Post #624254 by tigertail777 on Thu, Feb 9, 2012 12:44 AM

I don't know I see it as an evolution of form, but needs its own name, not necessarily JUST tiki I agree there that would be mislabeling. I see the progression as:
1)Polynesian pop
2)Tiki
3)Tiki modern
4)Some new wavish version of tiki that still has some vestiges of influence, but the percentage leans more towards punk,car,rockabilly,cartoon culture with some Salvidor Dali surrealism thrown in. There is still just a bit of tiki there, but to call it tiki alone would be erroneous. It needs its own name designation that incorporates tiki, but places the emphasis on the larger influences, just as tiki modern is a separation from purely tiki.

All art evolves over time and incorporates new influences along with the old, just because it has a different percentage of influence does not mean it does not belong somewhere in the lineage of the original, but it should have its own specific name that classifies it as its own movement while letting us know where it's roots come from.

And of course the above is a over simplification of progression, there were other different offshoots of the basic evolution such as California surfer style. So while much of this new art is not tiki, I would argue that it is of tiki lineage. Just because it is new art though it does not necessarily follow that it should be classified under this new version of tiki. New art can be made that falls under the more purebred labels of 1,2 or 3, (with 1 of course also not really being tiki but of tiki lineage) it just depends on how closely the art follows one particular influence and the intrinsic guidelines that make it such.