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

While mid-century Tiki culture was inspired by actual Polynesian and Oceanic art (because of all the socio-historic events at the time created a heightened interest in and appreciation for Polynesia), today's "Tiki revival" more and more is creating art in a self-perpetuating vacuum, with no reference to the stylistic genre it is named after.

I am glad that I succeeded in defining mid-century Tiki as a POP CULTURE genre in its own right, but the "POP" aspect (meaning the cartoon/fantasy/free form) has become the overriding feature in many recent works of the Tiki revival (especially the ones on the commercial side), while the "CULTURE" aspect has fallen by the wayside. For me, the lack of historical context and reference to what was so great about both, ancient AND mid-century Tiki culture, makes those "Tiki" art pieces uninteresting, unfunny, and fall "flat". And not "Tiki".

I am repeating my mantras of "If it says Tiki on it, it should have Tiki in it", and "Not just any primitive face with a big toothy grin is a Tiki" and open this discussion with them. I do NOT want to see specific artists pointed out here, this is not supposed to become a mud slinging fest.
But I certainly hope to get some artists to respond, it's getting awfully tiring to seemingly be the only one here to hold up the flag of Tiki as an art form.

Well you being the author of a few books, you're elected. As well as your articulation. I could never write so well. I do care and I will continue to carve/create in tiki style. But yes I have noticed too much art here on TC isn't really tiki style at all. All I can do is support true tiki style but I will not fight anyone over what isn't tiki as I was threatened with a lawsuit in the past. It's not worth it. As I age I tend to choose my battles a little more carefully, especially on an internet forum. With your eloquence and articulation, I say you're the man for the job Sven.

.not sure I get ya sven....can you clarify with examples (not naming names of course)....i think i can add something here but i want to be sure of the issue in question....so far, i've seen alot of craftsmen here creating cool tiki art that could have hung in a vintage bar back in the day and you would swear it was from that time period....on the other hand, (and i fall into this catagory) there are those of us that combine tiki themes with other pop culture elements (i.e. hotrods, beatniks, burlesque, etc..)...I think the former artisans try to remain truer to the historical roots and the latter of us tend to meld tiki with a more current pop bent....

okay that's all i got at this point...is this anywhere near what you were talking about??

I care.

I also feel that these eloquent arguments tend to fall on deaf ears.

The most effective way that I can express my opinion is to only purchase those items that fit my Poly Pop ideal.

I'm always telling people, "If there's no tiki on it, it's not coming in the house." I understand that this sounds a little bizarre and extreme, but my house will only hold so much stuff, and it might as well be stuff that I love.

Tipsy, thanks for bringing that up, though I am surprised it's coming from you. I am NOT postulating that there should only be "purist" vintage Tiki lounge Tiki as you described above. My point of view is sometimes twisted to being un-appreciative of the Tiki revival as a whole, and I have to repeat again, nothing could be further from my mind. I am thrilled and inspired by the Tiki revival and its horn of plenty of new creative talent, as many of the artists and friends in it can attest. Hotrod and Beatnik elements are unique and legit side genres of the Tiki revival....AS LONG AS THE TIKI ELEMENT IN THEM IS RELATED TO TRUE TIKI.

I just don't get what is so hard to understand about what I am saying here?

PS.: Sorry, Dave, your work is certainly well informed by classic mid-century Tiki, and ....it's late (midnight here) and I'm tired, I have a long shooting day tomorrow, good night. :)

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki 2008-06-10 15:25 ]

On 2008-06-10 14:17, bigbrotiki wrote:
today's "Tiki revival" more and more is creating art in a self-perpetuating vacuum, with no reference to the stylistic genre it is named after.

It certainly seems like the definition of what is “tiki” gets wider and wider every year with retailers. And although there are some very talented artists that do incredible work, imagery of pirates, robots and monsters don't make me think "tiki." I admit I still have a lot learn about the art form, but I do know that just because something is advertised as “tiki” doesn’t mean it is. “Tiki” is a selling tool. Not many people would buy a “vampire mug,” but call it a “vampire tiki mug” and people will take notice. Make it a “limited edition vampire tiki mug” and you have a winner.

Well I've seen rabbits, godzilla, robot looking things here on Tiki Central that I know have very little in common with tiki style. But hey, it's not my website, nor am I some enforcer of "tiki style". That is all.

Hum..so, are you actually asking what WE think defines "tiki" art or are you looking for support of your definition?

I can only speak for myself. I don't use the term "tiki" art or "Poly Pop" because they seem to be created terms that came "after the fact." I guess that's the way it is with a lot of art forms, sometimes not being "defined" until they are history and we're looking back on them. "Tiki art" just seems a rather vague term. The term would sort of imply anything with a tiki on it, yet, I know it's going beyond that.
I think the mid-century aesthetic is important. It should LOOK like it came from mid-century in style & content. The cultural element should be there as well...whether Hawaiian, Pacific Island or Asian influenced..and a parody of the cultural element is fine as well, since it was rather tongue-in-cheek. In other words, beer cans and motorcycles somehow just make it seem out of sync to my personal image, as do the neon colors, which would not have been used at that time. Maybe "Mid 20th Century Tiki Lounge Art" would be a better term, although that's rather wordy.
I think part of the frustration is not wanting to set a very general term (like "tiki art")in stone that, I feel, should be a more specific term. "Tiki art" kind of SHOULD be anything that artists create in past, present, & future styles. We are talking about something very specific that should have a more specific term.....does that make any sense?

Interesting observation Sven - forgive a marooned Sth Seas islander who doesnt know the full history of US Tiki 'kulture' but..

Keeping in mind that the original US tiki-buzz was due to timely attraction to the 'Otherness' of Polynesian culture/art, perhaps todays US carvers are simply attracted to the 'old-skool' feel of the Poly-Pop and related US styles - with the added bonus of knowing its a homegrown invention and less likely to upset any native peoples..??

Also as a full time Tiki-maker myself I can understand the desire to produce contemporary work. I certainly cut my teeth on trying to reproduce the old pieces accurately (still striving for that one!) and the 'trad' hei-tiki still remains one of my stock standards; but realising that I live in contemporary times and work with contemporary tools, what would I be achieving by trying to pretend otherwise? Theres also that touchy subject of modern work being passed off as antique if the artist really nails a piece..

The Polynesian people were quick to adapt and accept new technology, and the modern Maori carver is producing 'traditonal' work that blows the old stuff out of the water simply because of the technology at hand. Take a modern workshop and a really long extension cord back in time and the old fellas would have done the same Im sure..

Ive found that most of the dedicated carvers here are taking reference from the old works and doing a fine job too considering most are self taught and centuries out of time/place.

As for the logs-with-teeth: I agree that after the original experimentation was over, ('purists' & brand-newbies excluded) followers should be slapped. Artistic merit sadly low.. Perhaps its just another sign of the times of the 'want it now & cheap' generation? Good work takes time..

my 2c

What defines tiki art.... it's a very worthy question and a very difficult one to answer. Artists have traditionally shunned any kind of control or limitations, anyone who tries to impose rules on art is seen as inhibiting freedom of expression. Artists stray far and wide from their source material and if anyone dares to mention that fact then they are quickly rebuffed as not having understanding and/ or insight. Duchamp's urinal was selected as THE most influential modern artwork of all time by a panel of art "experts":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm

Decades later people still debate about whether that urinal is "art" or not. Different people have widely varying views on what is and is not "art". The same would follow for "tiki art", we could post examples here and I imagine there would be wide disagreements on whether it is or is not tiki.

However, I think it's always healthy to discuss these things anyway as we all gain a deeper understanding of what our personal beliefs are. When I hear "tiki art" I tend to thing of something that has a mid-century look and feel to it; like certain Witco stuff (NOT the conquistador series, I'm thinking of stuff like the tiki fountains, masks, some wall hangings, etc). But it doesn't have to actually be mid-century, work by SHAG, Bosko & others have that feel too. Personally I don't think mugs fall under the "tiki art" umbrella, they are a form of expression in and of themselves that most people readily label as "tiki mug". Or maybe "tiki mug" is a subset of "tiki art".

I'm interested in hearing what others have to say about this since I'm still pretty new to this scene :)

..i agree......it's always healthy and productive to discuss topics that are completely unresolvable......nothing will ever get accomplished, but hey, we had fun and we got drunk!!

LOL

[ Edited by: Tipsy McStagger 2008-06-10 17:11 ]

For every admirer there is a detractor; each whom extolls and pontificates the virtues of their own point of view whilst snubbing and demeaning the ideals and opinions of others.

Arguing what defines "Tiki Art" is akin to debating "why reinvent the wheel"?

To "reinvent the wheel" is to duplicate a basic method that has long since been accepted and even taken for granted. (Quoted).

This argument ties true to defining the Tiki art form and the New Traditionalist artists whom have chosen to adapt their styles using basic Tiki form as their medium. Neither the wheel or tiki of today, unless copied exactly from the original form, bear the same resemblance.

My preference is Mid Century Tiki art, although I do admire the works of The New Traditionalist Tiki artists and carvers. If not for Mid Century Tiki, I would be a New Traditionalist collector.

I disagree that tiki mugs are not tiki art, some very fine sculpts of tiki are fashioned in the tiki mug genre and I would guess that more tiki collectors have mugs in their collections than any other tiki art form.

By the way bigbro, when is the new book coming out?

Psycho Tiki D (I know I am and it's about time we had a good discussion here)!

On 2008-06-10 15:30, Kenike wrote:
It certainly seems like the definition of what is “tiki” gets wider and wider every year with retailers. And although there are some very talented artists that do incredible work, imagery of pirates, robots and monsters don't make me think "tiki." I admit I still have a lot learn about the art form, but I do know that just because something is advertised as “tiki” doesn’t mean it is. “Tiki” is a selling tool. Not many people would buy a “vampire mug,” but call it a “vampire tiki mug” and people will take notice. Make it a “limited edition vampire tiki mug” and you have a winner.

Ooooh....don't get me excited....a Limited Edition Vampire Tiki Mug" :lol:

I have only been on this site for a couple of years, but have learned a lot (I still have a long way to go.) Prior to TC...a Target or Walmart set of plastic Tiki dishes would excite me into purchasing a service for eight. Post TC, they would still excite me to see them, but I would save my money for an awesome Tiki Farm mug or bowl instead. I see these topics over and over and sometimes people get distanced because of their opinions...I always find it sad when a fight ensues, as this is such a wonderful community and I do appreciate diversity. Sven, I don't think you should ever give up the effort of promoting mid-century Tiki culture and actual Polynesian and Oceanic art. Although it may not be the direction everyone wants to go (either due to financial challenge or more today "pop" interests), there are fence-riders like me that over time will be swayed in your direction. I don't think you will ever see a Witco in my home, but if I could get a Witco World Map...I would be proud to have that on display. :lol: I enjoy all the artistry here on this site, some people are so awesome in their work for sale or the decorating of their homes and businesses. I don't understand some of the combinations of tiki and other genres...but once again...let me know when the Vampire Tiki Mug is available. :D

I think we are able to say what isn't Tiki Art easier than what is.
As far as what defines Tiki Art? I don't think anyone has the right to say. What defines art to me is going to be different to you. Where it came from is almost irrelevant...now. Today, I want to be knowedgable about Polysniean art and artifacts, their culture and how all of this came to be. When I started, I really could care less.
I was drawn to Tiki because of experiences as a mid-century kid, Bali Hai in San Diego in 1962 was the coolest thing this 7 year old ever saw, a neighbor's back yard Tiki bar also influnced me, however Surfing was and really is a larger influence in my "Tiki" life and the mecca of surfing is Hawaii which lead to a discovery of the current Tiki revival. What brought you here is interesting but really, doesn't influence me. Anyone who would come into my world of Tiki and pronounce judgment of what is and what isn't, would be asked to leave. My Tiki world has more surfing artifacts than what would be found in the BOT, I call it my Tiki Hut...want to argue with me? %#@$% Off! Go play in your corner of the sand box, I'm happy here.
Sven, I respect your knowledge, however I lost some respect today when you said, "it's getting awfully tiring to seemingly be the only one here to hold up the flag of Tiki as an art form."

Actually I'm getting pissed, that ANY person who makes ANYTHING and calls it Tiki could be challenged or hurt by this thread...

On 2008-06-10 19:16, VampiressRN wrote:

I see these topics over and over and sometimes people get distanced because of their opinions...I always find it sad when a fight ensues, as this is such a wonderful community and I do appreciate diversity.

Vampiress, your a classy lady.

Isn't the real test in what the art INVOKES...?

...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. Volcanoes, drums, spears, clubs and danger!!! As much in the imagination as in historical and geographical reality. To get that you need to start with some authentic Polynesian influence, inspiration and a good dose of imagination...

Ask my kid. I bet you he could probably sense real tiki art almost as well as anyone. If you capture all this, you're probably hitting pretty close to the mark. I know I can look at some of the artists' work here on TC and catch it right off at first glance... veterans and newbies included.

You know it when you see it.

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...

But why? How about all the good, talented, hard working artists here that have a right to get pissed because someone calls a "Whatever thing" Tiki ? The whole point of this forum is to promote the development and dissemination of TIKI Culture. Pure self-congratulatory back slapping and inability to accept constructive criticism will eventually lead to a stand still of any culture, and its abandonment by people that truly care for it.

I am hopeful that my posts will remind some folks to THINK, and take a good hard look, and maybe go out and consult some Oceanic art books from book stores or libraries, and tap into the creative wealth that lies in that tradition, there is so much I have not seen done. Just repeating a very narrow pattern has much of the Tiki revival going in circles, that is not what excited me about Tiki in the first place. Yes there was always repetition, but within Tiki's stylistic confines, there was an incredible variety and spark of individual interpretation.

The comparison to Marcel Duchamp's urinal does not work because the aim of his art was to destroy the old established view of what art was. He did so successfully and formed a new art genre. If you want to do that, go ahead, but don't call it Tiki. The challenge and the fun of new, contemporary Tiki art is to work within its "language", but imbue it with the spark of something new and unique. If that cannot be promoted here because of fear of stepping on people's toes, this site will deteriorate to a social blab fest with no productive consequences.

It almost sounds like you're sending mixed signals Bigbro.

[ Edited by: GROG 2008-06-10 23:12 ]

As someone who collects tiki art,I will be the first to admit that the tiki art I collect is probably a little more Hanna-Barbara style then traditional Tiki. I think Tiki is a very Powerful Symbol and cartooning it up a little bit takes some of the Dark out of it, and changes the feel a bit. Cartoon's are our History.....I think GooGoo Dolls said it best "rerun's have become our history" and I was brought up on Hanna-Barbana and toon's like that. All thinks change with time and I believe some of the younger artist infused the traditional with what ever their passion is (cartoon's,surfing,robot's,space.)

I love traditional Tiki art,but it does not speak to me on a personal level. I see something painted on black velvet I think of tacky ELVIS on black velvet.

When I see Tiki's pained like clowns,I don't hate it,I think what a F#$ked up time the 70's were to think that's cool.......

as I love all form's of tiki I do think we need to respect the past but not live in it.....because if we wanted to be authentic, then I guess I would be a Worshiping a piece of wood.

Among the tiny percentage of the population that is even aware of it "Tiki Art" or "Polypop" seems to include anything that has as its source of inspiration either the actual arts/crafts/imagery of the areas of the world generally referred to as Polynesia (and probably Oceania) OR the pop cultural interpretations of that imagery.

While there could be more exact definitions made it's easier to just include everything from contemporary high quality handmade reproductions of actual Polynesian artifacts to goofy paintings of big breasted "wahines' getting chased by horny "tiki gods".

There no doubt were (and probably still are) people for whom Jackson Pollock's work was not actually "painting". And there's the Truman Capote line about Jack Kerouac's writing: "That isn't writing at all, it's typing." But whether or not you like the end product doesn't actually change the definition of what it is.

There is a lot of really bad Tiki art being made, but it's still Tiki Art. One could look at all this really bad Tiki Art and claim "That's not Tiki!" but if it's a pop take on Polynesia then what would you call it?

Why is the really bad Tiki art really bad? Is it because the artists have not made the effort to fully explore the source of their inspiration? Or the artists have not taken any time to improve what skills they may have? Is it because they just don't get it?

For some of the artists those may be reasons. But the most obvious is that really bad Tiki Art is made by really bad artists, people who are genuinely untalented and not very creative.

Really bad artists making really bad Tiki Art. So what.

Among those who appreciate the arts it sometimes seems there's a "Kill Your Television" mindset. "If we could just convince the masses how crappy Hollywood blockbusters are they'd turn to independent film!" But the existence and proliferation of really bad Tiki Art doesn't have any actual negative effect on quality Tiki Art. Thomas Kincade has not debased the value of works by respected landscape artists. Most people wouldn't consider Sizzler the place to go for a really fine steak dinner.

Other than the lack of creativity, bad design and poor execution, there's really nothing wrong with really bad Tiki Art. There's nothing wrong with bad artists or people wanting to buy their bad art. Maybe the best approach can be found in a Monty Python quote: "Let's not call them anything, let's just ignore them."

Sometime in the future... looking back, the Tiki Teeth period will be identifiable... some will collect it and some will avoid it and some will include it in a book.

..the only good tiki art....is the tiki art that sells!!!! har!!!.....now stop yappin ' and start buying!!!! whoooohoooo!!!!

Man, my head is spinning after reading through this thread. As an artist I sometimes worry that trying to be "original" in some ways may ruin the "tikiness" of a piece. It's a fine line for me. Tipsy seems to be coming from the same place as me as far as lowbrow, beatnik etc. The mid century look and feel, THAT is tiki to me. Painting within that realm is a challenge. Capturing a moment is tough.
Great thread, it definitely got me thinking. I always read the "purist vs. newbie crap" threads. I'm not saying this is one. It does lean toward the same old battle that goes on. Trying to create something new based on something pre-defined sets many up for a fall.
The only thing I'm sure of is certain things just aren't tiki no matter how many people buy them.
Like I said, great thread.
Cheers.

I enjoy both Star Trek: The Original Series AND Star Trek: The Next Generation, and some of the other variations also...

"I relish each separate horror...I roll them over on my tongue..."

On 2008-06-11 05:06, Matt Reese wrote:

As an artist I sometimes worry that trying to be "original" in some ways may ruin the "tikiness" of a piece. It's a fine line for me.

Trying to create something new based on something pre-defined sets many up for a fall.

Another good point - I know just what you mean.

Before I do a Tiki masterpiece I always check in with BIGBROTIKI to see if it's 'Tiki enough'

Who wants to bet that this will be locked by the end of Hukilau??

On 2008-06-11 05:15, procinema29 wrote:
I enjoy both Star Trek: The Original Series AND Star Trek: The Next Generation, and some of the other variations also...

"I relish each separate horror...I roll them over on my tongue..."

not Deep Space Nine tho eh ,

they don't Trek anywhere :P

On 2008-06-10 22:39, bigbrotiki wrote:

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...

But why? How about all the good, talented, hard working artists here that have a right to get pissed because someone calls a "Whatever thing" Tiki ? The whole point of this forum is to promote the development and dissemination of TIKI Culture. Pure self-congratulatory back slapping and inability to accept constructive criticism will eventually lead to a stand still of any culture, and its abandonment by people that truly care for it.

"How about all the good, talented, hard working artists"
Who determines who these people are? And what definition, what criteria will you use to determine good? or talented? That argument and attempt to define art has been going on for a long time;

"Taste is the best judge. It is rare. Art only addresses itself to an excessively small number of individuals." (Paul Cezanne)
"I force myself to contradict myself, so as to avoid conforming to my own taste." (Marcel Duchamp)
"Talent is like a seed which needs fertile soil. There is no less talent now, there is less fertile soil to nourish it." (Darby Bannard)
"Art or talent, for an artist, is merely a means of applying his personal faculties to the ideas and the things of the period in which he lives." (Gustave Courbet)
"Perhaps I have no talent, but all vanity aside – I do not believe that anyone makes an artistic attempt, no matter how small, without having a little – or there are many fools." (Paul Gauguin)

"Pure self-congratulatory back slapping and inability to accept constructive criticism will eventually lead to a stand still of any culture, and its abandonment by people that truly care for it."
I agree completely and disagree completely, a huge portion of this "culture" is an interpretation to begin with. Constructive criticism is a oxymoron, and rarely is. An old adage we use in my Church is "No one cares what you know, until they know that you care" Who and how will anyone speak into the life/art of another? For what purpose? To further YOUR belief? Or YOUR interpretation of art, culture or God?
My daughter, at the age of 4, drew a picture, lying on the living room floor, with three crayons, it was a picture of me she said. We both loved it. I would never critique that picture any more than anything in her Senior art show at Otis. (Truth be know, I treasure the crayon picture most. Not that it is her best work, but maybe it is?!?)

Your book...Art? perhaps.
Tiki, an American art form? Most think so, yet you published your book with German text and English text...
I found it to be annoying and distracting, perhaps even arrogant. I would have done it different. I think I would have done it better/accurate/complete. Who's to say?

I don't think you can capsule any art style for eternity, based on history of art, styles evolve and become something completely different. Weather it has been a good change or bad change is has been up to the masses to decide and for the art dealers to put a price on them. Like someone mentioned earlier, individuals have a choice to make in buying or praising these pieces on TC. Sven, I appreciate your passion, and every time these discussions come up I am sure your point is taken seriously by a lot of artists good or bad but I think it is up to the new generation of carvers and artists to take this art form where it need to go.

I find this discussion a bit confusing as I am not 100% certain that I get the crux of what this thread is trying to get to.

Is this about what is or isn't "authentic" tiki art? Or just what appeals to one's personal taste?

There is an old adage that goes something like, "I don't know what pornography is, but I'll know it when I see it."

For me, the same goes for knowing "authentic" tiki art: I'm not sure I know exactly what authentic tiki art is, but I feel that I know it when I see it (especially after having been immersed in this scene for as long as I have and knowing some of its history). Call it a gut feeling.

For me personally, I define truly "authentic" tiki lounge art as those pieces that were actually created "back in the day" and are as much pieces of history as they are art.

I like art, but don't know much about it on a purely intellectual level as far as debates like these go. I leave that to the art history majors. I just know what I like and tend to be a bit of a purist in my tastes, as noted above.

As for all of the "new" artists, well, some of them appeal directly to my personal sense of what authentic tiki art is and some of them don't.

I like Shag because he captures the "essence" of what the appeal of Mid-Century Modern tiki and pop culture was/is. His art is not "authentic" in the truly historical sense, but he captures the essence and charm of that era perfectly.

Does any of what I wrote make any sense?

[Edited to correct spelling].

http://www.labyrinth13.com
http://www.myspace.com/labyrinth_13
http://www.myspace.com/lmlibertine

[ Edited by: Sailor Curt 2008-06-11 07:38 ]

I'm no artist, and as I've stated earlier I still have much to learn about tiki as an art form. I'm just a consumer who spends money on things that I like. I have to say I'm not really into the direction tiki seems to be heading. I don't really consider myself a purist, but I'd much rather see tiki look more to the past then be associated with all this bizarro imagery that, in my opinion, has absolutely nothing to do with tiki. I'm not knocking any artists or retailers...it's just my own personal taste. I don't like a lot of what I see these days and won't be spending my money on it.

On a side note, and I don't mean to put anyone off by pointing this out, if you click on the "Celebrating classic and modern Polynesian Pop" link under the Tiki Central logo above, you'll see this:

"The Tiki that Tiki Central focuses on is a mid-century American invention that is Polynesia-inspired. We’re here to discuss classic Tiki, what made it great, how to celebrate it and preserve it today, and how to create and influence new Tiki that isn’t generic, watered down, or misguided."

Quote...
"The Tiki that Tiki Central focuses on is a mid-century American invention that is Polynesia-inspired. We’re here to discuss classic Tiki, what made it great, how to celebrate it and preserve it today, and how to create and influence new Tiki that isn't’t generic, watered down, or misguided."

If this was the case you would dismiss 50% of the conversation on this board.

I respect the classic or traditional aspects of tiki,but it doesn't speak to me like someone who seen it in their parents or grandparents house. I was not alive during that time so I look at it with great wonder not with an emotional attachment like someone of that generation would.

All great things change...Frank Sinatra's look and Vocals changed with time and his ability to try and stay relivent and sell records at that time.

His carrier mirrors tiki's
Early Franks (bobbysock) the young girls loved him for awhile but then someone new came out and he was set to the side.
Mid-Frank (lounge) change with the death of the big band, era and his fan's taste changeling
Then people needed him to disappear for awhile because they were sick of him
Mid-Later Frank (RATPACK) Came back with the fan's ready for a new cool Frank after some time off.
Late Frank(greatest hits tour) People who remember what he was and what he meant to them at different times of there lives.
Frank Remix...Someone of the new generation will do a mix or duet with Sinatra on it to remind the new generation of someone who is cool and overlooked because of the lack of knowledge of his talent because him music is not played in the house or on the radio station they are listening too.
Rebirth....The young generation will listen to it because their hero's think it's cool or that era became cool again.

Art is what speaks to you.....and if tiki is to survive all aspect need to be imbraced.




This Form of Tiki art will be embraced and modified with the next generation that lived through there parents going to the tiki shows of our generation, and these artist will become another chapter in tiki history.

You just read the ramblings of a Wild's Man.

It seems to me that most of what mid-century Tiki pop is a commercialization, and maybe even a corruption, of actual Polynesian/Oceanic art forms. That's not to say that no artists at the time had a deep understanding and profound respect for the art forms they were working with, but did the average patron of a tiki bar in the 50s care about historical context? He/she was probably more concerned about having a few cocktails and escaping from the doldrums of working class America. So what is the historical context we in the revival stage are meant to look for? Are we supposed to be a better informed generation because of all the information literally at our fingertips? Is it the actual precolonial history of the Pacific peoples, or the post-war climate in California that we should be looking to for insight into what defines Tiki pop art? As an enthusiast, it's important to look at both, but fully understanding that by the "golden age" there was already a contextual degradation of the source material for most of the imagery associated with this culture. If someone in the States made a "Canadian" bar that was full of beavers and moose heads, and lumberjacks and maple syrup, I'd think, 'Yeah, that's funny, but what does it actually have to do with Canada?' Bad example, I know, because it could never come close to the escapism of a tropical paradise that so many people have latched onto, myself included. But there must have been Polynesians who felt this whole culture that originally consisted of mostly elaborate bars and restaurants lacked any real context or connection to their culture, just like we feel cheap, colorful party decorations lack any context or connection to our culture. Likewise, we can look back to the mid-century as the golden age, but that wasn't the most enlightened period in American history (racial segregation, McCarthyism, gender inequality, etc). We evolve as a culture, and Tiki Pop Culture is no different. It will never exist in the same way that it did in the mid-century. I could design a vase or a lithograph in an authentic Art Nouveau style, but art scholars would never allow it to be called "Art Nouveau" because it doesn't exist in the context of the turn of the century. So, my point is: everything being produced now is revivalist. It's inherently different from "the real thing". And as our culture has changed in the last 50-60 years, the rules have changed. Number one, we are more informed about Polynesian/Oceanic culture. Number two, we can look back at the mid-century objectively from outside of it and see it for what it is. A lot of art coming out right now is more of an homage to the mid-century aesthetic, but that's what people are interested in. In fact, that aesthetic is what attracted most of us to this culture in the first place, which brings us back to the question of what context actually exists in the mid-century Tiki art... What do they call a cyclical argument with no end...?

Wow! What a great thread!
Sven said...

"I am hopeful that my posts will remind some folks to THINK, and take a good hard look, and maybe go out and consult some Oceanic art books from book stores or libraries, and tap into the creative wealth that lies in that tradition, there is so much I have not seen done. Just repeating a very narrow pattern has much of the Tiki revival going in circles, that is not what excited me about Tiki in the first place. Yes there was always repetition, but within Tiki's stylistic confines, there was an incredible variety and spark of individual interpretation. "

Art,as History shows,seems like a freeway system,with offramps,turnarounds,traffic jams,etc....
A bunch of movements running parallel or crossing over each other ,as they roll forward...
Building blocks-one artist's work may inspire another and so on,stacking blocks and making stairs.....
The success of the original Polypop movement was influenced by authentic culture
which inspired artists
who took their own social influences (ie: bar culture/post-War/celebration/search for unspoiled humanity)
and made it fun.....
Art critics.Anthropologists, and museum Directors must have hated it!
This Polypop movement started to fade in the 70's when that group started getting up in years
and the next generation had only "hearsay" and relics to define and establish their styles....
They reacted to youthful memories of picking dad up from the bar or Luaus or Disneyland/World...
Fast forward to this generation......
If anyone has noticed....Information is so available that everyone takes it for granted.....
a quick GOOGLE search can unyield a fast(tho not always accurate)primer on any subject
including Tikis....
A lot of artists these days don't do their research,don't read,and that's sad.....
"those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it"
There is such a wealth of information,but in an ADD culture,people are too distracted
to take the time and read a mythology book,or a historical account of first contact....
That leaves a lot of lazy artists (and yes, I'm calling them lazy-not bad artists,because there's a BUNCH of great artists in the scene-but lazy artists...) to rely on impressions
already stamped into their psyche when they were little wee ones....
Cartoons/Comic Books/Surf and Car magazines/model Kits
These days, in order to create a Tiki painting,one has only to rely on those memories
and consult Sven's wonderful books...
going in circles......
Art is a tough thing to define...
Either you like a piece or not
But even the masterworks i don't "like" I still appreciate for the work involved/maybe a certain area/colors...
Now here's something else to chaw on......
Having done the Research,read many books,did numerous studies
there is always the artistic urge to "advance" one's craft-to push a genre....
Symbolism,the Fauves,Abstract Expressionism.Surrealism,Neo-Geo
all a result of artists pushing the envelope....
Now with tiki-there are the Ku's and Lono's and Moai and Marquesans,etc....
a very limited amount of icons to draw from
Plus the fact that most of the tiki art we have is no older than 200 or so years....
how many movements/advances did these primitive people have in their art?
These days we have a hi-speed exploration tools(the internet/cars/planes)
Whereas they relied on the rare trading contacts or ideological changes that happen as a culture develops...
they didn't have the barrage of influences that artists these days have
they carefully considered each new approach and thought
and retained or discarded it.....
This new wave of artists,whether anyone likes it or not
will define where Tiki art is going..
i just hope they ,like Bigbro says....

THINK, and take a good hard look, and maybe go out and consult some Oceanic art books from book stores or libraries, and tap into the creative wealth that lies in that tradition, there is so much I have not seen done.

Personally, I'm stoked and astonished by Traditional Oceanic Arts/Polypop/and this contemporary approach...
Exciting times ahead!
Thanks for letting an old man babble!

your not OLD Kinny, you just look it!!!!!!!!!!!DIG?

We’ve got two distinct but related things: Classic Tiki/Poly-pop (static) and Tiki Revival (dynamic). Mid-century “Polynesian Pop” (classic tiki style) is defined by what actually existed, by whatever was included in the design and decor of the “Polynesian” restaurants and lounges (and to a lesser extent, backyards), at that time. It is a definition that was applied, retrospectively, after the period closed (BigBro has an understandable proprietary interest, since he first officially identified, defined, delineated, and named the thing – don’t fault him for defending his thesis).

During the “Tiki Golden Age”, things were dynamic and creative and open to experimentation - no rulebook, yet. But now, there can be no “new” mid-century Poly-Pop, by definition. The canon is closed. Just like there can be no “new” ancient Greek architectural designs. There can be all manner of new designs, “interpretations” and innovations that are “inspired” or influenced by ancient Greece – or, by Mid-century Poly-Pop. And in both cases, there will be disagreements as to when the new thing departs so much from the parameters or spirit of the original, that it shouldn’t properly be considered neo-classic. (And, arguments over just what was the “spirit” of the original, anyway). That’s because, while Mid-century Poly-Pop is static and fixed, the revival, the neo-classical movement, is dynamic and alive and unruly. The canon is still wide-open. And the period of greatest artistic energy, innovation and creativity, within a “movement”, is always accompanied by lively “discussions”, by intellectual, philosophical and emotional arguments (sometimes, very bitter arguments), and by struggling between factions over whose views and whose work will be considered orthodox, by the time the canon closes on the new movement. This is good, because it makes everyone think, even if they disagree, and excites a prolific output of art, lots of it bad, but much of it good and some of it great, whatever your tastes. (Of course, there are those who think others are too serious about what should be fun, and need to just “get over themselves”, and we need them, too.)

Meanwhile, maybe the “tiki consumer” is the winner, since they can choose what they like (whether they “should” like it, or not) from the whole spectrum between the “authentic” and the highly stylized new stuff. They can say, “I don’t know much about tiki, but I know what I like.”

[ Edited by: Limbo Lizard 2008-06-11 11:29 ]

[ Edited by: Limbo Lizard 2008-06-13 07:30 ]

Sven, I understand what you are trying to say. My mother Ione loved Tiki and from the forties on she frequented all the great Tiki Palaces in LA , The Luah, Don the Beachcomber, The Bamboo Room, The Trader.
In 1964 Bud Smith hired her to design the Trade Wind's, she had her own Tiki Palace to create now. My mother loved to use wild colors in her work and she used it on the Trade Wind's. Rooms like the Sadie Thompson and the East India had wild color. The Tiki Temple also had some painted Tiki probably due to this rendering.

At the time I can recall thinking the painted Tiki as being garish and still do.
Leroy and Bob at Oceanic Arts may shed some light as they provided much of the decor.

Here is the Tiki Temple

The East India room at the Trade Wind's.
I loved the Trade Wind's but always thought of the painted Tiki like the East India room as garish and still do. (Sorry mom)
As Vampiress said, we are diverse but I like what I like.

It takes all kinds to make a movement. I love Sven and need someone like him to keep pulling me back and reminding me of the history of tiki and what it meant to so many,and still does. But as a good parent,you need to let your kid's express themselves, and respect that. Some people look at Tiki as something that needs to be put on a shelf and looked at as a part of histories past. But that is not the case.

Example...Sam's seafood (now Kona) I seen 3 to 4 bands step up and say they would play for free at the closing party at Sam's but not offer to play for free to help them stay open. These places close because
people look at the old history,not the new history. People respect things when they are gone not right in front of them...These places are business and business needs to sell what people want.

I have never been to Tiki Oasis but I know Derek's art is what drew me to it in the first place.
If you had a picture of a witco carving on a poster and said "the history of tiki weekend", I might just wanna pass on that....just speaking for myself,DIG?

New tiki or Pop Tiki helps people look at Traditional Tiki too....One could not live with the other these day's.

I like that everyone has an opinion,even if that opinions wrong....Just Joking

But if you took all of the drinks,fun,loud colors and escapism away it would just be a couple of people sitting around and talking about the past.

Buy what you like, and support the artist you care about,but just remember what we do today will be history tomorrow,DIG?

Let that Freaky Tiki Flag Fly,

wildsville man
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=50216247
http://www.tiki-caliente.com/

Rory Snyder (A.K.A. Wildsvill

[ Edited by: wildsville man 2008-06-11 11:11 ]

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer than I have:

I LIKE traditional Tiki

I LIKE mid-century Tiki

I LIKE Tiki revival Tiki

I am critical of new Tiki that has no actual Tiki references in it.

This thread is NOT about what "bad" Tiki art or "good" Tiki art is in terms of talent or taste, that is a whole nother, definitely subjective matter. There's lots of both, but everyone has to decide on that for themselves.

I am merely pointing out that because of lack of context with its origins, some of contemporary Tiki art is in danger of
a.) becoming generic "monster face" cartoonery, with nothing left of "Tiki" in it, and
b.) repetitious, because of using only its pop self as reference.
I agree these are two separate problems, but they are also intimately related by what causes them: Lack of context with the originals that supposedly inspired them.

The stylistic elements of Tiki style are actually quite tangible and definable. They are a stylistic language that makes Tiki TIKI, and not ...Bavarian beer steins, for example. Now there are quite a few examples of art in the Tiki revival where I could ask the person:
"Point out the elements in the piece that make this a TIKI (meaning something resembling a Polynesian/Oceanic/Polynesian pop Icon)", and the person would be hard pressed to do so. Yet despite this, some folks seem to valiantly defend that person's right to call it Tiki. Why? Where does that end? I am all for "freedom in art", but that is not the same than a stylistic free-for-all.

Your book...Art? perhaps.
Tiki, an American art form? Most think so, yet you published your book with German text and English text...
I found it to be annoying and distracting, perhaps even arrogant. I would have done it different. I think I would have done it better/accurate/complete.

Boy, talk about an American Islander point of view. Ever consider that in order to give the public a book with that many pages of quality color reproductions for THAT affordable price, it needed to be sellable word-wide? (..and, that for 8 years, no American publisher touched the subject until a European one picked it up?) If you think you can do it better, be my guest. I am quite sure that no one else can do it like Taschen, god bless them. What sweet ignorance to call them (or even me) arrogant for having to be tri-lingual in their captions. Sigh.

bigbrotiki wrote: "I am critical of new Tiki that has no actual Tiki references in it."

Can you post a link or photo that gives an example of what you are referring to above? That would really help to clarify (for me, at least) exactly what it is you are objecting to.

Thanks (and I am really enjoying this thread. I've learned a thing or two already. Also, I own a copy of your book, absolutely love it, and don't care that it includes German subtext or any other language for that matter!).

On 2008-06-11 11:33, bigbrotiki wrote:
Ever consider that in order to give the public a book with that many pages of quality color reproductions for THAT affordable price, it needed to be... tri-lingual in [the] captions. Sigh.

Maybe, after a worldwide catastrophe and collapse of civilization, some future archaeologist will unearth a copy of the BOT, and it will be the new Rosetta Stone.

[ Edited by: Limbo Lizard 2008-06-11 12:26 ]

HI! How ya'll do'n?

On 2008-06-11 09:52, Limbo Lizard wrote:
...of course, there are those who think others are too serious about what should be fun, and need to just “get over themselves”, and we need them, too.

On 2008-06-11 12:25, TIKI DAVID wrote:
HI! How ya'll do'n?

Thanks fer askin', TIKI DAVID. I think we'll be just fine. Who's got the next round? :)

[ Edited by: Limbo Lizard 2008-06-11 12:38 ]

On 2008-06-11 11:50, Sailor Curt wrote:
bigbrotiki wrote: "I am critical of new Tiki that has no actual Tiki references in it."

Can you post a link or photo that gives an example of what you are referring to above? That would really help to clarify (for me, at least) exactly what it is you are objecting to.

Well, that is difficult because I started this thread with the rule to not use specific artists' work here. On the other hand, the misunderstandings and confusion here seem so great that the only way to clarify them seems to be visual material that is beyond an argument.
So I decided to supply a link, no direct name or image, for an obviously talented artist who nobody here knows. When posting anything in a public forum, one has to be prepared to be judged, and I already spoke my piece in that thread, so I am using it again to make my point:

http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5863852&order=&section_id=5460700&page=2

I am not negating the artist's obvious talent, and the right of anyone to like his work, I am just saying that 95% percent of it bears no resemblance to Tiki, and thus should not be called such.

To again make my point of view clearer, I am also repeating my initial post:

"I find it sad that for an artist with that much talent, there seems to have been little effort expended here to link the designs to any Oceanic or mid-century traditions. Among the 36 renderings, I can only find a handful where I detect actual Tiki inspiration, the rest is all over the place in design, patterns and colors. As I repeatedly stated, a Tiki is not just any carved face with a toothy grin, it has a distinct heritage and context. Even when it does end up being more fantasy than authentic, Tiki is not a stylistic free for all. I'm sorry, but to create "Owl Tikis" and "Tiger Tikis" is not much different than Disney making Mickey Mouse and Goofy look like wood carvings and calling them Tiki. Some might think they are, but I do not.

The artistic traditions of original Oceanic cultures are vast and varied in their artistic genius, and the works of mid-century Tiki carvers that used them as inspirations are incredibly creative and funny. Without any real connection to either, any piece of art, no matter how talented in its execution, could be termed fantasy tribal/folk/world art --but not Tiki."

Well, that is difficult because I started this thread with the rule to not use specific artists' work here. On the other hand, the misunderstandings and confusion here seem so great that the only way to clarify them seems to be visual material that is beyond an argument.

Thanks for the link. For me, that certainly helps to clarify the exact point of your thread.

In a sense then, you seem to be saying that it is the context or framework in which a tiki image appears, and not simply the tiki image in and of itself.

If that is the case, then I can buy that.

Nononono! I am saying is show me the stylistic elements that are Polynesian or Oceanic in the shapes, Tatoo patterns and colors in those renderings that would make them Tiki --- and not just faces with teeth and goofy expressions. And that without any of these elements present, there is no cause to call these figures TIKI, because TIKI is a term used in a specific, complex cultural context.

On 2008-06-11 14:07, bigbrotiki wrote:
Nononono! I am saying is show me the stylistic elements that are Polynesian or Oceanic in the shapes, Tatoo patterns and colors in those renderings that would make them Tiki --- and not just faces with teeth and goofy expressions. And that without any of these elements present, there is no cause to call these figures TIKI, because TIKI is a term used in a specific, complex cultural context.

So you are saying that in order for a tiki to remain within that specific cultural context, it would have to remain as an historically-correct tiki?

Example: A moai with a cigar equal bad? A moai witout a cigar is O.K.?

And please note that I'm not trying to be snarky here, just trying to understand.

Curt