| Yahoo! News |
| How to recreate body art, Coachella-style |
| Among the style statements inspiring Coachella envy across the web this past weekend were some of the particularly amazing body tattoos and makeup on show. From the whimsical to the geometric, face an |
| 2015-04-14T16:30:06+0000 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Celebrity tattoos and the danger of regret |
| What are these illustrated exhibitionists thinking? Lena Dunham’s body is a human canvas, scrawled with seven big and small tattoos, making her resemble a zaftig prison inmate. With an estimated... |
| 2015-04-13T06:22:42+0000 |
|
|
![]() |
<-back next->
1 to 15 of 34 comments
 |
drahc888 |
2008-02-01 |
i say
durt. |
 |
Pukie |
2007-08-02 |
| Why?? |
|
Destiny |
2005-05-07 |
| okay...the lettering sucks and isn't even...and your own name...that's dick |
|
dana |
2005-04-19 |
| can I borrow that? please say no... |
 |
InkSlave666 |
2005-03-02 |
| im not gonna be as mean as most ...but one, getting your own name is ridiculous ...what are you gonna forget in a half an hour? and 2 if you ARE gonna get your name, WHHHYYYYY OOLLDDDD EENNGGLLIISSSHHH?!?!?!?!?! |
|
Elvenking |
2004-08-18 |
| is it not done? if it is I feel sorry for you. |
|
Jeremy Costilow |
2004-06-05 |
| ..If the artist is good enough, bright colors can be used to cover black so dont settle.. |
|
Jeremy Costilow |
2004-06-05 |
| Goes from big on the left to smaller on the right..... get a cover up |
|
Leanna |
2004-05-24 |
| incase you forget your name? |
|
ben_77 |
2004-04-09 |
| shit tat , nice pants |
|
heylo |
2004-03-27 |
| i think it would look nicer with colour added to the tips |
|
bocefus |
2004-03-19 |
| Courtney, you're lame and this broad is lame. why you need your OWN name on you? gonna forget who you are? retards, both of ya |
 |
Sarah |
2004-03-08 |
| nice, but i dont think the shading looks that good =/ |
 |
jennifer <3 |
2004-02-26 |
| looks like your artist got lazy, or maybe they were drunk |
|
shygirl7908 |
2004-02-01 |
| Yeah, maybe some red or something at the top. Kinda looks like it's missing something. But overall, not bad. |
<-back next->
|
![]() |
|
