Post #56153 by Geeky Tiki on Tue, Oct 21, 2003 2:48 PM

Hi, Bong.

I don't see a conflict.

I had commented that we had several subjects in play.

My responses were based on perceived criticisms of Shag's exposure and how some have commented that only "vintage" is Tiki.

In item one, I expressed my belief that Tiki is not bound by time of manufacture.

In item two, I was addressing the notion of "over-exposure" as a criticism of Shag's work. The references to Ms. Doolittle and Thomas Kinkaid were meant as examples of what MASS marketing really entails.

To equate statement one and two, I would have had to imply that over-exposure would negate the Tiki-ness of an object, which I did not.

Talking about the inherent Tiki-validity of an object and then talking about what constitutes over-exposure are not mutually exclusive.

An analogy could be drawn between saying that the music of The Beatles, Sinatra, or Elvis is valid in a musical sense, but that they did became over-exposed in the market place. Both notions could be true. My opinion was that, compared to the true mass market, Shag is not over-exposed.

Did that make sense?

[ Edited by: Geeky Tiki on 2003-10-21 14:57 ]