K
Joined: Feb 08, 2012
Posts: 93
|
K
BigBroTiki: my apologies again for our discussion on Mr. VanTiki's thread. You are the recognized authority and I am simply wading about in the shallow end of the culture. I've been working on some tiki pieces of my own, and I've relied heavily on your publications when deciding what can and cannot legitimately be called tiki. One of my issues is that the pieces I'm producing are based on a love of Hawaii, its people, culture and history, and I'm having a hard time coming up with designs that combine my reverence for these things with something so pedestrian as a mug. After reading your publications and doing some other research, I came to the conclusion that the spirituality and reverence for the original cultural objects probably isn't as important in tiki revival as the incorporation of essential design elements and a respect for the history of the tiki culture in America and Europe (correct me anytime if I'm wrong). My personal feeling about tiki is that it must remain firmly rooted in the modern primitive and, no matter how lightly treated, should at least loosely adhere to certain basics that authorities such as yourself have illustrated repeatedly.
When I look at the wildly fanciful pieces being created by some tiki artists, and which you rightly question as being "tiki," I frequently base my personal judgement on the lack of purity that now widely exists in the production of tiki consumables. Party stores and Big Lots sell "tiki" decor and I have noticed it lurking at certain tiki gatherings and establishments. There is a lot of tiki junk out there! The reason I accept as tiki some of the pieces you question is that I recognize the reverence and degree of thought the artists put into them and see that they aren't trying to simply proliferate more junk for their personal gain. They believe in what they're doing. Although the pieces aren't always "tiki", I think they could easily be associated with the genre because of certain thematic qualities. I also think - and this is strictly personal - that if an artist is recognized as being respectful of the culture in general, they can probably be forgiven for indulging in flights of fancy from time to time. Should they display those flights of fancy on Tiki Central? I don't know. As I made blunderingly and abundantly clear, I'm new here and don't quite know the ropes. But when I see the incredible artistry that goes into these pieces as well as the artist's strong desire to be appreciated among the members of this community, I can't help but think they somehow belong. I think it is also the absolute right and privelege of scholars such as yourself to question the essential tiki-ness of the piece.
The blessing of tiki culture - or any culture for that matter - is that it belongs to the masses, and they are going to allow it to thrive. The curse of tiki culture is that it belongs to the masses, and they are going to pull it in directions that are going to cause dilution and push the boundaries of purity. Fortunately, while the newbies and uninitiated (such as myself) do with tiki as they will, there always will be keepers of the faith such as yourself to keep things in check and remind us that there are roots to this culture. Many of those roots are in pop and kitsch, but even those elements have a history to them. As your books point out, there is an evolutionary path that tiki has followed through rise and ruin and rise, and the path has its avatars and icons that have defined the style.
My apologies once again for my uninformed discourse on the piece in question. I will never have your level of knowledge on this topic, but please know that I really appreciate many aspects of the continuing tiki movement, and I respect your views on the definition of the style. I will never make the mistake of questioning posts by BigBroTiki again. And, of course, I'll continue to buy and digest your books!
And if I ever come up with a tiki mug that gets the BigBroTiki seal of approval, I'll be very, very honored.
|
