Post #386605 by Brandomoai on Thu, Jun 12, 2008 8:54 AM

In defense of Tiki Bob, contextually it fits right in. It's as bigbro described it; like a cross between a moai and George Jetson. It's cartoonish and perfectly mid-century; it looks like it could have been designed by Hanna-Barbera. It's exactly the type of imagery I really love. So, what's the difference between that and the images bigbro linked to? First of all, most of those don't even resemble tikis. I hate to slag anyone's work, but those sort of look like they were designed by someone who had only seen "tiki" at the party store and never bothered to look online or read a book and see what they really looked like historically. Or even their mid-century depictions. Furthermore, they don't seem to fit into any sort of current social context, like Tiki Bob does. Tiki Bob was a perfect amalgamation of an iconic Polynesian figure with an image that was modern and, well, "in" at the time. I think that's what bigbro is trying to point out. It's not that they're bad - they're well-designed and interesting images - but they're titled as "tikis" without any real reference to what makes them tiki. I agree; they're not.