Post #42082 by PolynesianPop on Tue, Jul 8, 2003 8:24 AM

On 2003-07-08 06:59, Rattiki wrote:
So address the statement I also made ""What is Tiki?" as I have LOTS of cool stuff from the Pan-Pacific region that many might be consider Tiki, but is not of the poly pop genre. I mean if Easter Island is Tiki, is Peruvian/Inca? Wasn't that what Thor H. tried to prove?"

Maybe some of us have a distaste of Mexican or Central American tribal work, but what about Tuhacan & Inca from Peru, Chile and Bolivia? (as this piece looks as it might be) What and where is the line drawn? When is it Poly culture and not Meso-American? I have some Pre-Colombian Tuhacan pieces I bet I could debate as being 'Tiki', and when Indonesian & New Guinea long houses and other Austral/Asian things have been CLEARLY used in the poly-pop genre, who is to truly say?

Well, first off, regonize that Tiki is a culmination of forms, art and carvings from the South Pacific and parts of the Far East. If you study the history of the Polynesian Pop era, you'll find that it grew from the idea of escapism. It proliferated after the second World War, when a great number of people had "discovered" and returned from exotic South Pacific islands.

So why are some forms of the Far East included? At the time, Chinese food was still considered an exotic meal. As such, many Chinese restaurants took on the South Pacific theme and tikified their restaurants to cater those that desired the mystery and escapism popular to that era. Many items from the Far East were combined with items from the South Pacific. Combine this with naivete and their enthusiasm to capture an exotic environment and you get Tiki.

And so, if Tiki is a culmination things from the South Pacific and some things from the Far East, carvings and such from Central and South America are not tiki. They are simply not of this genre, not of the South Pacific and certainly not of the Polynesian Pop movement.

On 2003-07-08 06:59, Rattiki wrote:
I mean if Easter Island is Tiki, is Peruvian/Inca? Wasn't that what Thor H. tried to prove?"

Again, what do you mean by this? Thor Heyerdahl sought to prove his theory that Easter Islanders were from South America via his Kon Tiki expedition. However, that doesn't mean that things from South America are considered Tiki too. Items from Easter Island were used in popular establishments during the Polynesian Pop era because Easter Island is actually in the South Pacific and the Moai invoke the mysteriousness popular in that movement. Note that recent DNA study has also shown that the descendents of Easter Island were Polynesian. You can read about it here and here.

On 2003-07-08 06:59, Rattiki wrote:
I have some Pre-Colombian Tuhacan pieces I bet I could debate as being 'Tiki'

But how? Because of the way it looks? Don't be misled into thinking something is Tiki simply because its a tribal carving of some sort. I too, don't want to start a flame war but I personally believe most people on this board would agree that if its NOT from the Polynesian Pop movement, NOT from the South Pacific but IS from Central/South America or even Africa it's simply not Tiki.

Here is an article written by our very own DaneTiki that gives a good overview of what Tiki is:

http://www.mndaily.com/article.php?id=4614

Also, check out the Book of Tiki by Sven Kirsten (bigbrotiki on this board). Its a great book that encompasses what the Polynesian Pop movement was all about.

http://www.bookoftiki.com

**Poly-Pop ***

[ Edited by: PolynesianPop on 2003-07-08 09:01 ]