Post #628197 by swizzle on Fri, Mar 9, 2012 3:04 PM

I'm not sure where to start with a reply here, and it will probably be all over the place, however i'll try to keep it as short as possible. Although i need to say that this is a discussion i was reluctant to get involved with because it frustrates the crap out of me.

First i want to thank KokoKele and bigbro on their compliments on my work. I must say to bigbro though that i was not taking a defensive position at all. I'm actually quite surprised by your comment, as the reason i raised the issue of my work is because my mug is a very stylized face with a "big-toothy grin". To read what you said i have to say that i am flattered, although quite surprised as i said, because i know i have read you mention it before that just because it has a "big-toothy grin" does not make it tiki. And this is where i although i do agree to a point, in general that is one of the key defining elements, to ME, of what is an integral part of the tiki image.

Looking around my room as i type this, at my collection of mugs, pretty much every one of them is from modern artists and there are a lot of pieces with "big-toothy grins" that i'd be hard pressed to find people disagreeing whether or not they are Tiki. This will be the only time i will mention an artist by name, but let's look at Crazy Al's work as a perfect example. If Sven himself says that C Al's work is not tiki then you will never hear from me in this forum again. Of the handful of pieces i have of his, every one has 'that' style mouth. His work has, without a doubt, the visible elements of Oceanic art and mid-century Tiki, but at the same time, modernized.
And of the few Coco-Jos staues that i have, which again i don't think anyne will dispute ARE tiki, i see the same thing.

Besides the Ku and Lono images my favourite Tiki image is the Moai, which technically isn't even Tiki. (Is that correct Sven?) That is already an extremely stylized image and without doing an exact copy of the ones found on Rapa Nui, any artist creating that image is going to put their own style into it which might not make it look authentic, but again, to ME is still going to be 'Tiki'. I think my mug is an example of that. To me it is my twist on an already stylized image which i'd like to think has the underlying elements of the original.

Without a doubt, there are some people who are far more talented than others. When i said i find some of the work on this site to be 'utter crap' maybe i was being a bit harsh. It just doesn't appeal to me and also shows me that those pieces were created by someone who I think really does not have the same talent as another, however i respect them for being proud of it and putting it out there for everyone to see. Having said that, i personally feel that there are some well respected artists producing work that, although it doesn't appeal to me, are accepted into the Tiki community that have very little visible elements of Oceanic art and mid-century Tiki.

However, i digress. I think the question i'd really like answered by bigbro, as it is he that raised this topic, is what exactly ARE the visible elements of Oceanic art and mid-century Tiki for something to be called 'Tiki'? You have probably said it countless times before but i'd like to hear it again expressed in layman's terms so that i can understand. To ME, the primitiveness (is that a word?) of it is the underlying factor although i know that Sven is going to say that that is wrong.

That is why i find this topic to be extremely frustrating as unless an artist is going to do exact copies of work from the past, there is always going to be their twist/take on an image which will alter it enough for people to say it is not Tiki. As Sven says, "If it says Tiki on it, it should have Tiki in it". I don't disagree. However, if I, and i'm sure there are plenty of others, can see enough of tiki in an image and it is enjoyed and makes you happy, then what's the issue and who really does care?