The Gallery of Regrettable Tiki Paint Jobs - General Tiki

K Kaiwaza Tiki Socialite Waikiki Beach, Hawaii Joined: Aug 06, 2003 Posts: 563	K Kaiwaza Posted posted on Sun, Apr 20, 2008 4:22 PM On 2008-04-19 14:51, Mr&Mrs BPHoptiki wrote: Just my own personal experience and opinions that I am speaking here. I want to reply to this point of view: "we're not talking about Van Gogh or Rembrandt here, tiki art was POP art made for commercial purposes and often only distantly connected to any "real" cultural relevence." This in not my recollection of the Tiki that I experienced during the 60’s. We knew the difference between PoP Art and Tiki, and the two were rarely mixed. There was a keen interest in authenticity and the cultural background of Tiki. Painted tikis, which were extremely rare, were viewed as a commercialized abomination. I understand that for some, especially those younger than myself, memories of garishly painted tikis were their first encounter with what was supposed to be tiki and it left them with a fond impression. All I can say to that, and please don’t take offense, is that what you experienced was unfortunately part of what Sven correctly calls “Tiki devolution.” MrsHoptiki I would like to respond/comment on this statement. I'm 46, and have grown up enjoying "tiki" culture. I'm just not sure how I could possibly consider a "movement" or "style" that combined Polynesian artifacts (many bearing no resemblence to any actual diety or personification, some made as trinkets specifically to sell to tourists), monkeys, fezes, animal prints (all unknown in Polynesia), music written & performed nearly completely by Mainland Americans (intentionally having "fun" with Oriental, Polynesian, Latin, African music), drinks with names like "Zombie" and "Missionary Downfall", Caribbean Rum, relocating geographic entities (Bali Hai) as being "culturaly authentic." Don't get me wrong, I love the whole tiki culture, but..did I miss something in thinking it was based on a FANTASY?

On 2008-04-19 14:51, Mr&Mrs BPHoptiki wrote:
Just my own personal experience and opinions that I am speaking here. I want to reply to this point of view:

"we're not talking about Van Gogh or Rembrandt here, tiki art was POP art made for commercial purposes and often only distantly connected to any "real" cultural relevence."

This in not my recollection of the Tiki that I experienced during the 60’s. We knew the difference between PoP Art and Tiki, and the two were rarely mixed. There was a keen interest in authenticity and the cultural background of Tiki. Painted tikis, which were extremely rare, were viewed as a commercialized abomination. I understand that for some, especially those younger than myself, memories of garishly painted tikis were their first encounter with what was supposed to be tiki and it left them with a fond impression. All I can say to that, and please don’t take offense, is that what you experienced was unfortunately part of what Sven correctly calls “Tiki devolution.”

MrsHoptiki

I would like to respond/comment on this statement. I'm 46, and have grown up enjoying "tiki" culture. I'm just not sure how I could possibly consider a "movement" or "style" that combined Polynesian artifacts (many bearing no resemblence to any actual diety or personification, some made as trinkets specifically to sell to tourists), monkeys, fezes, animal prints (all unknown in Polynesia), music written & performed nearly completely by Mainland Americans (intentionally having "fun" with Oriental, Polynesian, Latin, African music), drinks with names like "Zombie" and "Missionary Downfall", Caribbean Rum, relocating geographic entities (Bali Hai) as being "culturaly authentic."
Don't get me wrong, I love the whole tiki culture, but..did I miss something in thinking it was based on a FANTASY?

Post #374924 by Kaiwaza on Sun, Apr 20, 2008 4:22 PM