Post #487785 by JOHN-O on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 1:06 PM

Those are some good points BBS. I'm thinking now it might be a mistake to place too much categorization on "Tiki Revival", it's too much of a free-for-all. Obviously it's easier with classic Tiki Style since there's a historical precedence - i.e. it was an original drink that was introduced in a mid-century Tiki bar or it comes from the TV or DTBC lineage.

Maybe for Tiki Revival we can come up with concept along the lines of legal reasoning. I'll call it "Tiki Intent". Because you invented a new drink with Tiki aspirations in mind, that in itself makes it a Tiki drink. Also in terms of art, if you create a new painting that has no explicit Tiki iconography but you were inspired by classic Tiki, that would make it Tiki Art (from a revival aspect, not the classic definition).

Also that raises another issue I just thought of. Would the new Trader Vic's in downtown LA be considered classic Tiki since it comes from an official TV lineage or would it be considered Tiki Revival since it was built post 1960's and is merely copying original Tiki Style. How about the Bahooka?, that was built in 1976, clearly after the mid-century period but prior to the current Tiki revival. What kind of grey area does that exist in? These are questions that keep me up at night.

[ Edited by: JOHN-O 2009-10-12 13:31 ]