evenly split between positive and negative answers, and detailed

results for this survey are displayed as both a word cloud and a chart in Appendix A. The second

survey was structured, asking “In a museum exhibit on California women and tattoos, what

would you most like to learn about?” I provided six different options, as well as an

“Other/Write-In” section; the order of the choices was randomized by Google for each

respondent, and each respondent was allowed to choose only one answer. The choices for this

survey, also answered by 250 Californians, are listed below from most- to least-popular:

• Different art styles in modern tattooing (21.2%)

• The history of women and tattoos (20.0%)

• The reasons why women get tattoos (15.2%)

• The mechanics of tattooing (14.0%)

• Personal stories of women and their tattoos (12.8%)

• Female tattoo artists (12.0%)

• Other/Write-In, most often answered with variants of “I don’t care” or “I don’t want to

see anything related to tattoos” (4.8%)

8 This was a good thing…if I was expecting deep answers I would have been sorely disappointed!


I wasn’t sure if respondents would be interested in learning about the history of women and

tattoos, and so I was especially pleased to get confirmation that I was on the right track for the

content of this exhibition. Appendix A presents all of the data garnered from online surveys.

Informal interviews. In addition to the online surveys, my school colleague Erin

Fleming and I conducted in-person interviews with museum and museum café visitors at HAHS.

I visited the museum on March 7, 2015 from 10 a.m. to noon to conduct surveys; Erin attended

on March 21. For my visit, I contracted the services of Jennifer Spotswood, a professional

museum evaluator and John F. Kennedy University Museum Studies alumna. Jennifer led me

through best practices for these interviews, critiqued and improved my questions, and

interviewed museum and café visitors during this session (Appendix B lists the questions asked

of each interviewee). In total, we spoke with 10 respondents who expressed a range of opinions

on tattoos.9 Erin spoken with 7 respondents, for a total of 17 interviewees. Though this number is

not statistically significant, almost all of the interviewees had similar thoughts. Respondents

either felt that tattoos were unappealing and uninteresting, or that a tattoo exhibit would be cool

and exciting. Notably, the interests of the latter group followed the same trends as that of my

second online survey question. Curiosity about the different styles of tattoo art and the history of

women and tattoos was particularly high, and respondents often mentioned these concepts

without prompting from the evaluator or me. As such, I was confident that an exhibition focusing

on the history of women and tattoos would appeal to many visitors.

9 We also asked questions relating to sound stories during these sessions; these interview questions were provided by Erin. As they are not relevant to my topic, I am not including that data here. However, it can be found in Erin Fleming’s 2015 John F. Kennedy University Master’s Project.


Project Planning Process

Organizing the process. Throughout this project, organizational methods have played a

very important role. For this exhibit, I experimented with a few electronic methods of

organization, most successfully with an online platform called Trello, but found that the tried-

and-true method of keeping a notebook and coding my notes by theme, trend, and/or exhibit

component worked best. Eventually, much of my project work outgrew the notebook, migrating

into relevant word documents and a large, physical, written “map” that I continued to update as I,

in turn, updated the exhibit. The physical representation of the exhibit’s themes and content also

acted as an inspiration board; potential photographs and graphic design approaches surrounded

the poster as it hung on my wall.

Process overview. During my initial research, I amassed copious amounts of content on

women and tattoos. As I was not yet sure about the scope of the exhibition, my research included

content that reached well into the 1990s. As I continued to research this topic, I found that I was

most interested in the foremothers of modern tattooing and the earliest women to have tattoos.

As such, I kept narrowing my focus until I reached what was, to me, a natural breaking point: the

major global event of World War II.

While researching, I started notating possible themes for the exhibit, as well as kept a

running list of possible text panels, images, interactives, and objects for display. I then began

drafting a “Big Idea” (popularized by Serrell, 1996). This, of course, went through a variety of

iterations. The Big Idea played a different role for me in this process than it does for many other

exhibit development processes, however. In team-driven processes, the Big Idea acts as a

touchstone for team members, keeping everyone on the same page. In an individual project,

however, the Big Idea served to remind me of what content was important – as opposed to


interesting, but extraneous – as well as gave me a way to talk about the exhibit in a succinct way.

As such, the Big Ideas (also expressed in the Project Content chapter below) are:

Big Idea: Women and tattoos have been interconnected throughout California’s

history, and tattooed women helped break down gender barriers due to their

independent and persevering spirits.

Irreverent Big Idea: Tattooed women are badass and not a new phenomenon.

As the sole individual developing and designing this exhibition, I crafted the Irreverent Big Idea

to be helpful to me, personally, during the content and exhibit development process. While

others may consider it uncouth, I have found it to be the most succinct way of expressing the

main message of the exhibit, and for that reason am including it here.

Internal project timeline. The final internal project timeline (see Appendix C) was only

slightly edited from the initial draft, as I was able to meet most of my internal deadlines. The

most significant edit to my timeline pertained to my proposed online crowd-funding campaign. I

first planned to run a Kickstarter campaign from April through May. However, I delayed the

launch in order to incorporate a finalized, concrete budget – a move that helped my campaign

look more professional and organized – and to create a companion video.

Budget. The Hayward Area Historical Society generously provided $1,000 towards the

fabrication of this exhibition, but as I began to develop the exhibit, I determined that this would

not be enough (Appendix D reflects my final budget with line items). In establishing my budget,

I combed online stores to find quality items at a low cost. This included items for the interactive

elements detailed in the Project Content chapter, such as a tablet, postcards, and colored pencils.

I also contacted vendors for printing estimates for both the postcards and large-scale images, as

well as consulted with John Christian at the Hayward Area Historical Society on typical costs.


To determine image reproduction fees, I contacted archive centers or browsed their websites to

find typical fees for non-profit exhibition use. After carefully planning my exhibit’s budget, I

found that I needed to raise an additional $2,500. To meet this goal, I decided to run a

Kickstarter.

Kickstarter is an online crowdfunding platform that provides entrepreneurs and

businesses the opportunity to capture mostly small donations from a large number of people. The

only requirement for creating a Kickstarter campaign is that the funds must go towards a specific

project, rather than ongoing operating support; a screen capture of the Kickstarter page,

including the project description and FAQ, can be found in Appendix E. Drawbacks of this

system are that a small percentage of the funds raised go to Kickstarter, and that none of the gifts

made through Kickstarter are tax-deductible.

Successful Kickstarter campaigns offer incentives to encourage giving at higher levels.

As such, I created a tiered system of Kickstarter rewards to funders of the project, known as

“backers” on Kickstarter. These rewards include: acknowledgement on a panel within the

exhibit, stickers featuring flash – premade tattoo designs often found on the walls of tattoo shops

– from pre-WWII female tattooists, postcards featuring a female tattooist’s flash or photograph

of a tattooed lady, a tote bag featuring the title of the exhibition, a private curatorial tour (led by

me), and an invitation to the opening night reception (Appendix E lists these reward levels and

descriptions). I carefully designed these rewards, as well as a video and concept, to help me

reach my fundraising goal of $2,500. I reached out to potential donors to pre-seed some of this

funding, so I felt confident that I could make this goal within my chosen timeframe of just three

weeks. Luckily, this proved to be the case. With targeted soliciting of friends and family – as

well as outreach to the broader museum community – I hit my goal of $2,500 in less than one


week. By the end of three weeks, I had raised $3,798, or 150% of my goal. After subtracting

credit card and Kickstarter fees, I raised a total of $3,482.76 through the crowdfunding platform

for my project.

Constraints of Project

Budget. While there were certainly limitations for this exhibition, they are no different

than what any small institution faces when developing and designing an exhibition. The first

constraint was, of course, the budget. As noted above, HAHS generously supplied $1,000 for the

fabrication of the exhibition. However, as I wanted to include technology, a variety of

interactives, and large-format images of women with tattoos, I was unable to keep costs below

this amount (Appendix D). To overcome this constraint, I created and promoted a Kickstarter,

detailed above. I also had support in the form of well-known tattoo artist and historian Spider

Webb. After a brief phone conversation, he gave me permission to use any image in his

collection – which spans thousands of photographs – for free. This kind offer meant that the use

of images in the exhibit was limited only by fabrication costs, rather than by image

rights/reproduction fees. Without this, the exhibition would have had substantially less images on

display and, as such, could not have included as many stories of pre-WWII women with tattoos.

Staffing. The number of people working on this exhibit – ie, just me – functioned as

another limitation. As cited by numerous authors and discussed at length in this project’s

literature review, exhibition development is most successful as a team effort (though this is

explored by many authors, see McLean, 1993; Kamien, 2001; and Kamien and McKenna-Cress,

2013 for excellent overviews of the team process in exhibit development and design). However,

because this is exhibition was developed and designed as my graduate project, it was difficult for


me to reconcile these two aspects – after all, how much could I delegate while still calling the

project “mine”? So, while the research, development, and design were almost totally handled by

me, I made an effort to make the project more collaborative in the evaluation and interactive

elements of the exhibit.

For evaluation, I contracted the services of a professional evaluator, as detailed in a

previous chapter. As evaluation is not my strong suit, I found it especially important to reach out

to others to help me shape my questions and perform the actual evaluation. To create stronger

interactives, I also relied on the expertise and ideas of those around me (though not as many

people as I would have liked, given the time constraints). Through conversations with friends,

members of my cohort, and museum professionals, I was able to think more deeply and

creatively about my proposed interactives, as well as devise inexpensive solutions to what

initially seemed like expensive ideas. While most of the concepts behind the interactives did not

change from their initial conception to the final product, the means of production almost

certainly did. Collaborating with others to further develop the exhibit interactives – which,

especially in early discussions, further strengthened the themes of the exhibit itself – was

extremely satisfying, and I am grateful to those who took the time to work with me.

Other Constraints. Other constraints for this project included time limits, the gallery

space, and access to technology. The timeline for this exhibition worked well enough for my

purposes, but more time for content and exhibit development would have been ideal. The gallery

space is approximately 63” x 35”, or just about 2200 square feet. Though considered small by

industry standards, the space is rectangular and quite open, providing myriad ways to use the

space. However, due to the gallery’s secondary use as a community meeting space, each piece of

the exhibit had to be movable, with any immobile or fragile elements placed against a wall. This


limited the layout of the exhibition. In addition, one side of the gallery has large windows that let

in direct sunlight. As such, this affected what types of objects could be on display, and in what

area of the room they could be placed. Lastly, access to technology at HAHS is a large

constraint. Because the museum has only one TV screen available for use, any other piece of

technology – from tablets to projectors to monitors – must be supplied by the guest curator.

Since any additional technology, then, came from my budget, I chose to include only one tech-

based interactive within the exhibit, even though it would have been preferable to include more

high-tech elements. This element is described in full at the end of the next section, Project

Content.


Project Content

The following chapter includes all of the text for the exhibition coupled with

representative images, as well as in-depth descriptions of the exhibit’s interactive components.

The exhibit, titled “Tattooed and Tenacious: Inked Women in California’s History,” was on

display at the Hayward Area Historical Society in Hayward, CA from July 9 to September 9,

2015. Photos of the exhibit, as well as the final floor plan, can be seen in Appendix F. To make

the exhibition script especially clear, the actual text of the exhibit is included below in a different

font than the rest of the text of this thesis.

All section panels measured 18”x24”, except the introductory panel, which measured

24”x36”. Secondary panels measured 10”x13”, interactive instruction panels measured 8”x10”,

and caption labels (ie standalone panels, and not the secondary captions on the section panels)

measured 6”x6”. Representative graphic design elements can be viewed in Appendix G.

Big Idea: Women and tattoos have been interconnected throughout California’s history, and

tattooed women helped break down gender barriers due to their independent and persevering

spirits.

Irreverent Big Idea: Tattooed women are badass and not a new phenomenon.

Intro Panel:

TATTOOED AND TENACIOUS: INKED WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA’S HISTORY

Today, more women than men have tattoos.


Almost a quarter of American women have permanent ink, compared to just 19% of men.

Younger people are even more likely to be tattooed, as more than a third of Americans

between the ages of 18 and 40 have skin art.

But, what about the first women to get tattooed?

Who were they, and why did they get inked?

They came from across the U.S. and crossed class lines. From the upper-class woman who

followed a trend, to the working-class woman who worked in a sideshow, American women

have always had an intimate and fascinating relationship with tattoos – and in California, it was

no different.

Step inside to discover some of the stories of tenacious and tattooed women in California’s

history.

Section Panel:

NATIVE INK

From north to south and from valley to coast, California native women are part of a rich

tattooing tradition.

Whether done to ensure a long and happy life, to enhance a woman’s features, or as part of a

complex puberty ritual, almost every California tribe had a tattooing tradition.


While tribes like the Pomo, Eastern Miwok, and Chukchansi practiced body tattooing,

California native women most commonly inked their chins. Designs varied by tribe, and the

image next to this panel denotes a few of these patterns. Often,

a female elder held special knowledge of tattooing and any

related rituals, making these women the earliest female

tattooists in the state.

Chin tattoos became less and less common throughout the

twentieth century. But now, some California native women have revived the practice,

permanently inking their faces using the same hand tattooing process as their ancestors.

Caption on section panel:

A principal female shaman of the Hupa people with chin

tattoos, c. 1923. The Hupa hail from Northwestern

California.

Associated Secondary Panel:

OLIVE OATMAN

Traveling west with her family in 1851, 13-year-old Olive was kidnapped by members of a Yavapai

tribe.


Treated as slaves by the Yavapai, Olive and her sister were held captive for a year before they

were traded to a friendly Mohave tribe in Southern California.

It was near the border between modern-day California and Arizona that Olive received her

facial tattoo. These five blue lines were carefully placed to emphasize Olive’s broad features.

Olive’s upper arms were also marked with vertical bands. This ink physically reflected the love

of her Mohave family, and was a permanent reminder of this even after she returned to white

society in 1856.

Caption Label:

TATTOO DESIGNS

This 1920 chart shows several examples of native women’s

facial tattoos.

A. Yurok B-C. Costanoan D. Sinkyone E-F. Maidu G. Yuki H-L.

Chukchansi and Yokut

Caption Label:

O CHE CHE

In this 1903 photograph, O Che Che, a Mohave woman, wears a chin

tattoo made of five straight lines.

The Mohave people are indigenous to Southwestern California, Arizona,

and Nevada.


Section Panel:

WEALTHY WOMEN AND TATTOO FADS

In 1897, The New York World reported the shocking “fact” that 75% of American society

women had permanent ink.

While it’s highly unlikely that 75% of these women really got tattooed, upper-class American

women had indeed jumped on the tattoo bandwagon. Taking cues from their European

counterparts, elite American women chose to get inked to display

their daring, adventurous spirits. While their tattoos depicted

family crests, portraits of lovers, or nature imagery, these women

had only one requirement: that the art could easily be hidden by

clothing.

Aimée Crocker, the Sacramento railroad heiress, got multiple

tattoos throughout the course of her unconventional, world-traveling life. A woman who cared

little for society’s norms, she loved showing off her tattoos – including the two serpents on her

lower arms, seen in the photograph next to this panel.


Caption on section panel:

Lady Randolph Churchill, an English society woman and Winston

Churchill’s mother, inspired elite California women with her tattoo. She

sported a snake design on her wrist.

Caption Label:

DRESS

Society women easily covered tattoos with fashionable dresses like this one, c. 1907.

The high neck, long sleeves, and long hem hid these women’s body art, which ranged from

illustrations of family crests and favorite cars to flowers.

Section Panel:

A LIFE ON DISPLAY

When the first Tattooed Ladies appeared on stage in 1882, they were billed as “living art

galleries.”

“Tattooed Ladies,” as these heavily inked performers were called, traveled across the country

in circus sideshows. Primarily working-class women, they were covered with permanent body

art from neck to feet.


It wasn’t the art that customers paid to see, however. Men, women, and children ogled

Tattooed Ladies as they stood on display with other “freaks” in the sideshow.

It would have been a titillating display – these women were fully inked and less-than-fully

dressed. But for Tattooed Ladies, presenting their bodies in this way was a small price to pay.

After all, they thought, what could be better than getting to travel the country, and even the

world, when women had few options outside of marrying and staying home to raise children?

Sidebar: Sideshow Salaries

Tattooed Ladies’ lives were balancing acts between public display and personal independence,

but the salary certainly didn’t hurt its appeal. In the 1890s, most working-class families lived on

$300 to $500 a year. A Tattooed Lady – especially a well-known one – could make $100 to $200

a week. In today’s dollars, that’s equivalent to $2,500!


BEHIND THE INK

Tattooed Ladies crafted stories about their body art to appeal to the masses.

Tattooed Ladies made a personal choice to get inked, but this truth was not scandalous

enough to sell sideshow tickets. Playing to Americans’ fascination with the Wild West, many

Victorian-era Ladies invented stories of kidnappings and forced tattooing by “savage” Native

Americans.


These stories changed with the second wave of performers in the 1920s and 1930s. These

women “revealed” that they got inked to secure the affection of a tattooist husband-to-be or

to find a life of adventure. These themes of love and independence reflected the changing

roles of women in American society.


BETTY BROADBENT

Betty was the most famous and beloved Tattooed Lady of all time.

After getting her first tattoo at the age of 14, Betty Broadbent

eventually wore over 350 distinct designs. She chose to get inked with a

variety of images, from portraits of public figures like Charles Lindbergh

and Queen Victoria to religious icons like the Madonna and child.

Betty memorably displayed her tattoos during a televised beauty pageant at the 1939 World’s

Fair to challenge conventional standards of beauty. Sadly, she didn’t win.

After tattooing in San Francisco and Florida for years, Betty became the first person inducted

into the Tattoo Hall of Fame in 1981.



TATTOOED MEN

Tattooed Men paved the way for their female counterparts.

One of the most famous Tattooed Men was Captain Costentenus.

He was covered with tattoos, including his face, scalp, genitals,

and finger webbing. The Captain claimed to be an Albanian prince

forcibly tattooed by island natives, but historians believe that he

got inked for the sole purpose of exhibition.

The popularity of Tattooed Men waned when Tattooed Ladies began to work in sideshows.

The women’s risqué clothing and defiance of traditional gender roles made for a much more

scandalous – and profitable – display.

Section Panel:

POPULAR IMAGERY

Limited technology, not gender, influenced the tattoo choices of sideshow performers.

Patriotic, religious, and nature-themed designs reigned supreme for heavily tattooed people of

all genders. However, the limitations of early equipment created a certain “look” for all tattoos.

The first wave of Tattooed Ladies had designs that used heavy black ink, as well as the only

other available colors: dark red and navy blue.


By the 1910s, tattoo technology had greatly advanced. Intricate designs in a variety of colors

became possible. Lady Viola sported the faces of six presidents on her chest, while Artoria

chose to wear her favorite religious imagery. Such icons lent an air of respectability to the

Tattooed Lady.

Sidebar: The Last Supper

Reproductions of Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpiece “The Last Supper” were especially popular

with Tattooed Ladies. At least three, including Artoria, at right, had this intricate design across

their back. [These three images not included in this thesis]

Caption Label:

LADY VIOLA

Billed as “The Most Beautiful Tattooed Woman in the World,” Lady

Viola’s ink featured portraits of famous people and places. On her

upper back, Viola even had an image of the U.S. Capitol Building.

Look for the six presidents inked on her chest.

After retiring from the circus, Lady Viola lived and tattooed in Fresno with her husband and

nine children. She came out of retirement for one last sideshow tour at the age of 73, making

her the oldest performing Tattooed Lady in the U.S.


Caption Label:

ARTORIA

Completely tattooed by her husband, Red, Artoria Gibbons’ body

art was truly that: art. A deeply religious woman, Artoria chose

tattoos that spoke to her spiritual side. Reproductions of

paintings by Raphael and Michelangelo mingled with patriotic

designs and illustrations of angels and saints.

Though she traveled across the U.S. as a Tattooed Lady, she and Red eventually settled in

California to work together as tattooists.

Caption Label:

SIDESHOW COSTUMES

Tattooed Lady Betty Broadbent wore these costumes on stage. The outfits’ refined, feminine

look reinforced the message that Betty and other Tattooed Ladies promoted off-stage: that

they were just as beautiful, cultured, and classy as non-inked women.

Caption Label:

SIDESHOW BANNER

This huge poster, created by circus banner painter Snap Wyatt, would have been one of many

that lined the walkway leading up to the sideshow tent. Wyatt’s colorful banners often noted


that the featured attraction was indeed “alive,” and not deceased and stuffed, to entice

potential customers to come inside.

Section Panel:

LEARNING THE TRADE

Becoming a tattooist wasn’t easy…especially if you were a woman.

Male tattooists jealously guarded the secrets of “their” trade, worried that teaching other men

would create too much competition. Most disliked taking apprentices for this very reason.

It was even tougher for women looking to break into the business. Not only did women have to

contend with tattooists’ concerns about competition, but they also had to deal with the sexism

entrenched in American society. As such, almost all early female tattooists learned how to

tattoo from – and set up shop with – their husbands.

Against the odds, these women established successful careers in California and beyond. Like

their male counterparts, female tattoo artists worked in busy port towns like San Francisco,

Los Angeles, and San Diego, catering to sailors down by the docks.


Sidebar: From the Sideshow to the Shop

For many Tattooed Ladies, exhibiting their bodies on stage was just the beginning. To make

ends meet during the circus off-season, performers picked up tattoo machines and shifted the

focus from their bodies to customers’ - both men and other women.

Tattooed Ladies of the 1920s and 1930s often worked as tattooists well into old age, ensuring a

second career after their performing days were over.


MAUD WAGNER

Maud Stevens Wagner was the first non-native American woman

known to tattoo.

A circus contortionist and aerialist, Maud met tattooist and future

husband Gus Wagner in 1904 and asked him to “tattoo her all over

and teach her to tattoo.” She eventually moved to L.A., where she, her husband, and their

daughter Lotteva all tattooed together.

Maud helped pave the way for female tattoo artists in the U.S. Even so, she originally had to

advertise her services under the name M. Stevens Wagner, as many men wouldn’t knowingly

come to a shop to get a tattoo from a woman. While there is some evidence of earlier female

tattooists, their names are lost to history.



TATTOO FLASH

Tattooists often used pre-drawn designs known as “flash.”

Both male and female tattooists had a large selection of flash

available for customers. Though these images were often

created by the tattooists themselves, tattooists also used designs

by other artists.

Dorothy “Dainty Dotty” Jensen, a former Fat Lady with Ringling Brothers Circus, created both

sheets of flash seen here. Her tattooist husband, Owen, taught Dotty the trade. They made

their home together in Los Angeles after the end of World War II.


Caption Label:

LOTTEVA WAGNER

The L.A.-born Lotteva Wagner, daughter of

renowned tattooists Maud Stevens Wagner and

Gus Wagner, created this religious flash.

Lotteva never got tattooed herself – a unique trait for a tattoo artist – but was well-regarded in

the industry for her work.

Caption Label:

RUTH WEYLAND

Tattoo artist Ruth Weyland worked in

San Francisco in the 1930s. While well-

known for tattooing overtly lesbian

imagery, like the 1933 design seen here,

she also loved to tattoo sailors, calling

them “the gems of the earth.”

This photo of Ruth was doctored to make her look heavily tattooed, though the reason for this

remains a mystery.


Caption Label:

“PAINLESS” NELL BOWEN

“Painless” Nell Bowen tattooed in San Diego during and after World War II, catering to the

city’s large seafaring population.

Nell owned and operated five tattoo shops at one time – a huge feat even today – and

employed male and female tattooists. She and her crew worked quickly, inking as many sailors

as possible in one day, but often sacrificed cleanliness to do so.

Caption Label:

MADAM AUSTIN

Not much is known about Madam Austin, a Californian tattoo artist,

except that she worked in a shop with several well-regarded male

tattooists in San Francisco.

Fellow tattoo artist Irene “Bobbie” Libarry took this never-before-seen

photo in 1915.

Section Panel:

HOW TO TATTOO

Tattoo needles push ink into the skin to leave a lasting mark.


Originally, all tattoos were done by hand. First, the tattooist would dip a single needle,

sharpened bone, thorn, or other stylus into pigment. Then, she or he would poke the stylus

into the second layer of skin, forcing the ink a millimeter deep. Sometimes called “hand

tattooing” or “stick-and-poke,” this method is still used around the world.

In the U.S., most tattooists use an electric tattoo machine. Patented in 1891, the machine

punches from one to thirty-two pointed needles through the skin at once. Tattoo ink is then

forced into the open holes.

The ink is typically made of metal salts – like zinc (yellow or white), cobalt (blue), and iron

(black, brown, and red) – and suspended in a carrier solution. The carrier, usually ethyl alcohol

or purified water, helps to keep the color evenly distributed while also disinfecting the

pigment.

Sidebar: Needles

Needles can puncture the skin up to 3,000 times per minute during a tattoo. Artists use a foot

pedal to control the machine’s electric motor, which in turn controls the speed that the needles

move. Tattoo artists also use different types of needles for different parts of the process,

depending on how detailed the image is or how much ink they want delivered to the skin at

once.



DOES IT HURT?

Yes…but not as much as you’d think.

Inked people often describe the sensation of getting tattooed as similar to a bee sting, a pinch,

or even a slight tickle. If you’ve never been tattooed before, try pinching yourself a few times in

a row to get an idea of what it feels like.

But remember, the level of discomfort depends on a number of factors, including the location

of the tattoo, the skill of the tattoo artist, and personal pain tolerance.

Caption Label:

TATTOOING KIT

San Francisco tattoo artist and sideshow attraction Betty Broadbent used this portable

tattooing kit.

Like other traveling artists, her kit would have included a tattoo machine or two, needles, ink,

and other necessary items.


Conclusion Panel:

THE CONTINUING STORY OF WOMEN AND TATTOOS

The ominous reputation of tattoos – a perception that still plagues inked women today – grew

stronger after World War II. In the 1950s, large numbers of outlaw bikers, gang members,

felons, and other social outcasts began getting tattoos. This meant that tattooed women now

shone in a less-than-favorable light.

It wasn’t until the late 1960s that there was another tattoo revolution. When rock singer Janis

Joplin showed her delicate body art on stage, women across the country clamored for their

own. The emerging feminist movement of the 1970s, too, prompted even more women to get

inked. Feminists chose to get tattooed to visibly reclaim their bodies and confirm their

independence.

Today, tattoos are more popular than ever. But, for how long? As tattooed Millennials and Gen

Xers age, will their children want to get inked and look like their mothers? There’s no way to

know for sure. But one thing is clear: the future of tattoos will continue to be shaped by its

past, and by the tenacious, inked women who staked out their place in California’s history.

Associated Secondary Panel (for Mannequin):

TATTOOING TODAY

Six Bay Area tattoo artists collaborated on this mannequin. This piece gives just a glimpse of the

artistry and creative skill of contemporary female tattoo artists across California.


Torso

Jen Marshall and Chelsey Munster

Simms Ink

Hayward, CA

Left Arm

Carolyn LeBourgeois

FTW Tattoo Parlor

Oakland, CA

Right Arm

Hannah Wednesday and Candi Kinyobi

Tuesday Tattoo

San Francisco, CA

Hands

Kristy Quinones

Black and Blue Tattoo

San Francisco, CA


Acknowledgment Panel:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to the following people for their support:

Adrienne McGraw and Susan Spero at John F. Kennedy University

Diane Curry and John Christian at the Hayward Area Historical Society

Lyle Tuttle at the Lyle Tuttle Tattoo Art Museum

And, extra special thanks to the Kickstarter backers who helped fund this exhibit:

Hideko Akashi

Austin Beer

Heather Bouchey

Mary Bourke

Brittany Bradley

Alida & Todd Bray

Peter Castillo

Monica Chew & Chris Karlof

David Cohen

Laura Cohen

Lori Cohen

Mary Danaher Cohen

Jonah Comstock

Ivan Cooper

Ofer dal Lal

Bill Dalzell

Brian “Fred” Danaher

Rose Danaher

Brian Davidson

Cara Dodge

Jordan Evins

Sara Flynn & Don Libbey

Mark Foster

Michael Fox

Joe Franke

Ellen & Bob Freeman

Aaron Tynes Hammack

Tamara Hayes


John Heylin

Jessica Hicks

Alexandra Higgins

Lesli & Rob Hobart

Alexander Jackson

Robert & Joyce Kleiner

Kelly Kunaniec

Shyam Lal & Rami Randhawa

Jackie Larson & David Schoenstein

Terri Le

Ryan LeBlanc & Chelsea Matthews

Mary Anne Longpre

Katherine Lord

Sarah Marsom

Mitzi Mathews

Adrienne McGraw

Alec McMullen

Gale & Ross Miller

Sarah Moir

Dave Oshry

Triana Patel

Kathy Patterson & Joe Boboschi

Michelle Powers

Candice Rankin

Eleanor Sandys

Jennifer Spotswood

Bob & Cindy Stern

Kat Sullivan

William Wild

Colin Williams

Dennis Yang

This exhibit was developed and designed by Amy Cohen of Oakland, California.

Interactives

Detailed below are the five interactive elements of the exhibit, as well as the instructional

text that appeared next to each component.


Tattoo flash postcards. The postcard-flash interactive was the largest and most

successful participatory component in the exhibit. To begin, visitors chose from three designs

featuring the outline of replicas of pre-WWII female tattooists’ original flash. Colored pencils sat

on the table where visitors colored in the postcard based on their imagination or the actual colors

of the flash (I provided an image of the actual flash for reference). Visitors could clip their

finished postcards to rows of colorful twine with clothespins, or they could take their design

home. This interactive helped visitors think about the steps of creating a tattoo (outline, shading,

color), as well as provided a creative entry point for connecting with female Californian

tattooists. Indeed, many visitors even replicated the flash designs, complete with color and

shading, by drawing them in a larger format on the table’s paper covering. From my

observations, the interactive also seemed to help normalize women with tattoos (or reinforce the

idea that many women have tattoos); many of the colored-in products featured hand-drawn

tattoos carefully added to the women depicted in the flash designs. In addition, this interactive

brought in the community element, as visitors viewed other participants’ designs and shared their

own – whether by leaving it at the museum, talking about the design when they brought it home,

or mailing it off to friends and family elsewhere in the world. This activity seemed to be the most

popular interactive in the exhibit, based on observational and anecdotal evidence.

The instructions for this interactive are as follows:

TATTOO FLASH

Tattoo artists often separate the tattoo process into three steps: outlining the

design in black ink, shading for dimension, and adding in color.


Try your hand at shading and coloring flash – pre-made tattoo designs – by

early female tattoo artists.

Or, add your voice to the discussion. Write your thoughts on women and tattoos

on any postcard, and post it here.

Funhouse mirrors. This interactive consisted of a wall of mirrors with wavy edges. On

the mirrors, the outline of an arm and of a neck/shoulders combination boasted a variety of

tattoos in red, black, and blue, hand-drawn by guest artist Jessica Hicks. Visitors could line

themselves up with these drawings to see how they would look with tattoos. Admittedly, the

concept worked better in theory than in reality, as the body parts drawn on the mirror did not

match up with body parts in reality. However, visitors still understood the concept, and I now

know to tackle this type of project from a different angle if using it in a different exhibit.

Appendix F includes a photograph of a visitor interacting with the exhibit element.


STEP RIGHT UP…

The Tattooed Ladies who worked as circus sideshow attractions were almost

completely covered with permanent ink.

What would you look like - or how would you feel - if you had just as much ink?

Line up your body with the outlines in our version of circus funhouse mirrors to

find out.


Flipbook illustrating the tattoo process. This simple interactive consisted of three

transparency sheets, laid one on top of the other and pinned to the “Mechanics of Tattoing” wall.

Each layer physically illustrated a different step of the tattooing process, and when combined

depicted a complete tattoo with color, shading, and outline. Guest artist Hicks also created the

tattoo design for this straightforward component, which was extremely well-received by visitors

for its intuitive and low-effort approach to explaining the tattoo process. Appendix F includes a

photograph of this exhibit element.


THE STAGES OF A TATTOO

When creating a colorful tattoo, artists often go through three distinct steps:

1. Outlining

2. Shading

3. Coloring

Flip through these transparencies to see the evolution of a color tattoo.

Draw-your-own tattoo design. During installation, I realized that I did not have enough

material to fully cover a wall originally planned to be part of the Tattooed Lady section. To solve

this issue, I added butcher paper (already owned by the Hayward Area Historical Society) and a

prompt asking visitors to draw their own tattoo designs. While the HAHS staff was skeptical that

this would elicit any meaningful responses, I am happy to say that this addition to the exhibit

seemed to have been a big hit. At the opening reception, visitors – including Lyle Tuttle and

Carolyn LeBourgeois, two tattoo artists – added designs to the wall with colored pencils that I


had already purchased for the exhibit. As such, adding this interactive essentially cost nothing,

but created another place for visitors to interact with the material. By the end of the exhibit’s

three-month run, all kinds of visitors had participated, from children who added designs near the

floor to adults who drew more sophisticated images near the top.10


DRAW A TATTOO

Sketch a tattoo right here on this wall. Start from scratch, or expand on other visitors’

drawings to create collaborative, one-of-a-kind designs.

Share your tattoo story with Instagram. To experiment with using technology in the

exhibit and in this particular gallery space, I purchased an Android tablet so that visitors could

take photos of and share their own tattoos. Because I did not have the funds available to build my

own software platform for this activity, I chose to use Instagram, a popular social media

platform, to facilitate this endeavor. I asked visitors to take a photo of their favorite tattoo, and

then add a caption about the design. I anticipated that this would not be a very popular aspect of

the exhibit, as it required a high investment of time and energy (both to take the photo and write

about it, and to understand how to use the tablet to do so). As such, I can understand why this

was the least-used parts of the exhibit, though some visitors did engage with the tablet and add

meaningful captions about their tattoos.


WHAT’S YOUR STORY?

10 Surprisingly, there were no inappropriate drawings of any kind!


No matter what gender you identify with, we want to know the story behind your

tattoo.

Take a picture of your favorite tattoo. Then, tell us a little bit about yourself and the

reason you got inked.

Don’t have a tattoo? Snap a photo of yourself and tell us why.

Along with these general directions, I also wrote detailed instructions on how to take

photographs and post to Instagram. These notes stood upright in a plastic stand next to the tablet.


Conclusions and Recommendations

My exhibit, “Tattooed and Tenacious: Inked Women in California’s History” opened at

the Hayward Area Historical Society on July 9, 2015, with a reception the following day.

Covering topics from tattoos and Native women to the working-class women who worked as

sideshow attractions, this exhibit put these pre-WWII tattoo pioneers in the spotlight.

Photographs of tattooed women and female tattoo artists combined with engaging text panels to

tell their stories. A hand-painted mannequin – a collaborative effort by current Bay Area female

tattoo artists and specially commissioned for this exhibition – also highlighted how far women

and tattooing have come. Interactive components and tattoo-related artifacts, plus the

photographs and text, provided multiple entry points into the story of tattooed women in

California.

This chapter discusses just some of what I discovered while developing, designing, and

installing this exhibit, including what I learned about myself as an emerging museum

professional and what I would do differently if embarking on this journey a second time. In

addition, this section also provides recommendations for other individuals developing an

exhibition without a team, with a special focus on graduate students who may undertake a similar

project to fulfill their thesis requirements.

What I Learned About Myself as an Emerging Museum Professional

Through this project, I learned more about my preferred working styles, strengths, and

weaknesses, especially as related to the exhibit development process.

Working independently. I was extremely interested to see how I could tackle a large

public-facing project – like this exhibition – without a set team. Would I be able to stay on track


if I did not have to be accountable to team members on a weekly basis (not including, of course,

my thesis advisors)? Would I be creative enough to come up with interesting and fun ideas for

interactives and content? How well would I be able to edit the exhibition, and would I be able to

get rid of stale ideas without a push from a team member?

Luckily, all these questions were answered throughout the process with, I believe, a

resounding “yes.” Of course, this exhibit was not really completed only by me. As mentioned in

previous chapters, I received support and advice from a variety of people, including my thesis

advisors, school colleagues, the staff at the Hayward Area Historical Society, members of the

tattoo community, and my friends and family. However, the process of working through ideas

independently before consulting with others – rather than brainstorming all together, as I am

used to doing in this process – worked especially well for me. Although I was already aware of

this preference, working on this exhibit solidified my desire to think through ideas in private, and

then present an idea for critical analysis. Of course, some of my ideas completely changed after

consulting with others, while others retained much of what I originally presented. However, I

was pleased to note that I was able to discard ideas that did not work without feeling like the

process had gone off track, or like I was too attached to a specific idea – something that initially

concerned me.

Working independently did not only apply to creating an exhibit as an individual,

however. For me, this project also meant working at a different pace than almost every other

student in my thesis cohort. While it could be disconcerting for some students to have a different

timeline than other members of their group, I did not find it to be problematic.

Writing labels. Another aspect of my professional life that I already understood, but

strengthened throughout the course of the exhibit, was my love of writing exhibit labels.


Distilling information into accessible, palatable, and interesting text is quite enjoyable, and

became the part of this project that I most enjoyed. My goal for this exhibition was to keep all

section labels at 200 words or less, and all captions at 75 words or less. I did not want to put a

book on a wall. Once I installed the exhibit, I realized that the show looked more text-heavy than

I would have liked. Even so, I did keep to my set word counts for most panels, and am looking

forward to continuing to work on my writing and editing skills.11

I also encountered a few writing-related bonuses related to the solo exhibit development

process. The first is that, because I did all of the research myself, I deeply understood the content

and the important themes for the topic. I did not have to rely on another person to tell me what

they found most significant in each section; rather, I innately knew which stories I wanted to

highlight, and which parts I could cut as needed. By the end of the project, I felt like an expert on

the topic of pre-WWII California women and tattoos; I am not sure that I would have felt the

same way had another team member done most of the research.

The second writing-related bonus is that I had the ultimate choice as to how the final text

would read – a luxury not often available to writers working with a team, or for a client, project

manager, or supervisor who has the final say (Serrell, 1996). I was lucky to have five label

editors who pored over my writing and provided critical input that greatly improved all of my

labels. But, because writing is so personal, I preferred some of my word choices or phrases over

those suggested by editors. As a small example, one of my exhibit headings includes the phrase,

“a rich tattooing tradition.” During each run-through, one editor noted that I should remove the

word “rich.” But, I wanted to keep that word in the heading – and, because I was the sole

developer/curator, I did! It would be interesting to do further evaluation to see if some of my

11 I’m also looking forward to getting better at removing passive voice from my writing!


linguistic selections were the right choice or not, but being able to make such a decision without

deferring to others was a clear bonus for this project.

Working with the community. Engaging with – and asking for help from – the tattoo

community proved to be a necessity for this exhibit, and it surprised me how painless it was to

do so. I originally anticipated that it would be difficult to connect with people in the tattoo

community, but in reality it was quite easy and fun. The people that I talked to were excited to

hear about a museum exhibit on women and tattoos; many went out of their way to connect me

with others in the community, to loan me items or images for the show, and/or to participate in

the mannequin project for a very small stipend. This may have been an anomaly, but I like to

think that my authentic interest in hearing peoples’ stories and knowledge helped make the

process relatively painless. This innate curiosity should serve me well as I begin to immerse

myself in exhibition work.

Lessons from the Process: What I Would Do Differently

While I am happy with the final product, there were, of course, things that I would do

differently if I were to repeat the process. This section outlines the three biggest blunders that I

made during this project: printing too-small graphics, not fully prototyping interactives, and

waiting to finish my research before beginning to plan the exhibit.

Sizes of graphics and text panels. The first aspect of the exhibit that I would change is

the one that is most obvious to visitors upon seeing the exhibition: the need to enlarge every

single image and text panel. While I printed out various images and text panels to scale to try to

understand how they would look in the gallery, I did not fully develop my spatial awareness of

the exhibit space. All of the images could have been increased in size by at least 50%, while


some of the smaller images could have even been doubled in size (almost every photograph in

the exhibit had a high enough resolution to allow for this). I could also have enlarged section

panels from 18”x24” to 24”x36”, although the size of the text in the smaller panels still

conformed to legibility standards (Serrell, 1996). My inability to accurately envision the sizes of

the graphics and panels in the exhibit meant that, at the end of installation day, I had a blank wall

originally planned to be part of the Tattooed Ladies section. Thanks to some quick thinking, I

turned the wall into another interactive: the Draw-Your-Own-Tattoo wall. This component ended

up working well, becoming a fun and successful exhibit element. However, solving problems at

the last minute is decidedly not ideal, and I could have avoided this with better-informed spatial

planning.

In the future, I plan to create accurate mock-ups of the walls of the exhibit space using a

computer program like Google SketchUp, Floorplanner, or even InDesign. Using these mock-

ups, I can move and resize labels and images, gaining a better grasp of ideal sizes and placement

before going to print. On a positive note, I plan to travel the exhibit throughout California, and

these smaller images and panels may help the exhibit fit into the galleries of smaller host

institutions.

Developing and prototyping interactives. While I prototyped some of the interactives

and their subsequent instructions, I did so in a haphazard manner and not as extensively as I

would have liked. Simply put, I ran out of time. I thoroughly discussed the initial ideas for most

of the interactive elements – including the postcards to color in, the tattoo transparency flipchart,

the “funhouse” mirrors, and the share-your-story tech piece – with different sets of people prior


to installation. However, we debated all of the merits and drawbacks of these elements only in

theory, as no physical representation of the interactives existed in reality.12

The botched “funhouse” mirrors element most illustrated my need to prototype. This

component features a wall of mirrors with wavy edges; on the mirrors, a drawing of an arm and a

drawing of a neck/shoulders have a variety of tattoos in red, black, and blue. Ostensibly, visitors

could line themselves up with the drawings to see how they would look with tattoos. In reality, it

was difficult to create drawings of human body parts on a mirror that corresponded to the body

in real life. If I had spent more time researching how to create this effect, or experimented with

different angles and body parts, this interactive would have been much more effective. As it

stands, visitors still understood the concept, but had trouble making the interactive work

properly. Indeed, I debated whether or not this should even be installed after I realized that it was

not a well-functioning piece. However, I chose to include it in the exhibit in its off-kilter iteration

as visitors could still comprehend the meaning behind the interactive (ie what would you look

like with tattoos?), and got some kind of social interaction out of the component (even if that

social interaction was just talking about how the shoulders on the mirror, for example, were so

broad).

Diving into exhibit development earlier. My final significant lesson learned through my

master’s project relates to my project timeline. Looking back, I should have gotten started on all

aspects of the exhibit development and design process earlier (as noted by a variety of authors,

including Kamien and McKenna-Cress, 2013, starting a project with an understanding of the

integration of content and physical exhibit elements is necessary to create an excellent exhibit).

For this project, I waited until I felt confident in the completion of my research before beginning

12 The one exception to this was the postcard interactive; I mocked-up a few different designs, tried coloring in them in myself, and shared potential images to determine which pictures most resonated with people.


to think deeply about the physical exhibit. In reality, I could have been working on developing

interactives, evaluating different label designs, and connecting with people in the tattoo world

who could loan me objects or work on the mannequin project all while continuing to do research.

Looking back, I feel that I may not have been confident enough to move forward without a deep

understanding of the topic, but I could have been more successful in a variety of exhibit areas if I

had pressed ahead regardless of my comfort level. However, one benefit to waiting – though I do

not believe it outweighs the cons – is that I was able to connect more deeply with tattoo

historians about my project. For example, I am not sure if Lyle Tuttle, the tattoo artist who

loaned me pieces from his collection, would have been so enthusiastic about sharing his

knowledge and artifacts with me if I did not have a thorough understanding of tattoo history.13

Admittedly, one way to solve this problem would have been to commit more time to research at

the beginning of the process, but this ideal can be hard to achieve with the realities of life.

Recommendations

While some of the following recommendations apply to any exhibit developer working

without a team, my target audience for this section is future graduate students taking a similar

unchartered path for their thesis project. Many of these recommendations also function as

personal reminders as I enter the work force as a museum professional focused on exhibitions.

Getting input. My highest recommendation is to get as much input as possible from a

variety of people. If I had developed or designed this exhibit in a vacuum, it would have been

substantially less successful. Opportunities for input from potential visitors and museum

13 I do believe he would have loaned me the pieces, but he may have been less involved in the process, and subsequently would not have asked to promote the exhibit on his website, attended the opening, or hosted me at his home in Ukiah to share even more pieces from his collection, etc.


professionals range from developing and prototyping interactives to reading through labels to

narrowing down the topic, and more. Continually receiving input – from both in-person advisors

and from the literature – can only make the exhibit stronger, and can provide solid reasons for

why something would – or would not – work in the show. Receiving valuable opinions can also

replicate, in some small way, working on an exhibit team in a museum setting.

Just ask. There is nothing wrong with asking someone for help, or to loan an object, or to

donate time or money, or to sit down with you and chat about a possible interactive component.

While it sounds obvious, the worst that someone can say is “no,” and many people will say yes.

It is always worth asking; just be sure to give whomever you are asking for something plenty of

time before your deadline.

Work with a supportive staff. Sometimes, working with a supportive staff is not

possible; people are busy, or, if you’re a guest curator, your contact at a museum is simply

having a bad day…every time you speak with them. However, being able to rely on at least one

empathetic and responsive staff member is crucial. I feel very lucky that the staff at the Hayward

Area Historical Society cared so much about both the end product and my experience throughout

the process. If your contact is not working out, set up a time to meet with her or him and ask how

you can better communicate your needs, as well as work out clear expectations about who

handles what aspects of your exhibit. If you find that you still cannot salvage the relationship,

another staff member at the same museum may be able to act as a middleman.

Small spaces are ideal. Consider the size of the space for your exhibition. I took the

exhibition space offered to me without really considering how much work it would be to fill up

the space (and, indeed, parts of my exhibit looked quite sparse). If I had to restage the exhibit, I

would have chosen a smaller space for my first independent exhibit project.


Don’t neglect your written thesis. Have a clear idea for the direction of your thesis and

do not neglect it. One of my greatest struggles during this process was that I consistently worked

on the physical exhibit to the detriment of the written (and graded) portion of my master’s

project. Although your classmates will be on a different schedule, let their stress and freak-outs

be a reminder that you, too, will feel that way if you leave the written portion of your project to

the last second.

Have fun. Don’t forget: this is your exhibit, showcasing your creative skills and interests.

Getting to create an exhibit – a tangible product – from scratch is not only excellent work

experience, but also a fitting capstone to a hands-on graduate program. Choose a topic that you

like, dig in, meet new people, and have fun!

Final Thoughts

As I wrap up this project, happy with how visitors received “Tattooed and Tenacious:

Inked Women in California’s History” at the Hayward Area Historical Society (and looking

forward to seeing the exhibit installed at its next location), I can say with certainty that creating

an exhibit for my master’s project was the right choice for me. Developing and designing an

exhibit from scratch – coupled with diving into the literature about the exhibit development

process – bolstered my knowledge of and confidence in developing exhibitions, provided me

with an opportunity to delve into my interests in a way that a traditional thesis may not have, and

connected me with great people both in and out of the museum field.

This exhibit also gave me the chance to share my graduate work with people who would

never have cracked open the pages of this thesis. Inviting family and friends – both new and old

– to experience an exhibit that I was proud of made my accomplishments in graduate school


seem all the more worthwhile. And, getting to see visitors’ reactions to my exhibit – not just in

theory, but in the real world – has made me even more excited to continue to work on exhibits as

I join my new colleagues in the museum field.

So, if you are a graduate student reading this thesis to determine whether or not an

unconventional master’s project is right for you, take my advice: just do it! Run with the

opportunity, create something new and exciting, and show the field just how tenacious you can

be.


Reference List

Alonso, H. & Hayward, J. (2013). Creating apps for in-gallery interpretation. Exhibitionist,

32(2), 37-41.

American Alliance of Museums Curators Committee. (2014). Excellence in exhibition: Label

writing competition 2014. Washington, DC: AAM. Retrieved from http://aam-

us.org/docs/default-source/awards/2014-excellence-in-label-writing-winners.pdf.


writing competition 2013. Washington, DC: AAM. Retrieved from http://aam-

us.org/docs/default-source/awards/2014-excellence-in-label-writing-winners.pdf.


writing competition 2012. Washington, DC: AAM. Retrieved from

http://www.curcom.org/2012_label_full_report.pdf.

Bedford, L. (2014). The art of museum exhibitions: How story and imagination create aesthetic

experiences. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Bicknell, S. & Mann, P. (1993). A picture of visitors for exhibition developers. In G. Durbin

(Ed.), Developing museum exhibitions for lifelong learning (142-147). London, England:

The Stationery Office.

Bitgood, S. (2013). Attention and value: Keys to understanding museum visitors. Walnut Creek,

CA: Left Coast Press.

Bogle, E. (2013). Museum exhibition planning and design. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Bridal, T. (2013). Effective exhibit interpretation and design. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.


Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1996). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.

McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice

(p. 229-325). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

Burd Schiavo, L. (2013). Object lessons: Making meaning from things in history museums.

Exhibitionist, 32(1), 48-52.

Carnall, M., Ashby, J. & Ross, C. (2013). Natural history museums as provocateurs for dialogue

and debate. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28(1), 55-71.

Clerk, C. (2009). Vintage tattoos: The book of old-school skin art. New York, NY: Universe

Publishing.

Conn, S. (2009). Do museums still need objects? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Dana, J. C. (1917). The gloom of the museum. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum:

The evolving conversation on the paradigm shift (2nd ed.) (p. 17-33). Lanham, MD:

AltaMira Press.

Diamond, J., Luke, J., & Uttal, D. (2009). Practical evaluation guide: Tools for museums and

other informal educational settings (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Eldridge, C.W. (n.d.) The tattoo archive [used multiple pages on website]. Retrieved from

http://www.tattooarchive.com/.

Excel, Inc. (1992). The 4MAT system: A cycle of learning. Barrington, IL: Self-published.

Faden, R. (2012). Creative adaptation: Exhibitions in the downturn. Exhibitionist, 31(2), 58-63.

Falk, J. H. (1993). Assessing the impact of exhibit arrangement on visitor behaviour and

learning. In G. Durbin (Ed.), Developing museum exhibitions for lifelong learning (p.

117-122). London, England: The Stationery Office.


Falk. J. & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of

Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Falk. J. & Dierking, L. (2012). The museum experience revisited. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast

Press.

Faron, R. & Banda, J. (2014). Exhibition carts: Intentionally designed spaces on the move.

Exhibitionist, 33(1), 20-25.

Fenichel, M. & Schweingruber, H. A. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning science in

informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Gardner, H. (n.d.). The components of MI. Retrieved from http://multipleintelligencesoasis.org/.

Gilbert, S. (2000). Tattoo history: A source book. New York, NY: Juno Books LLC.

Gurian, E. H. (2005). Civilizing the museum: The collected writings of Elaine Heumann Gurian.

London: Routledge.

Hein, G. E. (2012). Progressive museum practice in the twenty-first century. In Progressive

museum practice: John Dewey and democracy (p. 177-200). Walnut Creek, CA: Left

Coast Press.

Kamien, J. (2001). An advocate for everything: Exploring exhibit development models. Curator:

The Museum Journal, 44(1), 114-128.

Kennedy, E. L. and M. D. Davis (1993). Boots of leather, slippers of gold: The history of a

lesbian community. New York, NY: Routledge.

Krutak, L. (2010). Marks of transformation: Tribal tattooing in California and the American

Southwest. Retrieved from

http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/california_tattooed_tribes.htm.


Madame Chinchilla (2003). Electric tattooing by women, 1900-2003. Fort Bragg, CA: Isadore

Press.

Mann, S., Moses, J, & Fisher, M. (2013). Catching our breath: Assessing digital technologies for

meaningful visitor engagement. Exhibitionist, 32(2), 15-19.

Macdonald, S. (2007). Interconnecting: museum visiting and exhibition design. CoDesign:

International journal of cocreation in design and the arts, 3(S1), 149-162.

McKenna-Cress, P. & Kamien, J. (2013). Creating exhibitions: Collaboration in the planning,

development, and design of innovative experiences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

McLean, K. (1993). Planning for people in museum exhibitions. Washington, DC: Association of

Science-Technology Centers Publications.

McLean, K. & Pollock, W. (2010). The convivial museum. Washington, DC: Association of

Science-Technology Centers Publications.

Mifflin, M. (2009). The blue tattoo: The life of Olive Oatman. Lincoln, NE: University of

Nebraska Press.

Mifflin, M. (2013). Bodies of subversion: A secret history of women and tattoo (3rd ed.).

Brooklyn, NY: powerHouse Books.

Mortati, M. (2014). Design intentionality and the art museum. Exhibitionist, 33(1), 34-39.

Museums, Libraries, and Archives Council (n.d.). Inspiring learning: Improvement toolkit for

museums, libraries, and archives.

Orselli, P. (2008, July 17). Planning for people in museum exhibitions: An interview with Kathy

McLean [Blog interview]. Retrieved on Dec. 14, 2014 from

http://blog.orselli.net/2008/07/planning-for-people-in-museum.html.


Osterud, A. K. (2014). The tattooed lady: A history (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade

Publishing.

Rand, J. (2007). The visitors' bill of rights: A list of important human needs, seen from the

visitors' point of view. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum: The evolving

conversation on the paradigm shift (2nd ed.) (p. 315-316). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Roberts, L. (1997). From Knowledge to Narrative: Educators and the Changing Museum.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

Samis, P. & Michaelson, M. (2013). Meaning-making in nine acts. Exhibitionist, 32(1), 54-59.

Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Silverman, L. (2010). The social work of museums. New York, NY: Routledge.

Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0.

Simon, N. (2012). The event-driven museum? Reconsidering the role of exhibitions in tough

economic times. Exhibitionist, 31(2), 46-50.

Smithsonian Institution (2002). The making of exhibitions: Purpose, structure, roles and process.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Office of Policy and Analysis.

Snider, J. (2013). The construction of meaning. Exhibitionist, 32(1), 72-76.

SUNY Cortland (2004). Concrete/reflective/abstract/active – David Kolb. Retrieved from

http://www.web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/kolb.htm.

Tisdale, R. (2011). Do history museums still need objects? History News, 66(3), 19-24.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weaver, S. (2007). Creating great visitor experiences: A guide for museums, parks, zoos,

gardens, and libraries. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.


Webb, S. (2002). The great book of tattoo. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd.

Webb, S. (1976). Heavily tattooed men and women. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book

Company.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Wilkening, S., & Chung, J. (2009). Life stages of the museum visitor: Building engagement over

a lifetime. Washington, DC: The AAM Press.

Worts, D. (1995). Visitors make their own meaning. In G. Durbin (Ed.), Developing museum

exhibitions for lifelong learning (123-130). London, England: The Stationery Office.


APPENDIX A: Google Consumer Survey Data


APPENDIX B: Informal Interview Questions

When you think about women and tattoos, what comes to mind?

What do your friends or family think about women with tattoos?

Why do you think women get tattoos?

What questions do you have about tattoos?


APPENDIX C: Project Timeline as of July 31, 2015

Italicized dates were those required by either John F. Kennedy University or the Hayward

Area Historical society. Non-italicized dates were much more flexible.

January

Jan. 28: Project Timeline Due

Jan. 31: Finalize front-end survey questions

Ongoing: Continue research

February

Feb. 11: Literature Review Due

By Feb. 14: Reach out to Hannah (my tattoo artist) and other local female artists

By Feb. 28: Conduct evaluation at HAHS – two in-person visits – and set up Google Consumer

Surveys

By Feb. 28: Finalize themes for exhibit


March

March 1: Determine AV needs

March 11: Creative brief due (themes, content, title, etc.)

By March 15: Begin securing permissions/rights as needed (most likely, for a video clip)

March 23: Compile budget and itemized list of needs for exhibition



April

April 15: Progress Report and Methodology Due

April 15: First draft of exhibition script

By April 18: First round of prototyping for interactives

April 30: Second draft of exhibition script

May

May 1: 700-word Adobe Trails (HAHS Newsletter) article and marketing materials due to HAHS

May 1: Finalize budget based on interactives

May 10: Finalize Kickstarter levels, video, etc.

May 13: Final draft of written thesis due (minus conclusion)

May 16: Finalize design elements (labels, panels, etc.)

May 30: Draft of exhibition floor plan/layout

June

June 1: Launch Kickstarter

June 6: Finalize label text

June 18: Send final labels/design files to printer

June 21: Kickstarter ends

July

July 1: Pick up mannequin parts from tattoo artists


July 7-8: Install exhibition at HAHS

July 9: Exhibition officially opens at HAHS

July 10: Opening night reception at HAHS

July 17: Draft of Conclusions chapter due

July 19: Kickstarter backer tour #1 of the exhibit

July 31: FINAL THESIS DUE

August

August 1: Ship all Kickstarter rewards to backers

August 7: Kickstarter backer tour #2 of the exhibit

August 12: JFK University tour of the exhibition

September

September 9: Exhibition closes

September 10: De-install exhibition at HAHS


APPENDIX D: Final Budget as of July 31, 2015

Item Actual Cost Notes

Tattoo Artist Stipends for Mannequin Work $1,550.00 Originally set to be $750; most artists' stipends

doubled thanks to fundraising success

Graphics/Panel Printing $1,200.00 Estimated (still waiting on final invoice)

Kickstarter Incentives/Postage $400.00 Stickers; tote bags; plus estimated shipping (does not include postcards)

Postcards $395.00 Includes 5 different designs for interactives and Kickstarter rewards

Image Permission Fees $375.00 For 7 images; most image usage approved without fees

Tablet for Interactive $199.64

Supplies for Postcard Section $103.34 Not including postcards, but including twine, clothespins, buckets to hold the postcards, colored pencils, etc.

Artist Stipend for Interactives $100.00 Hand-drawn work on mirror and transparency interactives

Mirrors for Interactive $59.97

Transparencies $39.99

Mannequin $0.00 Donated

Graphic Design $0.00 By me

Object Loan Fees $0.00

Install Labor $0.00 Donated

TOTAL $4,422.94 $1000 of this covered by HAHS; add'l $3,482.76 raised from Kickstarter (after CC fees)


APPENDIX E: Kickstarter Summary and Reward Levels

The following text and images appeared on my Kickstarter page for the project, along with a

short video explaining the exhibit and how I planned to use the funds raised. The below image

depicts the homescreen of the project halfway into the campaign.

The Project

Today, more women than men have tattoos. But what about the first California women to get

tattooed? Who were they, and why did they get inked? With your help, the amazing history of

these early tattooed women will come to life in a new museum exhibit.


From the upper-class women who started the tattooing trend, to the working-class Tattooed

Ladies who graced the stages of circus sideshows, to some of the first female tattoo artists in

California, it's time for these women to be in the spotlight and get the credit they deserve for

shaping tattoo culture on the West Coast!

Tattooed Lady and tattooist Betty Broadbent, who had a tattoo shop in San Francisco for many

years! Courtesy of Spider Webb.

My name is Amy Cohen, and I'm a grad student finishing my M.A. in Museum Studies this June.

For my master's project, I drew on inspiration from my own life - my love of museums, history

and tattoos - to create an exhibit that shares the stories of early California women and their ink.

Called Tattooed and Tenacious: Inked Women in California's History, the exhibit will run

from July 9 to August 16, 2015 at the Hayward Area Historical Society (HAHS).


Tattooed Lady Artoria Gibbons, who worked as a tattoo attraction in LA and lived throughout

California. Courtesy of Spider Webb.

Why Support This Project?

It's important to me to create an exhibit that honors these pioneering women, and shares their

stories in all their glory. But to do that, I need your help! The Hayward Area Historical Society,

the non-profit museum providing gallery space for this exhibit, has generously supplied $1,000

for the show, but that's not enough to put together a really engaging and powerful exhibit. This

isn't going to be just a "book on the wall," but an exhibit with cool interactive elements and great

photographs of pre-WWII tattooed women and female tattooists.


I've talked to tattoo artists and historians up and down the coast, as well as on the other side of

the country. I've researched tattoo culture pre-WWII in California. And, I've been focusing on

making this exhibit the best it can be for almost a year, while also working a full-time job and

going to school. Please help make my dream exhibit a reality by supporting this

Kickstarter!

Tattooed Lady and tattooist Lady Viola, who toured with the Ringling Bros. and Barnum &

Bailey's Circus. After her circus days were over, she lived in Fresno where she ran her own

tattoo shop. From the Tattoo Archive - Winston Salem, NC.

Rewards

To say thanks for your support, I hope you'll enjoy the rewards listed at right. All of the tattoo

flash (aka premade designs) featured in these rewards was drawn by female tattooists who

worked and lived in California before World War II.


[Images of different reward options, from stickers to postcards to tote bags, were placed here].

Any level of support makes a big difference, and I'll be acknowledging you for your support in

the exhibit! In addition, backers at almost every level get stickers and postcards featuring

original tattoo flash that isn't available anywhere outside of this exhibit. Or, become a backer at a

higher level to gain access to a very special curatorial tour. You'll get behind-the-scenes info and

hear even more stories about tattooed women that didn't make it into the exhibit! The tour date

for this reward level will be selected post-campaign with the input of backers at this level.

Budget

I've made concerted efforts to keep costs low, but I still need to raise an additional $2,500 to

create a really amazing exhibit.

The biggest part of my budget is related to a special project featuring current Bay Area tattoo

artists. To show how far women have come in the tattoo industry, female Bay Area tattoo artists

are collaborating on a mannequin that showcases their tattoo art. I've set aside half of my budget

to help compensate these artists for their time, energy, and skill. While that's still not enough to

do them justice, it is a step in the right direction!

Along with stipends for artists, this $2,500 will help me pay for: interactive exhibit

elements, like a tablet that allows visitors to share pictures of their own tattoos; photographs

and labels printed on eco-friendly canvas (rather than foamcore); Kickstarter rewards and

postage for shipping everything to backers; and materials for the exhibit, like colored pencils

to color in postcards featuring flash from female tattooists.


This Kickstarter has reached its goal, which is fantastic! Now, all of the additional funds will go

towards better exhibit components (for example, more tech for interactive exhibit elements,

additional designs for the postcards, etc.) and towards providing additional compensation for

artists for their work.

And finally...

Thank you for backing!

I can't wait to share the stories of these amazing tattooed women, all thanks to your generosity

and support. See you in Hayward in July!

Risks and challenges

My exhibit is opening on July 9 even if this campaign isn't successfully funded - but I hope that

won't be the case! This means that all of the aspects of my exhibit - including the postcards,

stickers, etc. - have already been designed and are ready to be ordered. As such, I don't anticipate

any setbacks in fulfilling rewards.

In addition, my full-time work contract ends on June 30 (not related to this exhibit), so I will

have a lot of extra time to fulfill these rewards :).

Lastly, I will aim to keep backers informed of any unexpected delays, and to communicate with

all of the lovely backers for this project on a regular basis.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please message me and I'll do my best to address

them. Thank you again for your support!


Reward Levels

Reward 1: Pledge $1 or more

You'll receive Amy's undying gratitude and thanks for supporting her project!


All of the above, plus acknowledgement in the exhibit. Your name will be printed on a panel and

installed in the exhibit so that every visitor knows how great you are.


All of the above, plus a large limited edition sticker featuring a tattoo design by Dainty Dotty

Jensen, printed just for this exhibit.


All of the above, plus two limited edition postcards made just for this exhibit! You'll receive

postcards featuring a tattooed lady and an old-school tattoo design that you can color in yourself.


All of the above, plus all of the limited edition goodies made just for this exhibit! You'll receive

all four of the postcards of tattooed ladies and tattoo designs to color yourself and both stickers

featuring Dotty's flash.



All of the above, plus a super limited edition navy blue tote bag featuring the title of the exhibit,

"Tattooed and Tenacious."


Limited reward (20 spots)

All of the above, plus a private tour of the exhibit with Amy, the curator, in Hayward, CA. Hear

more amazing stories about tattooed women, including many tales that didn't make it into the

exhibit! Sorry, no airfare/travel/accommodations included.


Limited reward (10 spots)

All of the above, plus a special invitation for you and a guest to attend the exhibit's opening

reception in Hayward, CA in July 2015 (details will be sent to backers). Backers will also receive

four free admission passes for HAHS! Sorry, no airfare/travel/accommodations included.


APPENDIX F: Floor Plan and Photographs of the Exhibit


Examples of displays within the exhibit


Tattoo artist Lyle Tuttle contributing to the Draw-Your-Own-Tattoo wall


Completed postcards from the tattoo flash interactive, as well as part of the set-up of the wall

A visitor taking a “selfie” at the funhouse mirrors station


The finished mannequin, featuring the work of six Bay Area tattoo artists


The transparency interactive, with the “color” layer held up and the “outline” and “shading”

transparency pages lying flat below


APPENDIX G: Sample Graphic Design Elements

Section Panel (18”x24”):


Secondary Panel (10”x13”):


Interactives Panel (8”x10”):

Caption label (6”x6”):


APPENDIX H: Adobe Trails Article

This article was written by me and appeared in the Summer 2015 edition of Adobe Trails, the

Hayward Area Historical Society’s quarterly newsletter. I am including it here as it was a major

marketing piece for the exhibition. It also expresses some of my personal reasons for creating the

exhibition and previews the content of the exhibit.

Community Gallery Spotlight

Tattooed and Tenacious: Inked Women in California’s History

My name is Amy Cohen, and I have tattoos. You wouldn’t be able to tell just by looking at me.

An elbow-length cardigan easily covers my five relatively large tattoos, all inked into my upper

arms. It’s only when I’m wearing a sleeveless shirt that flowers, an hourglass, and other colorful

images suddenly appear.

These permanent pictures surprised and worried some of my family and friends. “You’ll ruin

your looks!” or “What about when you get older? How will you look then?” or “Only rebels and

bikers get tattoos!” were common refrains. Well, I’m not exactly a rebel, and I don’t have a

motorcycle, so why permanent ink? Why get an image tattooed on me for the rest of my life?

My personal reasons aren’t very exciting. I simply like how tattoos look, and once I found an

artist who matched my personal aesthetic (the amazing Hannah Wednesday at Tuesday Tattoo), I

just kept going back for more. But the more tattoos I got, the more I wondered about why other

women got inked. When did women begin getting tattoos? And why did these women decide to

get them?


I set out to do some research on this very topic, with special attention placed on my adopted

home of California. As a history buff and tattooed woman, I couldn’t wait to uncover the

underground history of women and tattoos, and the compelling stories of some pretty amazing

women.

***

I was most drawn to the story of the tattooed lady – the circus freak, the sideshow attraction. To

get work as a “tattooed lady,” as they were billed throughout California, the US and Europe (and

how I’ll refer to them here), women had to be completely covered with ink from neck to ankle.

In other words, only their heads, hands, and feet were free from permanent marking. The earliest

tattooed ladies, appearing on stage in 1882, had relatively simplistic or heavy-looking designs,

created with only two colors of ink. What they lacked in aesthetics, though, they made up for

with wild stories.

Early tattooed ladies told stories of captivity and forced tattooing, of far-flung California

abductions and doting fathers who tattooed their daughters to discourage kidnappings. In reality,

many tattooed ladies made the choice to get tattooed to escape lives of drudgery, looking for

adventure and travel in the place of dreary chores. And, it didn’t hurt that tattooed ladies made

good money. In the 1890s, a working class family made $300 to $500 per year, whereas a

tattooed lady could make $100 to $200 per week.

During the slow summer months, some tattooed ladies turned to tattooing others – almost

entirely a man’s game – to make money and keep busy. In California, tattooed ladies-turned-


tattooists set up shop in major port cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

Tattooed lady Betty Broadbent tattooed in San Francisco for many years; Lady Viola (pictured

here) owned and operated a tattoo shop in Fresno after appearing on stage; Painless Nell Bowen,

though not a tattooed lady, owned five different shops in the San Diego area; and even the circus

performer “Dainty Dottie” Jensen picked up a tattoo gun and got to work in Southern California.

***

These are just some of the stories I found in my research. Is it a coincidence that I got my biggest

tattoos when I moved to California? With the legacy of women and tattoos here, I like to think

that it’s not. It’s comfortable to have tattoos here, as evidenced by the number of women who

wear them today – and part of that acceptance comes from the legacy of tattooed ladies and other

inked women. Even my family and friends have come around, appreciating tattoo art for its

beauty or meaningful expression (some even ask when I’ll be getting my next one!). I don’t think

I’ll ever be as heavily inked as a tattooed lady, but one thing’s for sure: I can’t wait to be a part

of the next chapter in the long history of California women and tattoos.

***

View the upcoming exhibit Tattooed and Tenacious: Inked Women in California’s History in the

Community Gallery from July 9 to August 16 and share your thoughts on tattoos! This exhibit is

developed and designed by Amy for her Master’s Project; she graduates from John F. Kennedy

University this summer with her M.A. in Museum Studies.

Tattooed and Tenacious: Developing and Designing a...

Documents

Transcript of Tattooed and Tenacious: Developing and Designing a...