Post #641188 by SpaceAgeCity on Wed, Jun 20, 2012 8:11 PM

I apologize in advance if this reply comes off a little crabby. But I came to TC asking politely for constructive input and was promptly told that I'm ignorant and lazy. I have plenty of flaws, but I don't think those are two of them.

That said, I can't blame anyone for not seeing the tiki features on some of these tract houses. Sometimes they are fairly subtle, and they're usually disguised behind a half century of remuddling, re-landscaping, etc.

I think part of the problem here is that you're seeing this map as a finished product designed for public consumption. It is not. It's just one more tool in what has (so far) been a nearly 20-year line of research for me. Even at that, the map is only in its formative stages.

After the map is fleshed out, and after I follow it up with research into the builders, architects, context, etc, the "additional depth and analysis" you speak of will begin to emerge. Historical research is a project that never ends. And it's a little like eating quail -- It requires a ton of work to produce even the smallest amount of meaningful content.

Of course, most people don't let that slow them down. (Think of the half-baked things we've all read in newspapers about the tiki phenomenon and you'll see what I mean.) As my friend Jim likes to say, "There are a lot more people writing history than researching it."

Another point of contention stems from the fact that I'm using a rather broad definition of "tiki." For the purposes of this map, my working definition of tiki is this: Are there any visible and identifiable clues in the design of the building itself to indicate that the architect/builder/developer intended it to be seen or marketed as Hawaiian, Polynesian, or South-Seas-ish in style? If so, then it's tiki. (Admittedly, I've also thrown in a few other tiki-related sites, like the Tiki Farm warehouse, mainly for my own amusement.)

So far, my work on tiki has turned into lectures, articles, and a number of other things. I haven't been at this as long as Sven, but it's a fair bet that I've been studying tiki for longer than many of your so-called "big boys and girls." (Come to that, how many of even the most hard-core tiki aficionados are even interested in doing serious historical research on the subject?)

And yes, I do share the results of my historical research with the world. I spend a significant portion of my life doing just that. But I choose to do so via media that can't be re-edited by totally random yahoos. Wikipedia is a punchline among working historians. It fails to reliably provide accurate information and it frequently provides inaccurate information, (which we historians will spend the rest of our lives trying to debunk). Sometimes Wikipedia does get the facts right, (at least until someone changes them), but the casual observer can never be sure.

Chris