Let's not forget that it's a TATTOO we're talking about, not a needlepoint that a 12 year old girl made for her grandmother's parlor. If you're such a tremendous bad ass that you've covered your whole body with tattoos, I wouldn't expect you to get all teary-eyed over anyone's opinion of some of that ink.
People who consider tattooing to be an art form have a lot of standards that they want to see met before they deem a tattoo to be "good." They aren't the same standards that art done on traditional, non-human mediums is judged by. If someone asks for an opinion on their tattoo, it should be judged on "tattoo as art" standards, not by the amount of work involved, or the intention, or even if the person it was made for likes it.
The thing about being a tattoo "artist" is that you never get to create anything that is meaningful to you. Back in my day it was all Puerto Rican flags, Grim Reapers, Skulls and/or Bugs Bunny smoking a blunt. You have to do what the client asks for and it is a ploddingly dull, remorseless existence. I used to be thrilled when an appointment would cancel on me. Thats when I knew I had to do something else.
If you tell me you've had some elaborate extensive work done by the best of the best, I can tell you without looking at it that its going to be something I'm very happy is on you and not on me.
Today I look at 90% of what people have inked and think its trash. To me, the most artful images-on-flesh are very simple, crude symbols ala' Basquiatt with his use of crowns etc. to convey an idea. Or the ice man: 5,000 years dead with series of crude lines in groups at different places on his body. Even prisoners in Russian Gulags have better ink than the average American.
My leg tattoo is bad but my Mom still loves me. Going through life with a bad tattoo is far from the worst thing I've had to deal with.