Post #375372 by bigbrotiki on Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:17 PM

I was thinking a little about this statement, and finally the coin dropped, it now makes total sense in the context of the time:

On 2008-04-19 14:51, Mr&Mrs BPHoptiki wrote:
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.

Even to me, just like Kaiwaza, it seemed a little too idealistic at first. But we actually tend to forget the following:

A.) Today we, me being in the first row, have realized and demonstrated that mid-century Tiki Style was UN-authentic (in comparison to real Polynesian art), and that we like it BECAUSE of that. And because of its OWN creativity and variety, we can view it as an art form in its own right. We judge it from today's informed and understanding perspective.

B.) HOWEVER, back then, the image projected by the Polynesian palaces that harbored these carvings was one of AUTHENTICITY! People BELIEVED! Carving demonstrations were always done with chisels, not with chain saws. Now if back then, the carvings would have been painted garishly, it would have overstretched that fine balance between proprietor and customer united in the unspoken agreement to be gently deceived! THIS is exactly what Ms Hoptiki was getting at. The majority of people took these carvings for authentic, and the loud colors would have destroyed that illusion.

This is why some of the California Tiki manufacturers looked down on Witco, because, back in the day, authenticity was the GOAL!
Only NOW do we (some of us) appreciate the guts and humor that Witco demonstrated, but it was unacceptable to many back then.

Now looking at the evolution of cultural consciousness, by the 70s it had become more commonly realized that the American Tikis were just copies, and so painting them seemed OK in a "why not, they are all in on the joke now" sort of a way. Yet TODAY, the naive starry-eyed romanticism of mid-century Tiki appears much cooler and desirable again than making them OVERTLY fake.

Actually, come to think of it, that's what really is a big part of my whole beef with that certain facet of the Tiki revival that is purely self-referentially based on cartoony big tooth Tikis. When current Tiki art contains no traces of the original Polynesian genius, OR of classic mid-century Tiki style, it lacks that intelligent effort of the artist to be an art forger. It is not an homage, has no sense of history, and is thus one-dimensional, un-amusing and falls flat for me.

Gee, thinking about this stuff is still fun! :D]

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki 2008-04-22 18:49 ]