Post #549066 by aquarj on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 2:20 PM

On 2010-08-17 10:47, JOHN-O wrote:
So if we're going to include the above and the Tiki Revival (not Classic style) is indeed a mid-century free-for-all...

We who? Not sure how much of the topic question is looking for real opinions, versus poking and provoking. It's true there were various connections between midcentury tiki temples and the burlesque world, but personally I chalk these up mostly to the fact that we're talking about humans. Titillation is timeless! Anyway, I found Sabu's points well-crafted as usual, and woofmutt captured the essence of the relationship...

On 2010-08-17 07:48, woofmutt wrote:
Tiki is part of the retro and lowbrow cultures but the tendency of those cultures to grab and mix all sorts of pop culture shouldn't define Tiki.

Or figuratively speaking, if you like your salad to have all kinds of stuff in it, that doesn't mean that tomatoes have suddenly become a kind of lettuce. It's just that a lot of people like to eat them together. No need to obscure the unique identities of the things that go into a cultural salad. Blending things that didn't go together before doesn't prevent us from still celebrating unique "styles" and doesn't imply any revision to the pedigrees of these styles.

Sure there are many examples that people looking for definitions might find confusing. Tiki drinks aren't really tiki if you're thinking "tiki = true polynesian culture", but they are if you're thinking "tiki = poly-pop". I think one of the most fascinating things about mid-century poly-pop style is that in many ways it was a moving target in terms of the elements that define it, largely from the intentional efforts of the purveyors themselves actively creating the "mythos" of escapist entertainment. They took so many liberties on the exotic and tiki canvas, creating many inconsistencies that present pitfalls for modern reflection. But that's part of the fun!

-Randy