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

Here,here!

On 2008-06-10 20:40, bananabobs wrote:
Actually I'm getting pissed, that ANY person who makes ANYTHING and calls it Tiki could be challenged or hurt by this thread...

I have to agree with several ppl here who suggested that the style of retail products labeled "tiki" is really widening lately to include items that only remotely resemble tiki. Putting a sign labeled "tiki statue" onto a cigar store indian doesn't make it a tiki statue.

Bananabobs, I have to disgree, a discussion forum is a place to express opinions. There shouldn't be any need to feel wronged, hurt, or angry, that someone's "tiki" art, tiki bar, tiki whatever may be challenged as such here on this board.

After all, I do believe this board was founded by enthusiasts of the very style Sven is trying to keep alive.

I love this discussion. The idea that any of us haole artists has any right to call ourselves a tiki artist is a joke. As a student of Polynesian culture (particularly Hawaiian, Tahitian and Sa'moan), personally i do (believe it or not) have heavy reverence for the culture of the 'travelers'. But painting theological iconography is pretty dry stuff. If i painted Jesus, he would have googley eyes too.

But the rank and file TC member isn't here for a scholarly exploration of Polynesian 'religion' and iconography, it's a light-hearted celebration of the lifestyle invented by decorators in the 50's. At the end of the day, a fanciful view of the hedonistic tropical lifestyle as escape from 'here and now' is what has always defined and drives our love of 'tiki'.

For me, 'Tiki Art' IS Poly Pop. Anyone who is stoked on the idea of the Tiki God and inspired to create art is a tiki artist.

To be blunt, unless the artist has Polynesian blood and is practicing the polytheistic faith of one island or another, it's not TRUE tiki art, anway, is it?? I'm going to stop short of saying that all haole tiki art is an insult to polynesian cultural beliefs, but let's keep it all in perspective.

I am completely new to TC, but spent the last 45mins reading this entire thread. I think what Bigbrotiki is trying to convey is there can be a delineation between "tiki" (Polynesian/South Seas) based art, and "totem" (Pacific NW) based art. His assertion that the latter should not be refered to as "tiki art" sounds pretty strong to me.

The C. Phillips illustrations that were linked to are clearly totem-based, Pacific NW themed. I would not consider them in a "tiki art" category. I think modern tiki has been influenced heavily by totem art, hence some of the brightly colored (traditional themed) tikis we see today. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so, as long as the basis of the tiki design still screams Polynesian/South Seas influence.

The coupling of Ed Roth inspiration with Tiki we see today are very complementary in my opinion. After all, both were emerging after WWII, spurred by young service men bringing their experiences (South Seas) or training (mechanics) back to The States. It is logical for them to influence each other.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... now go beholder what you prefer. :drink:

[ Edited by: TikiMango 2008-06-18 15:30 ]

Hi Tikimango, welcome aboard.
I started carving my version of tikis a few years ago, and I've also delved
fairly deeply into NW Pacific Coast totems. Bigbro would have to respond for
himself but I do not believe he was referring to NW totems. They are clearly
not tiki, but there are some stylistic similarities in the carvings that
blend well with tiki art. I do not feel the "example" he pointed out are
even remotely NW Pacific Coast style, they are "big teeth" style images
that generally are considered Tiki by the mainstream peeps.
NW Coast totems are a distinct style of very high art, and while "not tiki"
they should not be compared with the recent barrage of tiki material that I
think Bigbro refers to.
At any rate welcome to TC...my only intention here is to not lump NW Coast
carving into this discussion...those guys can really carve....and it's an
art form that deserves respect of the highest level. But definitely not tiki.

Congatiki, I did not mean to drag NWP Totem style or craftsmanship through the mud. Each form of art has a distinct style, and deserves all the respect they are due. Thanks for the warm welcome. :wink:

It's just me...I'm currently spending way too much time working on a NW
style totem...and attempting to put a little bit of tiki into it. Enjoy
your stay at TC. :)

Even with my somewhat broad description of Tiki Art above, these "Urban Tiki - whimsical sculptures" just go too friggin' far with "Tiki"...

Should yuh want them the set is $40. The original listing is on the Seattle Craigslist HERE

In another thread, "Did ancient Polynesians visit California?", discussing possible contact between Polynesians and California, Kona posted a link to the Canadian Connection, which posits theories of Hawaiians coming from the NW Pacific Coast, originally. That would explain similarities in tiki and totem styles - the two diverged from a common ancient source. So, if your tiki carvings are taking on stylistic elements of NW Coastal totems, maybe you're just reaching back and drawing inspiration from even more ancient and original proto-Polynesian source material. :)

On 2008-06-13 19:10, GROG wrote:
Damned Hukilau attending bastards, out having fun without us. Wait 'til they get back and read this thread. That'll show them we can have plenty of fun without them!!

You have no idea... I can't even begin to wrap my head around 7 pages of wordy posts all generated in under 10 days! Wow.

On 2008-06-19 01:00, woofmutt wrote:
Even with my somewhat broad description of Tiki Art above, these "Urban Tiki - whimsical sculptures" just go too friggin' far with "Tiki"...

Should yuh want them the set is $40. The original listing is on the Seattle Craigslist HERE

Wow, those are awesome. The mouths look like they're pyrogy makers. 40 bucks is pretty expensive - can't anyone get their family to do some cheap knockoffs in Bali?

Sven,

And everyone else interested. . . I move that we start a section called "not Tiki" where people can post pictures of modern day (and historical imposter's) pseudo tiki "art."

A place where we can observe, discuss, and comment on such modern day frivilties and faux pas. . .

:D ...I tried that: http://www.tikicentral.com/viewtopic.php?topic=20545&forum=1

It became sort of a strained subject. It appears that as soon as I point out that Tiki is a genre that can be defined by a certain iconography (with the absence of that iconography making things non-Tiki), and that its humor has to adhere to that iconography to "work", people go into a huff about artistic freedom and Island Lifestyle being a part of it and all that.
The fact seems to be that if folks WANT their stuff to be Tiki, it IS Tiki to them, logic arguments non-withstanding. :)

P.S.: While the above plastic utensil kitchen utensil masks should maybe not be sold as "modern Tiki art", I find them quite original and funny. That yellow garden hose sprinkler top certainly has a Tiki nose shape, and for me the whole assembly works along the lines of "found art" collages. It also falls under the genre of "Tiki Humor" in the same vein than some "Tiki faces in Strange Places", like this kitchen grain mill:

We get the joke and laugh, but do not consider it a piece on par with a Ryden or Shag.

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki 2008-06-22 00:43 ]

Considering these weirdo Craigslist "Tiki" pieces...

It's worth keeping in mind that many non-Tiki people who are even aware of Tiki often seem to regard it as any crude, primitive, or fantastical representation of a human face/form.

This piece from eBay was described as "tiki god":

(In this case the use of "tiki" was most likely a commercial calculation, but the piece sold for $96.)

In the non-Tiki mind the "math" often works like this:

crude = primitive = Tiki

It's by no means a definition of Tiki worth taking seriously but the notion is out there and has been for a very long time.

The above Craigslist piece could be considered Folk or Outsider Art (another definition that is well debated). In the minds of many people it seems that amateur = folk, folk = primitive.

And that's how the "fun" art project Grandma did at the Senior Center goes up for sale as Tiki Art.

Very interesting subject.
I think about it on every piece. Actually, I agonize over it.
Is it "tiki"?
I want it to be "tiki" but not too "tiki".

Personally, I seek NOT to recreate an exact image of an actual historical Hawaiian tiki.
2 reasons:
1.) It's not my culture, and to do so, I would feel like a poser.
2.) I'm superstitious, I don't want to draw the attention of some supernatural being by making a likeness of it. I live on an active volcano. I've seen some weird unexplainable stuff, and I've heard many "talk story" of bad things happening. I don't want trouble like that.

But, heck, the KAPU religious system was thrown down by the Hawaiians in 1819, and Hawaiiana culture IS my culture. I grew up watching Gilligan's Island, and The Wonderful World of Disney. My mother played lounge and exotica music in the 60's. That's the stuff I can relate culturally to, and honestly talk about as an artist.

"Tiki Culture" is not always looked upon well here in Hawaii. I had someone looking at my art the other day. They reacted shocked. They thought I was digging up all the culturally abrasive Bad Taste that the Hawaiian culture has been fighting against since the 70's. Funny, they were white. The Hawaiian folks who've seen my art are ok with it. (so far) But, I'm not like, prancing into a sovereignty meeting and slapping my work up on the walls. Not sure how it'd go over.

Anyways, great subject.

Tiki Shark

http://www.tikishark.com
http://www.myspace.com/Lotus_Land

[ Edited by: Tiki Shark Art 2008-06-23 21:32 ]

On 2008-06-22 16:28, Tiki Shark Art wrote:
Personally, seek NOT to recreate an exact image of an actual historical Hawaiian tiki.

I am not saying that you say I said this, but just to not let this stand there and confuse people, I have to repeat:

That is NOT what I am asking for here! I am simply warning that SOME recently new-to-Tiki artists are basing their Tiki depictions solely on the Tiki Revival art of other artists, thus removing it so far from its mid-century and original sources that it A.) becomes not recognizable as Tiki, or B.) is repetitious and redundant. If this tendency is not curbed, Tiki is on its best way to become just another 50s clichee, just like 57 Chevys and Marilyn Monroe.

And spare me from any "This is the way of all things" philosophical musings, I know that, but I also know that there is so much more left in the Tiki concept that can surprise and amuse that it would be a shame to just let it go in circles. And I am not saying folks here ARE, it is more a danger I perceive out THERE...though it won't hurt to do some self-searching, either.

Brad, U and me are gonna crash the next Aloha da'Aina meeting and see what's up wiff da mokes! seriously tho, I like ur take on the genre. Dont seek to be irreverent and be respectful of the culture. i see that in your work.

Bigbrotiki, I get ur point. I sincerely appreciate your contribution and generocity to tiki and poly-pop culture and appreciate that you started this-here thread.

i know someone early on said we cull the crap by voting with our dollars. i think at the end of the day, the cream rises and the flotsam will sink.

my final thought. since i posted, i have given a lot of thought to what "tiki" means to me in my art, and in my art, tiki is simply the personification of primal urges seen through the lens of Polynesian-inspired popular culture.

MAhalo Nui Loa! bT

Bigbrotiki, oh yeah. I grock you, baby.

And I appreciate your concern and obvious love for the subject, as it's important to all of us here. I didn't mean to relate that I'd never pick up a Hawaiian art history book. Quite the opposite! I dig researching Polynesian and Hawaiian art. Fascinating stuff! The further I read, the more mysterious the history of Tiki is. No written old Hawaiian language means different views from different historians.

LIKE... It seems no one is 100% sure which tiki represented which god. They are guessing. They have cataloged where the tikis where found and on which island. But ther're guessing which is which. Each Hawaiian island had a different art style of tiki carving. So, were they different gods, or just different styles?

Except, of course, the ones in Hilo Hattie's. They all have their names written on the bottom of their feet. Right next to "Made in China". :)

Tiki Shark

http://www.tikishark.com
http://www.myspace.com/Lotus_Land

[ Edited by: Tiki Shark Art 2008-06-23 17:20 ]

I hope you'll forgive me for drunkenly responding without reading all 9 pages of this thread, but a thought about this actually occurred to me while at Hukilau before seeing this.

The term "Exotica" to me sums up what the mass appeal of mid-century Poly-pop was to most people (and I mean most, not all). What I mean by that is that the appeal was the "otherness" I've seen mentioned in a couple of the early posts on this thread. None of our little subculture is exotic in the least to a born-and-bred Pacific Islander. The otherness appeal factor is apparent in the recurring motifs and words like "mystery" and "exotic" and even "bizarre." To me, this suggests that a huge part of the appeal was basically ignorance of (or at least unfamiliarity with) the true meanings of Polynesian art. So to become highy familiar with or gain a vast knowleddge of it almost seems to counter the intent of the original establishments here on the mainland, which was to present patons and audiences with something nearly unknowable. And in some cases, it was inaccurate. For example, am I absolutely wrong, or was the giant Kahiki fireplace not based on anything traditional (unless you want to really stretch it and say it vaguely resembles a stylized Rapa Nui moai)?

I don't really have a point except that I think the unknowability – and therefore now-necessarily innacurate/non-reality-based nature of – tiki culture and exotica is a huge and intrinsic part of this subculture and its art and what separates it from simple anthropological appreciation. Perhaps I'm biased as an artist that has and will paint Polynesian tribal-inspired imagery that is not based in any factual mythology.

Having said that, I totally agree that a) if there's no tiki on it, it shouldn't be called tiki. b) if Shag didn't paint it, it shouldn't have "Shag" in the ebay description. c) Neon-painted, vacuformed plastic and/or inflatable palm trees do not a luau make.

edit: having read more of the posts, i see that i'm not entirely on-topic with sven's intended subject here. if i'm getting it a little more now, i'd say that difference is good, but an awareness of the history of a culture/subculture is never a bad thing and should always be encouraged. this is apparent in any interest-group - any time i go to a goth club, there are people at each others' throats because someone doesn't know where it all came from and holds a misinterpretation or corruption of the original in their mind as the definition of what it's all about. in a lot of cases i tend toward purism, but sometimes i think evolution is good, as long as there's a base knowledge of roots.

[ Edited by: Rain 2008-06-23 20:08 ]

[ Edited by: filslash 2008-09-20 20:34 ]

ET , go home ...... Please

So, what are the best books to use for reference?

On 2008-06-26 16:28, Tiki Shark Art wrote:
So, what are the best books to use for reference?

You could start Here

Thanks Tikimecula!

Brudda Brad,

u have the best resourches in the world there on ur little rock.

i'm SURE ur a regular at Mark Blackburn's shop Mauna Kea Galleries up in Waimea...best Hawaiiana shop anywhere in the world...imho.

The place of refuge is always a HUUUGE source of inspiration.

ALSO, have u been up to the haunted Mo'okini heau (temple) up at the north end of da Island?? creepiest vibe i have ever experienced anywhere in the world...def right up ur alley!

of course, i also get mad island mana from surfing Pinetrees and the other great Big Island breaks...and skin-diving spots like the bay in front of the Place of Refuge, that bay where Captain Cook was whacked, and kahalu'u bay...

OK, i will stope rambling. :P

Alohas, t

sadness...just checked. Mauna Kea Galleries moved from Big Island to Honolulu over a year ago.

at least they still have a shop!

bT

Sorry I missed the Gallery. Is that Mo'okini heau up north the one over looking the bay where you can see sharks circling the under water shark god Heau?
The snorkeling next to the Captain Cook monument is fantastic! And the spot by the Place of Refuge is great too. Lots of turtles there. I've really enjoyed both spots.

That heau is not really overlooking bay. to get to it, u take a dirt road (a 'big island' dirt road!!), but it turns inland for a bit. Its got state historical site markers, but a bit hard to find. i actually also dig south point too...me and my kids jumped off the cliff where that ladder is...big fun.

i need me a dose of big island mana soooooon.

This fascinating conversion possibly COULD, from a philosophical standpoint, be an example of what defines Tiki, but I really think that's stretching it a bit...

Who is brave enough to contact Corey Haim and see what he comes up with if like the article says all he needs to know are a couple of answers to your hobbies and personality and he will create a painting for you. http://www.popeater.com/movies/article/corey-haim-artist-painting/220574

Hey Lostboy,

Ya i heard you were doing custom pieces these days......nice, way to catapult that acting career bud. I just want to give you some info so you can create something custom for me. Im into Tiki, Rum, Hawaii, Rum, Exotica Music, Rum, Tiki Bars, Rum, Menehunes, Rum I live in a world of escapism and bamboo and would like something to reflect an easy going atmosphere with wahines and rum. Your biggest fan!

Mongoloid

This is what came back!

[ Edited by: mongoloid 2008-10-28 11:37 ]

Thank the geothermal gods there's an opening to post some quality art...
21st Century Tiki, YoYo Island style.

S :wink: K

BigBroTiki: my apologies again for our discussion on Mr. VanTiki's thread. You are the recognized authority and I am simply wading about in the shallow end of the culture. I've been working on some tiki pieces of my own, and I've relied heavily on your publications when deciding what can and cannot legitimately be called tiki. One of my issues is that the pieces I'm producing are based on a love of Hawaii, its people, culture and history, and I'm having a hard time coming up with designs that combine my reverence for these things with something so pedestrian as a mug. After reading your publications and doing some other research, I came to the conclusion that the spirituality and reverence for the original cultural objects probably isn't as important in tiki revival as the incorporation of essential design elements and a respect for the history of the tiki culture in America and Europe (correct me anytime if I'm wrong). My personal feeling about tiki is that it must remain firmly rooted in the modern primitive and, no matter how lightly treated, should at least loosely adhere to certain basics that authorities such as yourself have illustrated repeatedly.
When I look at the wildly fanciful pieces being created by some tiki artists, and which you rightly question as being "tiki," I frequently base my personal judgement on the lack of purity that now widely exists in the production of tiki consumables. Party stores and Big Lots sell "tiki" decor and I have noticed it lurking at certain tiki gatherings and establishments. There is a lot of tiki junk out there! The reason I accept as tiki some of the pieces you question is that I recognize the reverence and degree of thought the artists put into them and see that they aren't trying to simply proliferate more junk for their personal gain. They believe in what they're doing. Although the pieces aren't always "tiki", I think they could easily be associated with the genre because of certain thematic qualities. I also think - and this is strictly personal - that if an artist is recognized as being respectful of the culture in general, they can probably be forgiven for indulging in flights of fancy from time to time. Should they display those flights of fancy on Tiki Central? I don't know. As I made blunderingly and abundantly clear, I'm new here and don't quite know the ropes. But when I see the incredible artistry that goes into these pieces as well as the artist's strong desire to be appreciated among the members of this community, I can't help but think they somehow belong. I think it is also the absolute right and privelege of scholars such as yourself to question the essential tiki-ness of the piece.
The blessing of tiki culture - or any culture for that matter - is that it belongs to the masses, and they are going to allow it to thrive. The curse of tiki culture is that it belongs to the masses, and they are going to pull it in directions that are going to cause dilution and push the boundaries of purity. Fortunately, while the newbies and uninitiated (such as myself) do with tiki as they will, there always will be keepers of the faith such as yourself to keep things in check and remind us that there are roots to this culture. Many of those roots are in pop and kitsch, but even those elements have a history to them. As your books point out, there is an evolutionary path that tiki has followed through rise and ruin and rise, and the path has its avatars and icons that have defined the style.
My apologies once again for my uninformed discourse on the piece in question. I will never have your level of knowledge on this topic, but please know that I really appreciate many aspects of the continuing tiki movement, and I respect your views on the definition of the style. I will never make the mistake of questioning posts by BigBroTiki again. And, of course, I'll continue to buy and digest your books!
And if I ever come up with a tiki mug that gets the BigBroTiki seal of approval, I'll be very, very honored.

Moved over from the VanTiki thread:

If I can say, what I take from Sven's points, (which I am in agreement on (Please correct me Sven, If need be)
You have Mid-Century Tiki i.e. Classic Tiki, This is pretty much set in stone, you can not reinterpret it and still call it Tiki
in that context

Then you have the "Tiki Revival" or as Sven calls it "Tiki Style" which I like to call "Neo Tiki"
here is where we have lots of room for reinterpretation, melding of modern & outside pop culture influences

Just don't call it Tiki, because its not and because enough people might like to change the definition
unless you have a Time Machine, it is not going to happen.

But it does fit in with Tiki Style, Neo Tiki or what ever you would like to call it, just not "Tiki"
because you are now referring to "Classic Tiki" of the 40s, 50s & 60s.

If I can speak for Sven here, I believe this is the point that( In doing so, keeps us on track) he needs to remind us of.

K.K.Kele and Chuck, thank you both for your posts!

Chucky first:

Mucho Mahalos for your valiant attempts in Tiki terminology, but I do have to correct you (as requested):
I don't recall calling the Tiki Revival "Tiki Style", I call it... Tiki Revival Style. And I call mostly mid-century Tiki "Tiki Style" - why would I have let my publisher use that as the title of the ICONS version of the BOT, otherwise:

These books proved that "Tiki" was a style in its own right (pulling together architecture, graphic design, decor) making it i.e. Tiki Style.
For abbreviation, I refer to examples of both genres (classic and neo) as being "Tiki", or "Un-Tiki", (or in the case of the pre-50s era, "Pre-Tiki")
I know this might seem confusing to some, and I can see some folks already roll their eyes thinking "Who cares" - fine, they don't have to, but others do.

So I want to thank K.K.Kele for coming back here (from the Van Tiki thread) and putting so much thought and effort into his post, effectively proving to me that he does not belong to the simpler minded "I-just-wanna-have-a-good-time-rs", as I was wrongly assuming. And apologies for further assuming that he, as a lurker reading TC posts, was aware of my background (maybe I should change my moniker to avoid further confusion for newbies).

As for the rest of the matter: I am just too tired to again and again state my case - all can be found in my various posts in this thread. To me, there are certain things that don't belong to Tiki Style. Organic forms, for example. Extraneous surface decorations. Generic patterns. Dungeons and Dragons. Too much comic strip, not enough Oceanic art....but whatever.

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki 2012-02-11 20:19 ]

Understood and taken to heart. If I am going to challenge Sven Kirsten, I would want to challenge him in a manner that would somehow provide fun and enlightening thought processes. Frankly, I don't think I have the grapes. It would be like discussing Catholicism with the Pope! I don't think it's productive or fair to simply challenge the established paradigm, and it must, indeed, be tiring for someone who is so immersed in it as you to hear those challenges over and over. Did I say immersed in it? Hell, you're the guy who filled the pool! One of my big mistakes when signing on to TC was that I didn't pay enough heed to the "About Tiki Central" link. In context of the message therein, along with another quick thumb through the Book of Tiki, I would like to think I now understand where you're coming from when you ask "is it tiki?" And I hope my future posts are in line with the guiding values of this site. I've been looking at some of your thousands of posts, and I note that you have both a scholarly and light-hearted approach to tiki art as well as a fierce dedication to preserving its integrity.

I also get that you like many of the works that are growing out of "authentic" tiki and can approach them with the same sense of fun and scholarship. I believe I recognize the elements that appeal to you about these works, and I appreciate your sense of tiki style when applied to diverse media.

When you and I had our first conversation on Tiki Forum I was operating well outside the guiding principles of the forum when I was waxing ecstatic over a very fanciful piece of art and saying "sure it's tiki". I think I truly frustrated you with my reasoning, and I now understand why. If all new "tiki" art pieces moved in that direction the genre would be decimated. Are you concerned about the proliferation and appreciation of such pieces? Do you see them as a perplexing evolution of post-tiki style that you'll have to address some day?

Well, instead of providing my none-too-considered opinion about your question (what defines tiki art?) I'm just asking more questions. I think I'll sit back for a spell and see what you and other people have to say. There are a lot of giants on Tiki Central, and it's a blast getting to stand on their shoulders every once in a while.

Also, thanks for replying to my previous post, especially after all the tension we were experiencing. I'm SO embarrassed about that!

[ Edited by: KokoKele 2012-02-12 08:02 ]

Just grab Sven's Ass at the next event.

He likes that!!!

Doh, I left one word out & it changes the context inadvertently, Thanks Sven for the correction.

Ha! I'll get right on that! The Contemporary Idol event sounds like the perfect place for some introductory ass-grabbing. In the meantime I think I'll work on my non-cartoon, non-textural, non-organic mug, then go down to Trader Vic's (Portland) to soak up some ambience. Or should I do that the other way around? Aloha!

Ben: Down boy, down! Don't make our "thing" public, dammit! :D

Well, it's a new day, and I feel chipper enough to do a little more thinking and philosophizing about what defines Tiki Style:

To address one of the major conundrums that people are experiencing: HOW can someone demand "authenticity" in an art form of which its major appeal lies in the IN-authenticity and carefree handling of another art form? Why does the said in-authenticity not denote a stylistic free-for-all for the new version of this art form? And why is false to peg me as "wanting it to be like the 50s" and being un-accepting of "innovation"? (maybe, for one thing, because I have supported and lauded NEW Tiki art since the 90s?)

Because the difference between good art and bad art is a fine line (and also a very subjective line) and depends on several factors:
Inspiration, talent, craftsmanship, and knowledge of the chosen genre. If one or more of these factors are absent, the result is a gradual diminishing of the quality of the art piece. Even the DEGREE of which each of these qualities are applied has an effect.

By itself, knowledge of the art form alone will only produce un-inspired copies of what was previously there. But all inspiration will be for naught if you you do not have the craftsmanship to translate it into an object. In turn, pure craftsmanship will be a mere technical exercise, and it will be pointless if not based on thorough knowledge of the genre....and so on. Of course, the ideal balance of all these aspects is what all artists aim for, and it is rarely reached. Just as there are various degrees of getting close to attaining the ideal, there are various degrees of missing it. And to make things even more complicated, making a judgment about to what degrees these various qualities were successfully supplied or not is a quite subjective activity.

So I understand when people request actual examples of what I am talking about. This of course is very difficult because feelings would be hurt, feathers would be ruffled, and insults would be taken. Heck, even if I use an example of a perfectly secure and financially successful artist who is mature enough to respond in an intelligent manner, it's OTHERS that act insulted. In turn, if I use examples of what I see as a successful expression of new Tiki style, allegations of favoritism would surely surface.

I found an example of an art piece done by a good friend that illustrates both the good and the bad of new Tiki art:

If I would apply all my principles of "too cartoony","not enough Oceanic art","too organic", this example would be not get get such high ratings. Yet I believe it is quite ingenious. Why? Because it was drawn in 1996 !

And Voila!, things get even more complicated because we have to view the evolution of an art form in the flow of time. In 1996, this piece was revolutionary! It is very irreverent and funny in a Disney-esque way. Back then, that wasn't done very often (well, Tiki was not done very often, in general). So it was innovative, inspiring, and cool. and to me, knowing that, makes it retain those qualities today.

16 years later, wacky, cartoony Tiki is not quite that original anymore, there is quite a bit of it around...in fact, sometimes it seems to be to me the PRE-DOMINANT expression of the art form, and this in a way that is redundant, with no connection to its origins, feeding only on itself.

BUT, thanks to the previous discussion the point has come where I now realize that it is I who is at fault: By ignorantly expecting everybody else to have that kind of perspective! How can someone that came upon Tiki last year, or even 3 years ago, understand my point of view. To them, the cartoony Tiki is as new and fresh as the above rendering was in 1996 to me. And I am not saying this in the sense of "Hey, I was hip to this years before y'all!", it is a value-free statement of simple fact!

Next: How I have changed! The birth of a new paradigm!

Well, wisely or not, I’m gonna run my big mouth again. Not only am I waiting on pins ‘n’ needles for BigBroTiki’s next post, but I’ve also been taking notes.

Herewith, according to my notes so far, is the answer to the question “What defines tiki.” Let’s call these “tenets” if you will. Remember, these are MY UNDERSTANDING of the conversation so far and are based only on this. PLEASE feel free to rip them, tear them, edit or add to them if you think they are worthy of consideration. BigBroTiki, if you tell me I’m all wet I’ll once again retreat to my lair of lurkiness to see what other people think without the least amount of hurt feelings.

I sort of question my very own first tenet. Does tiki art have to include a tiki figure? I think we might be able to find quite a few examples of art that fit nicely into Tiki Style without necessarily featuring a tiki. Is that correct?

Anyway, here they are:

-Tiki art should always represent or include a figure that is recognizable as a tiki and within the scope of the other definitions of Tiki art.

-If a piece was produced during the mid-century heyday of tiki cultural development, it may be defined as Tiki despite variable themes and elements. This is especially true of iconic pieces that can be traced to known establishments or artists , and may include both functional and decorative pieces. Art produced during this period may include pieces that would not be considered Tiki if produced as originals during this, the Tiki Revival era.

-Pieces produced by any of the artists who are recognized by authorities as taking an active part in mid-century tiki cultural development are Tiki unless it is recognized or stated that the artist is working within a different genre. This includes more contemporary pieces.

-Pieces that are derivative of mid-century tiki and are inspired or influenced by Polynesian/Oceanic designs and themes may be considered Tiki if they are not overtly stylized, garishly executed, mawkish, adversely satirical or cross-themed.

-Humor and whimsy are acceptable and desirable in Tiki art provided there is no violation of the above tenets.

-Is likely to invoke a gut feeling that you remember back from your first encounters with tiki as a young kid; excitement, adventure, something that seemed deeply tribal. A passing encounter with something foreign, primitive, and taboo, a culture that seemed so far away and exotic.

-Tiki, though definable within the tenets above, is an evolving art form. Although style, taste and cultural awareness should always be observed, no definite boundaries exist. New works are encouraged. Artists and craftspeople must be prepared to receive both encouragement and criticism. Art and style are subjective, but certain authorities may be looked to as arbiters of successful execution of Tiki art.

-Two views of Tiki exist: that of the general public and that of the more informed populace who base their view on scholarly works such as the Book of Tiki and following publications. The general public’s view may include cross themes such as Caribbean or African influences or items that vaguely suggest “tiki” with no discernable reference to historical or cultural materials. The informed populace will recognize a more narrowly defined view based on authoritative works. The general populace will use their version of “tiki” for party props and general getting down. The informed populace will make many uses of Tiki, including decorative theme for both dwellings and commercial establishments, functional items for both dwelling and commercial establishments, art collections, cultural displays, fuel for informed debate, and, within the context of the other definitions, for general getting down.

Thanks for reading!

[ Edited by: KokoKele 2012-02-15 16:45 ]

Well you are for the most part on track, But there is also a smaller group of (Older)
folks here, who experienced it first hand and no amount of research can replace that perspective
which sometimes does not jive with the younger TC members "idealized" version of Tiki.

Edited by KokoKele - see below

[ Edited by: KokoKele 2012-02-15 16:49 ]

Hey Chuck:
I edited my post above and added almost verbatim some phraseology from Aaron's Akua's post. Does it come close? It's the part about invoking a gut feeling . . .

Thank you Kele for putting so much thought into this, I am struggling with several other writing deadlines this week. Bear with me, your thoughts are appreciated, I will get to this.

Thank you!

Hey, Chuck, I was born in '55, so although I got some exposure to the tiki scene through my dad, who LOVED it, I really wasn't old enough to explore the tiki establishments myself until it was pretty much too late. Truthfully, I wasn't very aware of tiki as more than a passing interest back then. I just remember seeing all the stuff my dad used to bring home (most of it is probably collectible now; too bad I didn't keep it)and he used to take us to themed restaurants. I lived in Anaheim from '55 through '63 or so, and the thing on everyone's mind at the time was Disneyland, which opened the year I was born. My dad was a stucco salesman and actually had some very good years supplying the Magic Kingdom with finishing materials during construction. Due to his success I had a pretty rich nightlife for a little kid.

My larger interest in tiki actually didn't develop until fairly recently, partially by hanging with my pop during his waning years, partially by falling in love with the Hawaiian islands in the 90's, and partially from coming across the books and this site. Seeing the pics and reading the various posts relating to those earlier times really gives me a sense of nostalgia, even though I was a young and fringe observer. My dad thought all that stuff was magical, and I'm lucky enough to remember a lot of the more sensual aspects of the times: the way it felt to travel in the heavily upholstered back seat of a giant car, the rustle of the fabric of my mom's "big" dresses, the way food smelled and tasted, the way it was presented visually, the trappings of the restaurants and, of course, going out into those beautiful, colorful California evenings (do they still have those down there?). Tiki was always around somewhere in that mix, along with televised images of exotic places and ads for things like "Chevron Island, near to where you are, a friendly kind of island (something) for your car" (or something like that, sung to music from "South Pacific").

I can certainly respect and appreciate the feeling my elder friends have toward those times. It was as much fun as America has ever been, I think. Right now I can't come up with a really succinct way to express the zeitgeist of the era, but I think I know, at least a little, how you feel.

Tiki on, brother!

On 2012-02-15 18:46, KokoKele wrote:
Hey, Chuck, I was born in '55, ...

Same here.

A most excellent year. Ein wunderschones jahr, ja? (Ich habe nur ein bisschen Deutsch studieren)(Nein! Nicht studeiren! Studiert! Das ist richtig, ja?)

[ Edited by: KokoKele 2012-02-15 19:40 ]

More members of the Mid-Century modern men!