1959 Lithograph McVicker Polynesian fire dance

I just got this find at my Aunts' retirement village here in South Florida, The lady she got it from "who knew the artist" said it was a promotional advertisement piece for a "Polynesian gardens fire dance" from 1959.
If anyone knows anything about this I'd love some info please. This looks like a Lithograph with slightly damaged edges, obviously removed from the original frame.
The back has framers tape that says "Schwarms Photo Center Bahia Mar Commercial Photography - Illustrative- Architectural-Marine".
Perhaps this piece was for The Bahia Mar here in Ft Lauderdale Fl?

Any insight into this would be awesome, thanks.

http://picasaweb.google.com/fsmminister/Tikipicture

[ Edited by: thegreenman 2006-09-03 17:35 ]

[ Edited by: thegreenman 2006-09-03 17:36 ]

Aloha, and welcome!

I don't know the answers to your questions right off, but perhaps someone local to South Florida will be able to shed light on it. I do, though, think it's fantastic:

yeah, i love it! as a newbie, i know nothing about it, though.

Thanks for the responses. Do you think I could bring it to the bazaar next month at The yankee Clipper? Maybe someone would know something about it there?

I'm a tiki newbie, just building a tiki bar lanai at home and hunting for decor. This is my first find, and I'm thinking it's a pretty good start.

I think your best bet is Kailuageoff; he's giving a presentation on Florida's tiki history during Hukilau. He'll be able to rattle off all (well, many, at least) of the places in south Florida that would have had a Polynesian revue to promote in 1959.

I did a quick search on "McVicker" (I'm sure you did the same), and turned up an artist named J. Jay McVicker -- some of his art is of a similar tone, but his style is more abstract, and his signature doesn't match the one on this piece. Oh well!

Are there any other details you can offer, at all? Is there any hope of getting in contact with the woman your aunt acquired it from?

I've posted about your piece on my blog as well -- hopefully someone out there will know something, if not today, then a year down the road, when ol' McVicker's granddaughter is Googling for information about her grandpa (it happens a lot around here!).

That is one hell of a cool picture, and one that I would LOVE to have a copy of! Awesome find!

Chris

Unfortunately I cant get tickets to see Kailuageoff's presentation as it appears they are sold out. I did get a ticket to the bazaar. I sent Kailuageoff an email, hopefully he won't be annoyed.
I took a picture of the framers' tape thinking it may be of some use.

okay the latest news is that this painting was done for a advertisement for the Polynesian room of the Yankee Clipper.

[ Edited by: thegreenman 2006-09-04 13:56 ]

Sorry, it has taken me so long to reply. I have been slaving on my Hukilau presentation before heading out of town for a week and have not had much time to come up for air.

Unfortunately, I do not have any information on this print. It is very nice and mahalo for sharing. Quite a find, really. This would definitely be worthy of reproducing and perhaps selling prints of. Does anyone else think it looks strangely like a modern rendition on vintage tiki...? Everything goes full circle, I suppose.

Anyway, the setting reminds me somewhat of the South Pacific in Hallandale or perhaps the Luau in Miami.... maybe more of the Luau since they were located right on Biscayne Bay. Wayne Travassos at the Hawaiian Inn in Daytona Beach has made it clear to me that many different Polynesian dance groups performed up and down the east coast with various dancers and musicians coming and going, much like members of struggling rock'n'roll bands. So it could be this was a very temporary setup, rather than an enduring establishment such as the Mai-Kai, etc.

I wish I could be of more help, but bits of tiki history turn up all the time and maybe more will be known about this print eventually.
KG

[ Edited by: Kailuageoff 2006-09-12 12:48 ]

On 2006-09-12 12:47, Kailuageoff wrote:

... Does anyone else think it looks strangely like a modern rendition on vintage tiki...? Everything goes full circle, I suppose.

I know, it is almost too much of a clichee...but clichees are clichees because they are based on reality!
I definitely would love to use that image for my Tiki Modern book, I need a vintage image with an A-frame and with people! Please let me know, greenman, if you can help me out.

[ Edited by: TIKI DAVID 2006-09-12 16:25 ]

Why is it that the two fire dancers remind me of Peter Pan? That's the first thought that came to my head when I first saw this and I haven't been able to shake it. Maybe it's the stance or his ear is just a little big and pointy. But I do love the picture.

On 2006-09-12 12:47, Kailuageoff wrote:
Sorry, it has taken me so long to reply. I have been slaving on my Hukilau presentation before heading out of town for a week and have not had much time to come up for air.

Unfortunately, I do not have any information on this print. It is very nice and mahalo for sharing. Quite a find, really. This would definitely be worthy of reproducing and perhaps selling prints of. Does anyone else think it looks strangely like a modern rendition on vintage tiki...? Everything goes full circle, I suppose.

Anyway, the setting reminds me somewhat of the South Pacific in Hallandale or perhaps the Luau in Miami.... maybe more of the Luau since they were located right on Biscayne Bay. Wayne Travassos at the Hawaiian Inn in Daytona Beach has made it clear to me that many different Polynesian dance groups performed up and down the east coast with various dancers and musicians coming and going, much like members of struggling rock'n'roll bands. So it could be this was a very temporary setup, rather than an enduring establishment such as the Mai-Kai, etc.

I wish I could be of more help, but bits of tiki history turn up all the time and maybe more will be known about this print eventually.
KG

[ Edited by: Kailuageoff 2006-09-12 12:48 ]

Thanks for the Reply KG, It turns out this piece was done for The Polynesian room of the Yankee Clipper.

I'll be bringing it to the Hukilau Bazaar so Sven can photograph it. If anyone wants to check it out catch me there sometime Saturday. I'll be the guy that looks like Ed Kowalczyk of the band Live with slightly more hair.

-Chris

Man that's a great painting! I love it.

Yes, that is awesome! Definately consider making prints of that, I'd love to hang one in my home tiki bar!

I've had this print as my background image on my computers since it was first posted. I took the full resolution image from the original link, straightened it in Picasa, and then cropped it so I had just the picture. The result came out VERY well. I'd love to have a super high-res photo of this image!

If you don't want to take the time to do the same thing yourself, PM me with your desktop resolution and an email address, and I'll send you one tailored for your desktop.

Hmmm, I just tried the original link, and the image is gone. Ah well, glad I saved it when I did!

Chris

[ Edited by: Kona Chris 2007-07-26 15:51 ]

that is a beautiful piece. definatly an incredible first find for the home decor. if prints become avail, i too would be very interested.

Hey all, sorry to resurrect a long dead thread, but I'm considering making prints of this piece and selling them.

I'm wondering:

1 how much would it cost to make the prints, and where would I go about doing this?
2 how much would they be worth?
3 is anyone interested?

Chris

i'm not an attorney but I do have some links to the publishing industry. One thing to consider is any copyright issue. My personal belief is that you should be ok. Works produced after 1910 or so are protected by the international copyright convention. However, US copyright law prior to the 1980s used to require an explicit declaration (i.e. copyright 1959 the acme tiki company) and renewal every 28 years. So if the print was from 1950s, you should be ok, if there is no explicit declaration on it.

All the same, many of the reproduced mugs and prints that you see from iconic tiki establishments and even defunct ones are licensed or at least claim to be.

In terms of getting a print out. It depends on 2 things, the condition/quality of your original, and the quality of the copies you want. If you want to make art quality prints, you have to submit proofs and pay for color seperation and any additional processing. Even if your print looks pristine, bear in mind that the original proof that your print was made from was likely higher quality than what you have, so even in order to produce an identical quality print you will need to have post-processing. There will be a minimum order (usually at least in the 100s) even for limited art prints. The investment may not be unreasonable since limited prints are themselves valuable.

Hope this helps!

Thanks Ta...

one point - this is the original piece, not a lithograph as I first posted. I know nothing about painting, so I asked an art major. :) She pointed out the actual paint and brushmarks on the canvas.

So I wonder if this changes anything?

On 2009-03-27 05:54, tikiauction wrote:
i'm not an attorney but I do have some links to the publishing industry. One thing to consider is any copyright issue. My personal belief is that you should be ok. Works produced after 1910 or so are protected by the international copyright convention. However, US copyright law prior to the 1980s used to require an explicit declaration (i.e. copyright 1959 the acme tiki company) and renewal every 28 years. So if the print was from 1950s, you should be ok, if there is no explicit declaration on it.

All the same, many of the reproduced mugs and prints that you see from iconic tiki establishments and even defunct ones are licensed or at least claim to be.

In terms of getting a print out. It depends on 2 things, the condition/quality of your original, and the quality of the copies you want. If you want to make art quality prints, you have to submit proofs and pay for color seperation and any additional processing. Even if your print looks pristine, bear in mind that the original proof that your print was made from was likely higher quality than what you have, so even in order to produce an identical quality print you will need to have post-processing. There will be a minimum order (usually at least in the 100s) even for limited art prints. The investment may not be unreasonable since limited prints are themselves valuable.

Hope this helps!

On 2009-03-27 06:06, thegreenman wrote:
one point - this is the original piece, not a lithograph as I first posted.

Not really, bear in mind that a lot of this is gray area, not really clarified or even enforced. But in general authors and artists have to sign an explicit transfer of rights for you to own the copyright even if you now own the original work. Think in terms of owning the original manuscript to a famous book or movie, it certainly doesn't transfer the copyright or it would be very valuable indeed. Even if it is an original, there may be similar or identical original artwork copies which were made. In most cases authors and artists working for a commercial publisher already transferred all rights to the publisher. When the publisher goes under, the catalog is bought for pennies on the dollar by holding companies.

I would buy one! Thank you again for letting me use it in Tiki Modern, it really enlivens the A-Frame page! I wish it would have been reproduced bigger, but I did not have enough space.

What is so neat about the painting is the fact that, just like graphics done for 50s and 60s TV ads, it is rendered completely in black and white, since it was obviously meant to be reproduced as just that. I bet that is a lost art nowadays, just like lighting for black and white.

I really would not worry too much about rights, the market for this is too small. Not that you couldn't make some money of selling prints, but not enough for other folks to bother.

I would be in for a print as well, very cool.

DC

Thanks Sven,

I'm wondering if it is actually by JJ McVicker, and how to contact his estate to verify authenticity.
If it's really one of his pieces, I'd probably get sued into oblivion for unauthorized reproductions. If it's just a knock-off or some unknown with the same name, I wouldn't really worry.

If anyone has any experience with these kind of issues please email me, I'd be happy to share whatever proceeds there might be with someone who can get the rights sorted out.

chris(-at-)thegreenman(-dot-)us

this is a "best option". This company has enormous scanners that are made specifically for art and art reproduction, which will maintain the quality and detail of the original, bar none. See if there is one similar located in Florida...Or call the L.A. branch and see if they know of any options in FLA...Good luck!

Oops, it would have helped to include the link:

http://www.aandi.com/

I also forgot to add that you would need a drum scan depending on the size of the original print.Once you get a digital file of the print, you can take the disk or mail it to any print shop for the prints. I would only use AandI or similar company to obtain a mirror image scan of the original. I would search for another lower priced company to make the prints from the scan.

Custom Drum Scans
Turnaround: 2-4 days
These high-resolution scans are ideal for Lightjet prints, Giclée prints and digital transparencies. To help determine what size scan you might need, refer to our Standard Print File Size chart.
RGB or CMYK file size
30MB $25
60MB $30
100MB $45
150MB $60
200MB $70

http://www.aandi.com/scan.html

[ Edited by: Tom Slick 2009-03-27 11:00 ]

Count me in for one! Very cool!

Why not just make them to order, here on TC? Figure out a (for today's economy: low!) price, and see how many orders you get.

This thing was done as a COMMERCIAL job for some brochure, that artist got paid for it, and thousands of other commercial illustrations like it have been thrown away. It's not the friggin' Madonna, it's old forgotten commercial art. It is only "art" to some because WE think so. NOBODY has ever come forward and asked for money for the hundreds of orphaned images I used in my books --and I would take umbrage at that if they would, because it was my work that re-imbued them with a context and thus with a value that did not exist previously.

There where a few images that I wanted to use that were cost-prohibitive, and this issue is one of my pet peeves: Greedy rights holders wrongly believing they are sitting on some imagined "gold mine", while all they are doing is keeping beautiful art from being rediscovered and re-entering pop culture --upon which they MAYBE would start seeing a financial return. Now nobody is gonna see them. It's like the suing mania, it is restrictive, not creative.

This of course does not pertain to the current crop of artists in the Tiki field.

On 2009-03-27 07:54, thegreenman wrote:
how to contact his estate to verify authenticity.

the kicker is that it may be a moot point to contact his estate. if the piece was comissioned by the Yankee Clipper Hotel, they are the ones who ultimately own the rights regardless of who painted it. you can call them, but to tell you the truth sheraton corporate will probably be like "huh?" if you call them about this, and then transfer you to their corporate law firm who will want an arm and a leg. i say go for it, the piece predates the 80s, has no explicit copyright declaration (duh), and i doubt sheraton renewed the copyright in 1987.

On 2009-03-27 11:47, bigbrotiki wrote:
Why not just make them to order, here on TC? Figure out a (for today's economy: low!) price, and see how many orders you get.

This thing was done as a COMMERCIAL job for some brochure, that artist got paid for it, and thousands of other commercial illustrations like it have been thrown away. It's not the friggin' Madonna, it's old forgotten commercial art. It is only "art" to some because WE think so. NOBODY has ever come forward and asked for money for the hundreds of orphaned images I used in my books --and I would take umbrage at that if they would, because it was my work that re-imbued them with a context and thus with a value that did not exist previously.

There where a few images that I wanted to use that were cost-prohibitive, and this issue is one of my pet peeves: Greedy rights holders wrongly believing they are sitting on some imagined "gold mine", while all they are doing is keeping beautiful art from being rediscovered and re-entering pop culture --upon which they MAYBE would start seeing a financial return. Now nobody is gonna see them. It's like the suing mania, it is restrictive, not creative.

This of course does not pertain to the current crop of artists in the Tiki field.

I'm with ya on this one ! ...well most ones lol
Thats the way this will keep going for our children ( dont have any myself) ,gotta get this stuff out of the bacement and into the sunshine ( of blowfish shine)so we can all appreciate it !
I'd be intrested in a print too !

All that would need to be done is one good professional high resolution scan for less than $100/one time fee, and you can get 100 11"x17" posters made for as low as $99 with UV protection coating... At that rate, selling the print for $10+ S/H is worth all the effort taken, and the price for the print would be extremely buyer friendly. I would buy at least one as well. Maybe two, and use one as a gift! :D

For $10 I'm all in!

I'll take two at $10.00 apiece!!

On 2009-03-27 13:23, Tom Slick wrote:
All that would need to be done is one good professional high resolution scan for less than $100/one time fee, and you can get 100 11"x17" posters made for as low as $99 with UV protection coating... At that rate, selling the print for $10+ S/H is worth all the effort taken, and the price for the print would be extremely buyer friendly. I would buy at least one as well. Maybe two, and use one as a gift! :D

Hey, Tom! Are you in the industry? Just wondering where you got the numbers for the scan and prints. I'm a print production manager by trade and have some great vendors who do art reproductions all day long. Are these digital prints you're talking about or offset print? Giclee? You don't necessarily need a drum scan, if it's a stretched canvas or the board/paper it's printed on is brittle they can take a photo of it (a professional one, at the studio). Anyway, if you're (by you, I mean thegreenman) interested I could definitely help you guys out on this and get you info from a local place I work a lot with here in Orange County (CA), but don't know of anyone in Florida.

[ Edited by: Kiki von Tiki 2009-03-27 14:55 ]

I've worked closely with some pretty big print companies, when I used to have fliers made on a weekly basis. I used to run between 5k and up to 20k fliers a run for various nightclubs(almost 12 years heading promotions). I've heard that drum scans give best quality, although never personally had to use the service.

This is entirely thegreenmans project, and I'm not insinuating what he will want to charge, should he choose to go this route. I'm just offering ballpark prices on the current market rates. The prices I have listed are from doing a little footwork like checking local print websites. I have a friend and graphic designer who works at http://www.Indieprinting.com , and I just pulled their current pricing for comparison. He also refered me to http://www.aandi.com for information regarding actual art duplication.

Just trying to supply some options, and price quotes...hehe, nothing more than that!

Hey folks lets not jump the gun here...
I think we are getting ahead of ourselves.

I'm going to look into this, it is by no means a done deal, but just maybe...there may be a very limited quantity at the Hukilau.

Well, I can offer up this info, gleaned from 25 years in the graphics production management industry.

A drum scan is best if the material is flexible. You can do a high res flatbed scan as long as the scanner can accomodate the size. You will need as scan at 100% and at least 200 dpi (up to 400 dpi is preferrable if you want to make a print larger than the original) to do good quality reproductions. If the item has dimension, you'll want to get a studio produced high-res digital photo. Then you'll want to check the image and do color corrections as needed to get the image quality you want.

Then yes, you can send it out to a printer on disc, but you want to be careful which kind of print you get, as some of them do not hold up well over time. Lambda vs giclee, etc. There's also paper to consider, there are many kinds and you'll want to choose depending on how you are using the final print. ie: lower quality posters or high quality prints suitable for framing (archival). The options just depend on the quality and longevity desired.

Just my personal opinion; you should go with the best quality that you can that makes sense for the subject material.
Thegreenman, feel free to pm me if you want to discuss.

That image is very cool! It would be great to have nice prints of it available!

I would like a print of that image. I also have some original art from an estate. One is an unsigned pen & ink of a Jungleland type attraction. The other is a signed color painting of a Polynesian Luau with a similar theme....A-Frame, fire and hula dancers, outriggers, Tikis, cocktails. I will try to post that in another thread. They are large images that a local company put on a disc for me. The pen & ink was on paper and they were able to scan it. The other painting was larger and on board so they took a high-res photo. It was a while ago, but I think they charged about $20.00 per image.

Here's a decent desktop/wallpaper version.

http://i43.tinypic.com/91f67b.jpg

Here's one that was reproduced on canvas.

http://www.tikicentral.com/viewtopic.php?topic=26774&forum=5&vpost=352041&hilite=an%20artist%20and%20a%20great%20brother

Okay that saves me a lot of trouble. Nothing wrong with that picture at all. Looks great.

I'll just take a few nice digital hires pictures of it, post them and you all can do what you want with them.

I think I'll make one giclee for myself, and then sell or trade off the original.

Thanks everyone for their input, advice, and comments. Happy Tiki hunting.

thegreenman, please don't let Tiki Tonga stop you from pursuing making some prints of this great piece of art for sale. I think people would love to be able to purchase one done perfectly to display in their homes.

By the way, TT, copying images for your personal use is something we all do, but re-posting them for the general public and thereby ruining someone's potential income is not so cool, IMHO.

On 2009-03-28 18:22, Kiki von Tiki wrote:
thegreenman, please don't let Tiki Tonga stop you from pursuing making some prints of this great piece of art for sale. I think people would love to be able to purchase one done perfectly to display in their homes.

By the way, TT, copying images for your personal use is something we all do, but re-posting them for the general public and thereby ruining someone's potential income is not so cool, IMHO.

Hey KVT, Tiki-Tonga is not trying to stop anyone from pursuing anything. As a matter a fact, I too, would love to purchase a quality reproduction of this image. May I direct you to page 1 of this thread where a desktop wallpaper version of this image was offered up already by Kona Chris on Jul 16, 2005. The posting and offering of a low resolution computer desktop image on my part, cannot compete with a full resolution highly detailed scan. You, having 25 years in the graphics production management industry, should know this. So I hardly see that as ruining someone's potential income. If thegreenman chooses to make and sell a print of this image, then that's great, I would buy one. If he does not choose to do so, and instead posts a link to a high resolution version of the image, then that's great too. And I thank him either way. KVT, your ill informed assumptions are "not so cool" IMHO.

It wasn't the screensaver that I was talking about, it was the tutorial. But I will pm you rather than cluttering up this thread with our discussion. Peace!

Just so everyone is clear. Kiki von Tiki, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. I am not the person who had a print made on canvas. That was a TC member named tikicar. I do not even have a brother. Take another look at that link I posted. I was just sharing a post I had remembered seeing on TC about that same image, that's all.

All I know is that if I had an original painting/print and seen someone post that they made a copy from my own pics without my consent, I wouldn't be too happy about it.

And to top things off, someone digs up an old thread and reposts the link that someone bootlegged my owned art is like adding insult to injury. Just by re-introducing the "bootleg my owned artwork" thread. That's pretty much how I'd feel about it.

[ Edited by: Tom Slick 2009-03-29 16:39 ]

And to top things off, someone digs up an old thread and reposts the link that someone bootlegged my owned art is like adding insult to injury. Just by re-introducing the "bootleg my owned artwork" thread. That's pretty much how I'd feel about it.

[ Edited by: Tom Slick 2009-03-29 16:39 ]

My link to tikicar's post very much pertained to the discussion on this thread, and I have no regrets about posting it. Hey the evening news adds insults to my injuries, but that's OK, I'm a big boy and I can handle it. Information must flow freely both in the real world and here on TC.

I'll leave it to thegreenman to respond further if he wants to. But I still think bringing up a 2 year old post to show everyone how to bootleg something someone has just said they own and want to reproduce for sale is not too cool. I don't care who's brother got the print done. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Actually I think it's pretty cool of me to help expose the bootlegger to thegreenman. He's got nowhere to hide now. That dreadful pixel thief!

On 2009-03-29 18:00, TIKI-TONGA wrote:
Information must flow freely both in the real world and here on TC.

Yes TIKI-TONGA, I agree information should be exchanged freely, but someones personally owned images should not. And by digging up and bringing back that old thread makes it seem that you condone or encourage making your own bootleg. Especially when you posted the wallpaper image first, and then after, the link to the copied print from tikiracers collection... It's pretty obvious that the only person who had the access to supply the jpg image of the artwork was TC'er thegreenman, in the first place. The original owner of the art.

When I read your two posts with the links, i seen it like this: "Fugg it, take the .jpg scan and doit yourself, tikiracer did..."

Whether or not you meant it like that, only you would know. But that's how it looks in my eyes, and I'm pretty sure that is how the owner took it too, based on his very last reply under that link you reposted:

thegreenman wrote:
"Okay that saves me a lot of trouble. Nothing wrong with that picture at all. Looks great. I'll just take a few nice digital pictures of it, post them and you all can do what you want with them."

On 2009-03-29 18:00, TIKI-TONGA wrote:
My link to tikicar's post very much pertained to the discussion on this thread, and I have no regrets about posting it.

TIKI-TONGA, I don't want, or expect you to regret what you have posted. I would only ask that you think clearly about what you are about to post in the future, because just as in life, there are repercussions to your actions. In this case, a few interested people including yourself, loses the possibility of owning a professionally done reprint of this art piece.

[ Edited by: Tom Slick 2009-03-30 00:21 ]