Post #55997 by Kim on Mon, Oct 20, 2003 5:00 PM

I think that both Swanky and Seamus (and a bunch of other folks) have excellent points on this subject.

For the record, I'd guess that Tiki Pop is considered okay because Tiki art is generally made up of very stylized representations, which are similar to the original sacred object, while the cartoon-y “Injuns” and other novelty “native” stuff is a foreign representation that’s dumbed down by outsiders. Unless you’re looking at an obviously “inspired by” piece like, tikifreak’s carvings, or you’re an expert, it would be tough to say if a particular tiki was done by Basement Kahuna or a genuine Polynesian islander. On the other hand, actual Native American artists generally don’t create cartoon “Injuns” (though there is at least one who does modern pop-y art using traditional native symbols).

As far as this particular instance goes, I’d say that jungletrader should do what he feels comfortable with, and he sounds like he’s uncomfortable with this situation. I would also say that, regardless of whether you think that the buyer is nutty or not, that it’s not particularly cool to spit in the face of another’s belief system. If you’re okay with doing the art for art’s sake, fine, but don’t make a mockery of the guy. If you wouldn’t care for it if someone did it to you (or something you held sacred), don’t do it to someone else.