Mixed emotions...Do we want more exposure? - General Tiki

B bigbrotiki Tiki Socialite Tiki Island, above the Silverlake Joined: Mar 25, 2002 Posts: 11621	B bigbrotiki Posted posted on Thu, Jun 14, 2007 4:19 AM This conundrum is as old as the Tiki revival itself. Every year since the early 2000s some paper has declared Tiki as a trend, in varying degrees of accuracy, with varied results, good, bad, or none. You basically can only do all you can, and hope for the best. I like Chip and Andy's approach of "reading" the journalist's attitude beforehand, enabling you to influence it your way then. But if you display genuine enthusiasm, it usually is infectious. And showing the BOT usually conveys the artistic horn of plenty Tiki was and is. The feelings one has about the "tacky" label for Tiki points to the contradiction that is inherent in Tiki: If we appreciate it because it IS pop culture, and because of its "Kitsch" (for lack of a better word) quality, why do we feel awkward about it becoming popular again, and condemn tacky modern mass-market representations of it? My answers to that are 1.) There is "good" bad taste, and there is "bad" bad taste, and the difference of the two is in the eye of the beholder. 2.) There is cheap only-in-it-for-the-money modern Tiki product on one hand, and on the other there is talented and being-in-the-know craftsmanship, and even some lucky commercial exceptions that resemble the creative ingenuity that made mid-century Tiki so inspiring to me. Both do go hand in hand. But I digress. From my experience, to avoid all exposure would be wrong. I held onto the Book of Tiki material for years because I wanted a publisher that had the right distribution and quality to make Tiki re-enter pop culture. I WANTED it to become popular! I could have gone with insider publishers like REsearch or Feral House years earlier, but this would have kept the wealth of information I had to share inside a circle of people already somewhat in the know, like the Tiki News subscribers. I could have left the mention of Witco out of the Book and would been that much Witco-richer now. But where is the fun in that? As stated above, to share your enthusiasm about something is much more rewarding than sitting on it and keeping it under wraps for you and your collector friends. Yes, there will be those who do not get it, and make a mockery of it, but here I like to use my reasoning that I give to critics of the in-authenticity of Tiki in relation to real Polynesian culture: I believe that for every ten or twenty readers of the Book of Tiki that only enjoy the party/pop lifestyle aspects of it, there is ONE who gets inspired to delve deeper into authentic Polynesian history and art, and that makes ONE more human being inspired by a culture that would remain dead to most people otherwise. Similarily one can hope that for every 20 readers of an (even if badly written) article on Tiki today there is one with whom it hits a nerve, and who is inspired to search out his grandparents' memorabilia, or the Tiki bar remnants of his youth. Spreading the word of Tiki is good mana. :)

This conundrum is as old as the Tiki revival itself. Every year since the early 2000s some paper has declared Tiki as a trend, in varying degrees of accuracy, with varied results, good, bad, or none.
You basically can only do all you can, and hope for the best. I like Chip and Andy's approach of "reading" the journalist's attitude beforehand, enabling you to influence it your way then. But if you display genuine enthusiasm, it usually is infectious. And showing the BOT usually conveys the artistic horn of plenty Tiki was and is.

The feelings one has about the "tacky" label for Tiki points to the contradiction that is inherent in Tiki: If we appreciate it because it IS pop culture, and because of its "Kitsch" (for lack of a better word) quality, why do we feel awkward about it becoming popular again, and condemn tacky modern mass-market representations of it?
My answers to that are
1.) There is "good" bad taste, and there is "bad" bad taste, and the difference of the two is in the eye of the beholder.
2.) There is cheap only-in-it-for-the-money modern Tiki product on one hand, and on the other there is talented and being-in-the-know craftsmanship, and even some lucky commercial exceptions that resemble the creative ingenuity that made mid-century Tiki so inspiring to me. Both do go hand in hand.

But I digress. From my experience, to avoid all exposure would be wrong. I held onto the Book of Tiki material for years because I wanted a publisher that had the right distribution and quality to make Tiki re-enter pop culture. I WANTED it to become popular! I could have gone with insider publishers like REsearch or Feral House years earlier, but this would have kept the wealth of information I had to share inside a circle of people already somewhat in the know, like the Tiki News subscribers. I could have left the mention of Witco out of the Book and would been that much Witco-richer now. But where is the fun in that? As stated above, to share your enthusiasm about something is much more rewarding than sitting on it and keeping it under wraps for you and your collector friends.

Yes, there will be those who do not get it, and make a mockery of it, but here I like to use my reasoning that I give to critics of the in-authenticity of Tiki in relation to real Polynesian culture:
I believe that for every ten or twenty readers of the Book of Tiki that only enjoy the party/pop lifestyle aspects of it, there is ONE who gets inspired to delve deeper into authentic Polynesian history and art, and that makes ONE more human being inspired by a culture that would remain dead to most people otherwise.

Similarily one can hope that for every 20 readers of an (even if badly written) article on Tiki today there is one with whom it hits a nerve, and who is inspired to search out his grandparents' memorabilia, or the Tiki bar remnants of his youth.

Spreading the word of Tiki is good mana. :)

Post #312827 by bigbrotiki on Thu, Jun 14, 2007 4:19 AM