I think it has reached a point where it bears discussion... - Tiki Carving

B bigbrotiki Tiki Socialite Tiki Island, above the Silverlake Joined: Mar 25, 2002 Posts: 11621	B bigbrotiki Posted posted on Wed, Nov 23, 2005 7:30 PM Old versus New Tiki? I think this is where this whole post went off on a tangent of misunderstood assumptions. To me, this post was never about defining Tiki, creating a black and white division, or saying "Old" is better. Tiki is too complex to try to limit it through worded definiton. It was meant as a challenge. As there are more and more folks picking up the chisel/chainsaw, and more wood is churned into idol shapes, we see that it is harder and harder to create something unique...or, if uniqueness is reached, staying true to the art form. I know, beginners have to start somewhere, and that is fine. And uniqueness must not be everyone's goal, by all means. Looking at ancient Ku Tikis, adhering to one look was not necessarily seen as "wrong" in days of old! Yet if one looks for creativity, there seems to be a certain amount of stylistic limitedness in SOME of the Tiki revival carvings. One could argue that the primitiveness/simplicity of Tikis does make them into a limited art form to begin with, so that the choices are finite. Here I always use the Moai example: The most basic, simple design concept, forehead, nose, mouth. But change any of the three components by stretching or compressing, and amazing stuff happens. I have seen hundreds of interpretations, yet no two alike (well almost), but they are always recognizable as Moai! But we are not Kahunas (talking about the old ones here :wink: ) forced to follow a pattern. Tiki, god of the artists, challenges us to go beyond our limitations and seek previously unused forms. In my understanding, what BK's initial post was suggesting was to look at the treasure trove of traditional Oceanic Art, just as the Polynesian Pop masters did, and realize that there is so much MORE out there that has not been tried yet. Yet what to pick and what not is tricky, and a matter of balance, just as is the question of how far out the re-interpretation can go and still be Tiki. But don't ask me to define my idea of Tiki in words, I deal in visuals. I simply know when I see one.

Old versus New Tiki? I think this is where this whole post went off on a tangent of misunderstood assumptions. To me, this post was never about defining Tiki, creating a black and white division, or saying "Old" is better. Tiki is too complex to try to limit it through worded definiton.

It was meant as a challenge. As there are more and more folks picking up the chisel/chainsaw, and more wood is churned into idol shapes, we see that it is harder and harder to create something unique...or, if uniqueness is reached, staying true to the art form. I know, beginners have to start somewhere, and that is fine. And uniqueness must not be everyone's goal, by all means. Looking at ancient Ku Tikis, adhering to one look was not necessarily seen as "wrong" in days of old!

Yet if one looks for creativity, there seems to be a certain amount of stylistic limitedness in SOME of the Tiki revival carvings. One could argue that the primitiveness/simplicity of Tikis does make them into a limited art form to begin with, so that the choices are finite. Here I always use the Moai example:
The most basic, simple design concept, forehead, nose, mouth. But change any of the three components by stretching or compressing, and amazing stuff happens. I have seen hundreds of interpretations, yet no two alike (well almost), but they are always recognizable as Moai!

But we are not Kahunas (talking about the old ones here :wink: ) forced to follow a pattern. Tiki, god of the artists, challenges us to go beyond our limitations and seek previously unused forms. In my understanding, what BK's initial post was suggesting was to look at the treasure trove of traditional Oceanic Art, just as the Polynesian Pop masters did, and realize that there is so much MORE out there that has not been tried yet.

Yet what to pick and what not is tricky, and a matter of balance, just as is the question of how far out the re-interpretation can go and still be Tiki. But don't ask me to define my idea of Tiki in words, I deal in visuals. I simply know when I see one.

Post #199831 by bigbrotiki on Wed, Nov 23, 2005 7:30 PM