Post #389034 by Rain on Mon, Jun 23, 2008 7:49 PM

I hope you'll forgive me for drunkenly responding without reading all 9 pages of this thread, but a thought about this actually occurred to me while at Hukilau before seeing this.

The term "Exotica" to me sums up what the mass appeal of mid-century Poly-pop was to most people (and I mean most, not all). What I mean by that is that the appeal was the "otherness" I've seen mentioned in a couple of the early posts on this thread. None of our little subculture is exotic in the least to a born-and-bred Pacific Islander. The otherness appeal factor is apparent in the recurring motifs and words like "mystery" and "exotic" and even "bizarre." To me, this suggests that a huge part of the appeal was basically ignorance of (or at least unfamiliarity with) the true meanings of Polynesian art. So to become highy familiar with or gain a vast knowleddge of it almost seems to counter the intent of the original establishments here on the mainland, which was to present patons and audiences with something nearly unknowable. And in some cases, it was inaccurate. For example, am I absolutely wrong, or was the giant Kahiki fireplace not based on anything traditional (unless you want to really stretch it and say it vaguely resembles a stylized Rapa Nui moai)?

I don't really have a point except that I think the unknowability – and therefore now-necessarily innacurate/non-reality-based nature of – tiki culture and exotica is a huge and intrinsic part of this subculture and its art and what separates it from simple anthropological appreciation. Perhaps I'm biased as an artist that has and will paint Polynesian tribal-inspired imagery that is not based in any factual mythology.

Having said that, I totally agree that a) if there's no tiki on it, it shouldn't be called tiki. b) if Shag didn't paint it, it shouldn't have "Shag" in the ebay description. c) Neon-painted, vacuformed plastic and/or inflatable palm trees do not a luau make.

edit: having read more of the posts, i see that i'm not entirely on-topic with sven's intended subject here. if i'm getting it a little more now, i'd say that difference is good, but an awareness of the history of a culture/subculture is never a bad thing and should always be encouraged. this is apparent in any interest-group - any time i go to a goth club, there are people at each others' throats because someone doesn't know where it all came from and holds a misinterpretation or corruption of the original in their mind as the definition of what it's all about. in a lot of cases i tend toward purism, but sometimes i think evolution is good, as long as there's a base knowledge of roots.

[ Edited by: Rain 2008-06-23 20:08 ]