Post #716588 by LostIsland on Sat, May 10, 2014 2:35 PM

"It just seems unfair when I see mugs from people like Gecko / Squid / Munktiki, which to me stand as works of art in their own right. Are they "high" works of art? Who makes that call?"

I agree....

Unfortunately though, any discussion relating to art, culture and the classification of such, is often dominated by folks who behave as though their opinion is the standard by which the universe should be judged. In the end, it boils down to someone's opinion. Many or even most folks may even agree with said opinion. However that doesn't make the opinion more valid, just more popular. It is for this reason that I keep my artwork out of the "art world". When pretension and narcissism rule the scene, what's the point in jumping in?

That's primarily why I like to hear folks discussing what Tiki is to them, because ultimately no individual, group, page or otherwise is really in the position to tell others whether their "opinion" is or isn't valid. Whether one agrees or disagrees is irrelevant to the validity of someone else's opinion. While the elements within (or motivations behind) any particular movement at one particular time can be finite, the way those elements can influence someone's personal Tiki aesthetic is not. I have certainly seen some "Tiki style" that I neither cared for nor felt was consistent with the Tiki movement of the late 50s, however I don't feel comfortable telling these cats that it isn't Tiki based solely on my beliefs, personal experiences or research. It wasn't Tiki to me, but who am I to pretend to define it for the world?

I had a Tiki discussion once and was basically told that my opinion was invalid because someone older held an opposing viewpoint. Age neither ensures truth nor does it prevent inaccuracies. That logic begs the question of whether we should listen to any voice other than the oldest person alive. After all, he is older, so he must be correct about everything he believes, right?