Welcome to the Tiki Central 2.0 Beta. Read the announcement
Celebrating classic and modern Polynesian Pop

Tiki Central / General Tiki / That's just wrong! The un-Tiki thread:

Post #272063 by bigbrotiki on Tue, Dec 12, 2006 10:33 PM

You are viewing a single post. Click here to view the post in context.

On 2006-12-12 12:30, Tamapoutini wrote:

Just to throw in my two cents on this one: Even before Europeans came to Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Maori often painted their woodcarvings, using various earth pigmants mixed with fish oils etc. This was in a time when EVERYTHING was 'earth-toned' remember; trees, rocks, dirt. When one chanced a glimpse at an especially brightly coloured bird or fish etc, it was obvious that this was a special/magical creature. BLOOD/RED also holds a strong significance in a life where bloody conflict was a geniune daily threat...

...There is no such thing as 'un-authentic'; novelty IS authentic!

True, true. But of course Barrow was very aware of the significance of the color red in Maori and Polynesian culture. What he was lamenting was the application of thick coats of bright red Dulux oil paint. Are you actually saying to do that is OK because ancient Maori would have used it if they had had it !?

And there is such a thing as authenticity to a period and a style. There is authenticity of ancient Polynesian art, and there is the authenticity of the Polynesian Pop period from the 30s to the 70s, and its heyday of Tiki Style in the 50s and 60s.

The party city Tikis, and any overpainted Tiki Revival pieces have neither of the two. They might be part of the Tiki revival, but there, what you prefer depends on your personal sense of style.

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki 2006-12-12 22:39 ]