Post #386282 by Brandomoai on Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:41 AM

It seems to me that most of what mid-century Tiki pop is a commercialization, and maybe even a corruption, of actual Polynesian/Oceanic art forms. That's not to say that no artists at the time had a deep understanding and profound respect for the art forms they were working with, but did the average patron of a tiki bar in the 50s care about historical context? He/she was probably more concerned about having a few cocktails and escaping from the doldrums of working class America. So what is the historical context we in the revival stage are meant to look for? Are we supposed to be a better informed generation because of all the information literally at our fingertips? Is it the actual precolonial history of the Pacific peoples, or the post-war climate in California that we should be looking to for insight into what defines Tiki pop art? As an enthusiast, it's important to look at both, but fully understanding that by the "golden age" there was already a contextual degradation of the source material for most of the imagery associated with this culture. If someone in the States made a "Canadian" bar that was full of beavers and moose heads, and lumberjacks and maple syrup, I'd think, 'Yeah, that's funny, but what does it actually have to do with Canada?' Bad example, I know, because it could never come close to the escapism of a tropical paradise that so many people have latched onto, myself included. But there must have been Polynesians who felt this whole culture that originally consisted of mostly elaborate bars and restaurants lacked any real context or connection to their culture, just like we feel cheap, colorful party decorations lack any context or connection to our culture. Likewise, we can look back to the mid-century as the golden age, but that wasn't the most enlightened period in American history (racial segregation, McCarthyism, gender inequality, etc). We evolve as a culture, and Tiki Pop Culture is no different. It will never exist in the same way that it did in the mid-century. I could design a vase or a lithograph in an authentic Art Nouveau style, but art scholars would never allow it to be called "Art Nouveau" because it doesn't exist in the context of the turn of the century. So, my point is: everything being produced now is revivalist. It's inherently different from "the real thing". And as our culture has changed in the last 50-60 years, the rules have changed. Number one, we are more informed about Polynesian/Oceanic culture. Number two, we can look back at the mid-century objectively from outside of it and see it for what it is. A lot of art coming out right now is more of an homage to the mid-century aesthetic, but that's what people are interested in. In fact, that aesthetic is what attracted most of us to this culture in the first place, which brings us back to the question of what context actually exists in the mid-century Tiki art... What do they call a cyclical argument with no end...?