Who gets credit for a bonsai tree?

[Gabler]

I guess I’m kind of a hardass on this since I think it should be spelled out how much work the current owner has put into growing and styling a tree. It comes down to whether your philosophy on showing trees is whether a tree is just evaluated based on the tree alone or the styling and capabilities of the owner as well. I suppose there can be shows just focused on the trees and how good an example of the art they are as opposed to shows that combine that with how good a job the owner did in growing and styling the trees. I have heard that in some shows there are areas reserved for trees that are just displayed and not judged and that’s where trees having been professionally grown and styled should be. But then where do you draw the line at how much work the current owner has contributed, 25%, 50%, 75%? And how would you even gage that? It does tickle me though when I see trees at our local show beat out very expensive professionally grown and trained trees for best tree.

So extrapolate this. As a tree grows and ages how do you gauge the amount of work put in by an increasingly long list of artists/artisans/collectors or even beginners. How can you gauge their impact collectively since those “show trees” you seem to disdain have had perhaps a century of work in them. For instance. Does the purge of dense tertiary branching that took place over five year two decades ago count as 70percent of the total work. Even if it was done badly?
Just wondering where your judgement t stops or begins.

I wouldn't be quite as strict as WNC Bonsai, but I more or less agree that I'm more impressed by an artist who is good at every stage of development than an artist who has only done the final styling (not to suggest the final styling is the easy part). However, I would merely list the names of the people who have worked on the tree. Allocating percentages is unrealistic.

 

[rockm]

I wouldn't be quite as strict as WNC Bonsai, but I more or less agree that I'm more impressed by an artist who is good at every stage of development than an artist who has only done the final styling (not to suggest the final styling is the easy part). However, I would merely list the names of the people who have worked on the tree. Allocating percentages is unrealistic.

When’s the “final styling” and who decides when it is? Who gets the credit for selecting an excellent nebari on a “finally styled” collected tree?

Who gets the credit for being good at growing out a trunk which is chopped and grown on by another?

Just pointing out that the longer you work with bonsai the more aware you become that trees that last are NOT “YOURS”. They are cumulative. Even if some self proclaimed “final styling” occurs by some short sighted owner. That tree will live on to outgrow that styling. Sometime requiring complete overhaul by someone down the road that completely eliminates that styling.

 

[Gabler]

Not who, what. It’s about the tree.

Ever watch a dog show? Notice how the attention is on the dog, the handler is visible from the knee down, and the owner is in the audience?

If you go to a bonsai exhibition, you want to see killer trees regardless of provenance. If a tree sucks, who cares if it’s one hack’s work for 30 years?

If you see the big koi shows in Japan, sometimes the owner doesn't even see their fish until it wins a big award

The only time I think an exception could be made is if someone grew or otherwise collected a tree and did 100% of the work by themself. Similar to calling out a special pot or special brush painting, I think it is fine to say "collected by artist from rural landscape in NC" or something similar. I don't mind reading about provenance if it makes sense. I certainly wouldn't post anything like "Purchased from Brussels Bonsai 2018"

This is how I think about it. Well said, Brian.

There seems to be an obsession with some folks in the bonsai community about “credit” which kind of misses the whole point of bonsai, in my opinion.

Need to know who done it to know who's worth listening to

For years, I worked at a law firm that specialized in intellectual property. Now I'm an English teacher fighting on the front lines in the war against A.I. I care very deeply about who gets credit.

If the focus were truly on the tree, then there should be no name at all. The name of the owner should never be published, except to guests permitted to visit the tree where it lives.

As I understand it, in a feudal society (as Japan was recently), it mattered not who did the work. It mattered who owned the product. Gardening was a peasant's work, and nobles had the job of owning the garden. Bonsai caretakers may have been held in higher esteem than regular commoners, but they were not held in higher esteem than the nobles who owned the trees.

At least in the United States, we fought a war to throw off the shackles of the royals and nobles who seized the fruits of our labor merely because they held legal title. Notwithstanding the recent talk of technofeudalism, the West is, culturally speaking, fundamentally meritocratic. We care more about individual skill than inheritance. At least, I care more about skill than inheritance.

 

[Gabler]

When’s the “final styling” and who decides when it is? Who gets the credit for selecting an excellent nebari on a “finally styled” collected tree?

Who gets the credit for being good at growing out a trunk which is chopped and grown on by another?

Just pointing out that the longer you work with bonsai the more aware you become that trees that last are NOT “YOURS”. They are cumulative. Even if some self proclaimed “final styling” occurs by some short sighted owner. That tree will live on to outgrow that styling. Sometime requiring complete overhaul by someone down the road that completely eliminates that styling.

It's a collaborative effort. We should list all the names. We don't need to squabble over who was most important to the final product, but we could at least make an effort to say who was involved. Movies have a very long list of credits at the end. Why not do the same for bonsai trees? The list would be several orders of magnitude shorter.

 

[Dav4]

It's a collaborative effort. We should list all the names. We don't need to squabble over who was most important to the final product, but we could at least make an effort to say who was involved. Movies have a very long list of credits at the end. Why not do the same for bonsai trees? The list would be several orders of magnitude shorter.

Honestly, this is a slippery slope. I've got several trees that have been shown that haven't been touched by anyone other than me, but I've acted on them based on advice or comments from several hobbyists and professionals who I respect. Do we list their names on the placard?


... and do you really stick around and read all the credits after a movie ends?

(Marvel/Avenger movies excluded, of course)

 

[namnhi]

Need to know who done it to know who's worth listening to

Interesting but I think everyone can accept this. It is all about tree but I will not have the kind of respect for the owner if he just bought it and worked very little on it.

 

[River's Edge]

This thread takes me back to the behind the scenes debate at car shows.
" Trailer Queen" as opposed to " the owner did all the work "
The winner was often delivered to the show on a trailer by the professional mechanic and detailer paid to deliver the car across the country to various regional shows. The owner flew in the day before to take part in the show. If you asked the owner what type of brakes were on the car they usually had no idea. Sometimes the paint job was worth more than the total price of some other contestants.
I sit on the "its about the Tree" side in this debate. Appreciate the object for itself. Not who owns it, or the numerous individuals that played a part in its creation. I often seek to find out who started the tree and who has worked on it recently. It's nice to know who has the skill in those areas.
That being said I prefer to work on my own trees and cars. But I am grateful that I can view and appreciate the " Trailer Queen", winners at national shows. And learn from the work that others are capable of.

 

[Nybonsai12]

I've given out advice here on Bnut and demand everyone i've ever made a suggestion to(good, bad or otherwise) list me on the placard.

Maybe something like the below:

"2016- NYbonsai12 suggested I use biogold for stronger growth"
"2017- Dario suggested i use a giant bolt to close the wound"
"2018 NYbonsai12 suggested i burn it to stay warm over winter"

 

[rockm]

For years, I worked at a law firm that specialized in intellectual property. Now I'm an English teacher fighting on the front lines in the war against A.I. I care very deeply about who gets credit.

If the focus were truly on the tree, then there should be no name at all. The name of the owner should never be published, except to guests permitted to visit the tree where it lives.

As I understand it, in a feudal society (as Japan was recently), it mattered not who did the work. It mattered who owned the product. Gardening was a peasant's work, and nobles had the job of owning the garden. Bonsai caretakers may have been held in higher esteem than regular commoners, but they were not held in higher esteem than the nobles who owned the trees.

At least in the United States, we fought a war to throw off the shackles of the royals and nobles who seized the fruits of our labor merely because they held legal title. Notwithstanding the recent talk of technofeudalism, the West is, culturally speaking, fundamentally meritocratic. We care more about individual skill than inheritance. At least, I care more about skill than inheritance.

I think this is a red herring and needlessly clouds the issue.

The more i work on bonsai, the less important the question of "who DID this" becomes. I've learned that, yeah, you can claim credit for work, but doing so doesn't make it so. It IS about the trees, bottom line. If you insist on knowing every single "who did what," you're barking up the wrong tree. Taking "credit" for a tree is a zero sum game. In the end, if your tree is still alive and looking good 100 years from now, no one will really give a shit bout who bent what branch and when (And I mean that in the best possible way )

I appreciate knowing where a tree came from and some of its basic origins. It can inform how the tree was developed (but not explain it entirely). This becomes important for exhibition trees (museum trees in particular). I know from experience that museum curators try to remain true to the "Original" artists' vision for the tree. Even so, the older the tree, the more "say" the TREE has. It becomes something else, sometimes entirely different than what was envisioned and the original owner's vision can still be there, but slightly or greatly altered.

BTW, Modern bonsai has really nothing to do with feudal Japan. Modern bonsai, which began mostly at the turn of the 19th century was intentionally developed in an egalitarian way. It has no rigid class structure (black belt, etc) as other formal JApanese arts do. That was by intention to bring in the common man and make it accessible to everyone. There's an article on this interesting history around somewhere. I've posted it here a few times. can't put my hands on it immediately, though.

 

[Wulfskaar]

Bonsai is a weird form of art where the medium is always changing. If it were a painting, you wouldn't want each owner adding more paint. Trees, on the other hand, kind of require that. The good ones also tend to outlive their original owners.

When judging, I would hope that who owns it is not a factor, and that trees are judged by their current status only.

 

[leatherback]

Why do we worry?

Often for price-winning trees in big shows provenance is quite well-known.
For the biggest Japanese shows the owners do not touch the trees. There are professionals who keep and prepare the trees for the show.
Yet it is the tree of the owner. That is the name on the plague. In some larger shows both the onwer as well as the artist who did the recent work on it is known
In some cases it is well known who grew the trunk.

Does it matter?
Do you credit the person who made it possible for the person to work on the tree? Who paid for the hours of work?
Very few owners of really well known trees would claim the work.

A tree passes from person to person.
If the tree is good, the tree wins.
The owner gets the badge
The professional gets another assignment. And .. with the winning tree, their reputation grows.

 

[leatherback]

When judging, I would hope that who owns it is not a factor, and that trees are judged by their current status only.

I am on the German judging team.
We never discuss the owner when we do not based on initial individual scoring decide which tree should be 1-2-3.
I personally do not read the tags, and the scoring lists do not have the owner or artist marked. (Yet often it is clear who styled the tree; there are only so many top artists around!)

 

[Gabler]

Honestly, this is a slippery slope. I've got several trees that have been shown that haven't been touched by anyone other than me, but I've acted on them based on advice or comments from several hobbyists and professionals who I respect. Do we list their names on the placard?


... and do you really stick around and read all the credits after a movie ends?

(Marvel/Avenger movies excluded, of course)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. It's a simple bright-line test. Did they actually prune or wire the tree? If yes, then include them. If not, exclude them.

Regarding movie credits, that's not my basis for comparison. Movie credits have thousands of names, and a bonsai tree would have maybe a dozen or two. Therefore, if it's not to onerous to list credits for a movie, it should not be too onerous to list credits for a tree. The inverse is not logically sound. You cannot claim that because no one reads movie credits, no one would read bonsai credits. Bonsai credits would be two to three orders of magnitude shorter.

 

[Gabler]

Does it matter?

Yes. It matters to me. I want to know who actually did the work. I'm not part of the inner circle of high-level bonsai practitioners. I'm barely able to recognize important names. If artists' names were always listed alongside their work as in other media, it would be much easier for me to learn who is who in the bonsai world, and it would be easier to search for and enjoy the work of artists I like. Imagine trying to find books or music you like if the artist's name were never printed on the cover.

Do you credit the person who made it possible for the person to work on the tree? Who paid for the hours of work?

Yes, if only because it keeps them paying.

Often for price-winning trees in big shows provenance is quite well-known.
For the biggest Japanese shows the owners do not touch the trees. There are professionals who keep and prepare the trees for the show.
Yet it is the tree of the owner. That is the name on the plague. In some larger shows both the onwer as well as the artist who did the recent work on it is known
In some cases it is well known who grew the trunk.

This is the phenomenon I'm complaining about. It is a real thing. Folks saying, "It's about the tree," are completely missing my point. Owners are frequently credited where artists are not. That credit may not be relevant to judging, but I'm not talking about which tree wins or loses. I never claimed the name of the owner or artist would or should impact whether a tree wins a show. I'm claiming the quality of the tree should impact the name of the artist(s). Go ahead and credit the owner, but also credit the artist(s), just as you would credit the producer alongside the director of a film.

 

[Gabler]

For whatever it may be worth, tree farmers who field grow for bonsai purposes do not seem to get enough praise in the bonsai community. It takes tremendous skill and guts to care for thousands of trees with limited resources, not to mention dealing with the crisis of the day. Interested to hear others thought on this.

It was this very topic that inspired me to start this thread. My suggestion is to put up a QR code at every show with a link to details about the trees. Not everyone would read it, but the people who care would find the information invaluable.

 

[Michigan Tree Murderer]

I believe the answer is Mother Nature, but thanks for helping.

 

[bonsaiwood]

From the perspective of an average onlooker at a major show a few years back, I would often look down at the table and see a name written on a card, incorrectly assuming they were the artist/pro and owner. Now that I realize so much of what I see at shows is mostly someone else’s styling work, it would not hurt to know the artist’s name behind the tree. May help a hobbyist/practicioner evaluate who they may consider hiring for help on their own trees in the future.

 

[Gabler]

From the perspective of an average onlooker at a major show a few years back, I would often look down at the table and see a name written on a card, incorrectly assuming they were the artist/pro and owner. Now that I realize so much of what I see at shows is mostly someone else’s styling work, it would not hurt to know the artist’s name behind the tree. May help a hobbyist/practicioner evaluate who they may consider hiring for help on their own trees in the future.

Yes. This. Exactly.

 

[MrBonsai19]

I’m confused as to whether you feel it is important because

A) you don’t know who the primary artist is and you feel like this knowledge would be valuable for you personally

Or

B) you think it is a disservice to the artist that they are not receiving visible recognition in the very specific form of being included on the display card next to a tree in an exhibit

If this issue is more about the first point well then I’d say it really isn’t that hard to find this information if you care to. Ask the tree owner and if you don’t know how to get in touch with them, ask the exhibition director. I’d be shocked if you could find a major exhibition where the director would not be willing to help you learn about the provenance of a tree unless the owner was explicitly opposed to it which is not something I’ve ever experienced myself.

If the concern here is more about the second point and you are raising this argument on behalf of the artists that may not be receiving recognition I would say you should ask one of these unknown shadow artists whether they agree with this concern. Because the whole conversation would be a lot more compelling if there was actually someone in the position of the “victim” you are standing up for. My guess is most of them feel like their contributions to the trees are very much common knowledge and no “credit” is being lost by not being on the little placard next to the tree.

 

[Wood]

May help a hobbyist/practicioner evaluate who they may consider hiring for help on their own trees in the future.

I definitely understand and empathize with this perspective, but how realistic is it? A professional's daily fees run $500-$750 plus travel and expenses. If you're spending that much on pro work on the tree, it's probably dramatically more expensive than that, and you have a sense of what pros produce difference kinds of work.

I've never really had a hard time figuring out who has worked on what tree either. It's a good topic of conversation with other attendees, but I never treat it as more than idle gossip