What defines "TIKI" art...and does anybody care?

Incidentally, the year of our mutual birth, 55, in Deutsch, is funf und funfzig. Try saying that with a mouthful of peanuts!

No more Deutsch spreche fur mich tonight!

One other concern, then I'm going to cool down and let someone else use this thread. I'm noticing that the Amazon.com price for a new copy of the Book of Tiki is, like $460 in hardcover and $140 in paperback. Tiki Style is more affordable, but still busting the hundred dollar mark.

I have to assume that the books are out of print, correct? And if that's the case, how are all the new tiki kids going to get the proper schoolin'? Are there more printings to come? Is tiki as we know it doomed to be abused by the willing but ignorant masses?

Also, my Kindle tells me it wants it's own Book of Tiki. Do you think I can talk Amazon into it?

So just remember our first meeting and how poorly I conducted myself without a Book of Tiki in hand! How much of THAT can you take? Hmmm?

All right, everybody, I'll leave you all alone for awhile.

[ Edited by: KokoKele 2012-02-16 06:11 ]

Well, I’ve kept my big mouth shout for about three weeks now, and now I’m going to defy all wisdom and attack this thread again! Never could help but pick at scabs.

I realized that the items I outlined above aren’t necessarily addressing the question of “What is Tiki Art?” but instead address the question “What is Tiki?” Quite a difference.

When considering BigBroTiki’s question, it strikes me that he’s actually asking two questions:
“What defines tiki . . . and does anybody care?”
And
“What defines art . . . and does anybody care?”

You can argue the definition of “art” until the end of time. The volume of literature is practically infinite. Although I’ve taken a slew of art classes, drawn a few pictures, created a few paintings and have even sculpted a few items I don’t feel I have the insight to determine whether certain fringe pieces, such as the aforementioned Urinal, qualify as art. But it’s pretty easy to point to pieces by Rembrandt, Chagall, Chihuly, Warhol or Calder and say “now that’s art.” It's well-executed, iconic, multi-leveled, mature and universally recognized as art.

So what's Tiki Art? When you look at the myriad pieces that accompanied the mid-century Tiki movement and the pieces coming out of the more recent Tiki Revival/Polynesian Pop/Tiki Style 2 movement I think you’ll find works that fall under fairly easily recognized categories. I would personally label them:

Tiki Art
Tiki Crafts
Tiki Objects
Tiki Sell-Out
Utter Crap

I could define each category but this post is going to be long-winded enough already. I’m pretty sure you all get the idea.

How do you decide which is which? Well, there’s probably a pretty thin line between categories, and the placement of a piece in a category will depend on the experience, discrimination and definition of the viewer. Fortunately we have informative guides to help us along the way and to find the new creations that will help define the genre. I’m looking at the cover of Tiki Art Now volume 3 as I write this. Although, as Tiki Titan Otto von Stroheim states in the introduction . . . “Tiki art has no universally accepted name, no manifesto, no particular discernible style . . .” the book goes on to display works that, by virtue of the authorities who selected the pieces, are, indeed, Tiki Art. Do you have to like all of it? Nope. I don’t. But I certainly respect the authority of the authors and I can certainly respect the skill, ability and maturity of the artists whether I like a piece or not.

And I think that’s why the frustration over the existing and continuing volume of Tiki Sell-Out and Utter Crap that leads to the question “What defines tiki art . . . and does anybody care?” is valid but easily dismissed. At this time in history it has never been easier to produce works – paintings, sculptures, assemblies, tableware, carvings, recorded music, time-based art, you name it – and display them to the public, who may be disturbingly appreciative of pieces that would bring tears to the purists’ eyes. There’s a bunch of it! Although the internet, retail stores and even well-meaning specialty shops are teeming with stuff that will make BigBroTiki sigh, there are also those artists and craftspeople who are using the availability of reference material, technology, and social networking along with sheer genius to create pieces that are artistic, fresh, evolutionary and fun. Let’s face it: all Tiki is derivative to some extent, as I would postulate that most art is also derivative to some extent. So those of you who have a lot of exposure to it are going to see plenty of common elements that may seem over-worked. You’re also not going to have much tolerance for the trite and poorly executed pieces. You have been immersed in Tiki and can discriminate between the real thing and the pedestrian nonsense, and seeing the current volume of nonsense is probably frustrating. But, just like in the larger world of art, the genre of Tiki or Poly Pop or whatever you want to call it will also have its iconic pieces that will continue to invigorate it and push it forward. I’m still really impressed by the pieces, both old and new, that imaginative people have created as I discover more and more about Tiki in the western world.

All types of art – even Tiki Art – incubate and evolve. I think Tiki Art is incubating nicely, though messily, and because there are many people who care about it, it will stay lively and fun. And you never know; the folks who are turning out Utter Crap today may mature and grow into the respected artists of tomorrow (doubtful, though). I'm fairly certain that some of the pieces being questioned today will eventually find their way into the iconography of Tiki, just as some of the whimsical and oddly executed pieces of earlier decades have.

Thanks for the indulgence!

“What defines tiki . . . and does anybody care?”

I'll make it and let the "intellectuals" figure it out. There is no distinction between "Tiki Art" and "Utter Crap" - its just an opinion.

[ Edited by: AlohaStation 2012-03-08 09:20 ]

Why is it being "intellectual" for someone to ask that so-called Tiki art has some minimum percentage of relation to the Polynesian/Oceanic arts and to midcentury American Tiki art? That ain't too complicated of a standard, no?

Hey, Aloha:
I hope you keep makin' it! I love looking at the posts of people who have more ambition and imagination than myself who keep turning out those neat pieces and sharing their progress. Much mahalos!

Two big differences I've noticed between mid-century works and today's works, other than style, is the sense of history behind the earlier pieces and the incredible access to the more recent pieces due to social media. I thoroughly enjoy the posts that dredge up old concept drawings, artwork and photos of earlier tikiana (is that a word?). Part of the delight is the rarity of the documents being shared, and it's really delightful when someone on TC actually knows the people and history behind the images. Today, thanks largely to the internet, AlohaStation can share the progress of a piece, display the finished piece, even sell it if he wants, in almost real time. It takes some of the mystery and discovery out of tiki exploration that existed in earlier days, but this newer element of cataloging and discovering art as it's made is, to me, incredibly fascinating and it allows me to indulge my tiki proclivities on a daily basis. I think that's cool, man!

I just want to make it clear that I would never think of applying the "Utter Crap" label, which is strictly personal, to people creating works on this site and displaying them. I save that term for other, more crassly commercial and over-produced pieces of junk. I'm seeing artists in various stages of development here,from novice to master, and I would prefer to give validity to their efforts. I think the "tikiness" of a piece should be able to be discussed in a civil manner, because it helps the tough-skinned and open-minded artist to develop a strong sense of style. Anything that kindly and gently nudges the novice artist toward mastery is a good thing, I think.

I feel like I'm hi-jacking this thread, so I'm going to cool down for awhile and let other people talk. I do have one last question, though:

If a book was titled "Poly Pop Now," would it generate as much public interest as a book titled "Tiki Art Now?" And, if not, should Tiki simply be called Tiki, no matter what its era of origination? I'm wondering this because I still think of western world Tiki as a fairly deliberately created consumable as well as a lifestyle, and keeping it palatable to the general public will keep the genre alive and thriving.

My, how I do go on!

Thanks again!

On 2012-03-08 13:05, KokoKele wrote:

I just want to make it clear that I would never think of applying the "Utter Crap" label, which is strictly personal, to people creating works on this site and displaying them. I save that term for other, more crassly commercial and over-produced pieces of junk.

Really? That comment makes no sense at all to me. Either you are just playing it safe or you are a liar. Are you saying that you like absolutely EVERY piece of work by EVERY artist on this site? I don't. I find some of it, to be "Utter Crap". Are you saying that some of the more crassly commercial and over-produced pieces of junk don't appeal to you? I'm not. Occasionally i see a piece that 'I' think is cool. Which is 'strictly personal'. According to Sven's definition it has to have some minimum percentage of relation to the Polynesian/Oceanic arts and to midcentury American Tiki art. A lot of it to me is just that artists own personal expression of what 'Tiki" means to them. The percentage of that relation is purely subjective. Just because one, or some people, say it must be a certain way, doesn't make it so. This is not law. This is an individuals take on something that is completely made-up with to begin with.

Some/most/all might say that about my work. I really don't care. I KNOW that there are people out there that do like my work. My work might not have any relation to the Polynesian/Oceanic arts and to midcentury American Tiki art, according to some, yet there are people out there who can see enough of an influence in it to include it in 'their' definition of 'Tiki art'. That is enough for me. As it is enough for me to see artists on this site who 'I' think have created work that really is 'art', and how small the percentage of relation to the Polynesian/Oceanic arts and to midcentury American Tiki it really is, is irrelevant to me.

I like, what i like. And whether or not my 'opinion' fits in with someone elses idea means nothing to me.

On 2012-03-09 02:50, swizzle wrote:

Just because one, or some people, say it must be a certain way, doesn't make it so. This is not law.

I feel you are addressing me here, so: To me, for new Tiki art to contain visible elements of Oceanic art and mid-century Tiki is not some kind of "law", it is just common sense, as in my old saying "If it says Tiki on it, it should have Tiki in it" - if it doesn't, it ain't. What is there to argue about? :)

On 2012-03-09 02:50, swizzle wrote:
This is an individuals take on something that is completely made-up with to begin with.

I have to disagree here. Yes there are some examples of that in the mid-century, but they are funny exceptions. Not enough to make "completely made-up" the motto of the art form, though. WHY is original mid-century American Tiki art cool, what makes it unique? The fact that the artist A.) did not simply copy ancient Polynesian carvings, and then B.) gave them their own touch, adding modernist or cartoony elements of the time. However, they were still recognizable as POLYNESIAN (or Oceanic) idols. They could not be mistaken for Hobbit monsters, wood sprites, or "whatever" ethnicity folk art.

Some/most/all might say that about my work. I really don't care. I KNOW that there are people out there that do like my work.... As it is enough for me to see artists on this site who 'I' think have created work that really is 'art', and how small the percentage of relation to the Polynesian/Oceanic arts and to midcentury American Tiki it really is, is irrelevant to me.
I like, what i like. And whether or not my 'opinion' fits in with someone elses idea means nothing to me.

You seem to argue from a defensive position here, which as far as I am concerned, is unnecessary, because when I look at your mug variations, they seem to lie somewhere in the tradition of what Tiki mug makers did in the mid-century.

And your last part of your argument is totally correct for ANY artist. Of course anybody is absolutely free to create whatever, have it liked by people, and declare it as art. Who could ever deny them that? But IF that art piece would not have anything (or just 1%) of Tiki in it, why insist to label it such? I am not putting down some law here, what I am saying seems like an objective fact to me, a logic that exists, beyond right or wrong. :)

Where the matter of subjective OPINION comes in is more also where the matter of PERSONAL TASTE comes in: There are some Tiki works out there that I am "not partial" to because they're not my personal taste. But if they clearly contain elements of the Tiki genre, I would not claim they are not "Tiki". Maybe I would say they are not "enough" Tiki, or tacky, or, my most common complaint, too cartoony. :)

But all this only touches onto a recent realization I had, brought on by Kokolele, that I still have not had time to fully formulate yet.

These are always interesting debates, and I admire BigBro for sticking to his guns, if you will, against an ever-increasing onslaught on too colorful, too toothy, too
margaritaville stuff.

I should stay where I belong in the carving thread (if I even belong there) but
I guess the question of defining the genre has to take into account that an
awful lot of people feel that a multi-colored plastic mask on a cheap bar
next to the pool constitutes a "tiki" environment, and in our watered down
world they are sorta right. We see it all the time in the marketplace, carving and home bar threads, and we cringe, waiting for the public flogging that
will might follow. It's a good thing, the perpetrator either gets
pissed off and leaves, or they learn there is a lot more to "tiki" than they
thought. It's a good outcome either way, and the conversation often
leads to conversion.

Keep harping away BigBro, there's always hope.

Hi, Swizzle:
Thanks for the input. I’ll try to elaborate then I’ll step back again and let others rejoin the discussion.

One of the reasons I won’t attach the KokoKele Certified Crap (KKCC) label to pieces being produced by Forum members goes back to my discussion about artists in various stages of development. I believe a great many people come to Tiki Central with naïve enthusiasm and a desire to produce something “Tiki.” How can I fault that? The more pieces they produce the more mature they are going to become as Tiki artists and the more noteworthy their pieces are going to become. I’m thoroughly impressed that people are getting their hands dirty to bring new Tiki into the world. This shows me that Tiki is alive and well. And I’m with you: I think a lot of it is worth ignoring, but I think the artists who show any promise of development are worth encouraging. If a mature, studied and skillful artist turns out a piece that has no elements of Tiki whatsoever and tries to pass it off as Tiki, I may admire their skill and I might even like the piece but I’m going to make a mental note that it belongs in a different forum. It simply isn’t Tiki. For me to label something as complete crap it would have to be really, deliberately crappy. There is a broad range of Tiki stuff that I would be inclined to label as Tiki Sell-out, but that’s not a bad thing. A lot of it is fun stuff and most of us probably have some of it in our collections.

One of the reasons I listed those categories wasn’t to make people think I stand in judgment of their work. I seldom do that. I actually wanted to make the point that I think there’s Tiki Art, and I think there’s a bunch of other stuff that doesn’t qualify as art, necessarily, but still holds our attention. That’s where the crafts, objects, sell-out and crap categories came from. This was in keeping with my assumption that we were actually talking about two different things: Art and Tiki. Tiki Art is where these two things cross paths, and I personally would put a limited number of pieces in this category. Most of the Tiki stuff I own would fall more into the Craft and Object categories, even though I think a lot of it is produced by very artistic people. I don’t call it art because I have, in my mind, a rather rigid test as to what I categorize as art. It gets kind of complicated and very subjective. It’s sort of like trying to discuss jazz. I’ve heard that people end up shooting each other when they try to do that.

I like your work, too, Swizzle. The chasm between it and Utter Crap (KKCC) is miles and miles wide. I’ve really enjoyed your posts about it and am delighted with your experimentation. I salute you, my friend.

And let’s face it: in the long run we’re all just indulging in something that we really enjoy. BigBroTiki brings a level of scholarship and sophistication to Tiki that I personally am deliriously happy about. He helps give Tiki validation that is important to its continuity. He thinks about it, studies it, applies his passion to it and provides us with a sense of history and authority. In my opinion he has all the credentials required to provide considered critical input about all things Tiki. He has a lot to offer and I think we’re wise to pay attention to what he says. Guys like Swizzle represent the ranks of those who are creating new pieces for everyone to enjoy. This is also vital to Tiki’s continuity. You’re putting it out there and keeping the interest alive. Whether I like your work or not, you producers are Tiki heroes, so I thank you!

I don’t want to get gushy here, so I’m going to sign off.

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?

I thought this was settled, I decide on what's Tiki & what is not........Sooooooo........
Let's get cocktails.......

I'm still reading your post Atomic Tiki Punk! Wendy