Post #624784 by bigbrotiki on Sun, Feb 12, 2012 5:21 PM

Ben: Down boy, down! Don't make our "thing" public, dammit! :D

Well, it's a new day, and I feel chipper enough to do a little more thinking and philosophizing about what defines Tiki Style:

To address one of the major conundrums that people are experiencing: HOW can someone demand "authenticity" in an art form of which its major appeal lies in the IN-authenticity and carefree handling of another art form? Why does the said in-authenticity not denote a stylistic free-for-all for the new version of this art form? And why is false to peg me as "wanting it to be like the 50s" and being un-accepting of "innovation"? (maybe, for one thing, because I have supported and lauded NEW Tiki art since the 90s?)

Because the difference between good art and bad art is a fine line (and also a very subjective line) and depends on several factors:
Inspiration, talent, craftsmanship, and knowledge of the chosen genre. If one or more of these factors are absent, the result is a gradual diminishing of the quality of the art piece. Even the DEGREE of which each of these qualities are applied has an effect.

By itself, knowledge of the art form alone will only produce un-inspired copies of what was previously there. But all inspiration will be for naught if you you do not have the craftsmanship to translate it into an object. In turn, pure craftsmanship will be a mere technical exercise, and it will be pointless if not based on thorough knowledge of the genre....and so on. Of course, the ideal balance of all these aspects is what all artists aim for, and it is rarely reached. Just as there are various degrees of getting close to attaining the ideal, there are various degrees of missing it. And to make things even more complicated, making a judgment about to what degrees these various qualities were successfully supplied or not is a quite subjective activity.

So I understand when people request actual examples of what I am talking about. This of course is very difficult because feelings would be hurt, feathers would be ruffled, and insults would be taken. Heck, even if I use an example of a perfectly secure and financially successful artist who is mature enough to respond in an intelligent manner, it's OTHERS that act insulted. In turn, if I use examples of what I see as a successful expression of new Tiki style, allegations of favoritism would surely surface.

I found an example of an art piece done by a good friend that illustrates both the good and the bad of new Tiki art:

If I would apply all my principles of "too cartoony","not enough Oceanic art","too organic", this example would be not get get such high ratings. Yet I believe it is quite ingenious. Why? Because it was drawn in 1996 !

And Voila!, things get even more complicated because we have to view the evolution of an art form in the flow of time. In 1996, this piece was revolutionary! It is very irreverent and funny in a Disney-esque way. Back then, that wasn't done very often (well, Tiki was not done very often, in general). So it was innovative, inspiring, and cool. and to me, knowing that, makes it retain those qualities today.

16 years later, wacky, cartoony Tiki is not quite that original anymore, there is quite a bit of it around...in fact, sometimes it seems to be to me the PRE-DOMINANT expression of the art form, and this in a way that is redundant, with no connection to its origins, feeding only on itself.

BUT, thanks to the previous discussion the point has come where I now realize that it is I who is at fault: By ignorantly expecting everybody else to have that kind of perspective! How can someone that came upon Tiki last year, or even 3 years ago, understand my point of view. To them, the cartoony Tiki is as new and fresh as the above rendering was in 1996 to me. And I am not saying this in the sense of "Hey, I was hip to this years before y'all!", it is a value-free statement of simple fact!

Next: How I have changed! The birth of a new paradigm!