Are you a Parrot?

[Lorax7]

Hardly sublime! Design suggests total control and that just does not work with bonsai. It leads to a parody.....
This tree was designed...

View attachment 198349

On the other hand, letting go of total control gives you a chance of finding sublimity.......
This tree was not designed.....It has been carefully controlled over many decades yes, but not designed.
Both of these trees are collected material.

View attachment 198351

Tell me you can see the difference.
Tell me you understand which can really be the only way forward when trying to capture what bonsai is supposed to capture.

When I use the word design, I am not talking about total control. I am talking about intentionality and composition. The artists who developed both of these trees employed design to decide what to do to the tree and to recognize when the tree is “done” (ready to be exhibited, before it goes on growing and becomes undone again for a while).

The term I would use for what you are arguing against is “formal aesthetics”.

 

[MichaelS]

What is it that bonsai is supposed to capture and who is the arbiter of that idea?

I mean...who am I supposed to report to when I want to clip a shoot?

Quote Nippon Bonsai ...''it entirely expresses the beauty and volume of a tree growing in a natural environment.''
You don't need to report to anyone.

 

[MichaelS]

Michael, that first tree was styled by Owen Reich while he was an apprentice in Japan. It was styled like that because it was either a customer’s tree who wanted it to look like that, or the Master knew his market and knew that trees styled in such a manner sell. I have spoken to Owen specificly about this tree. Owen told me that this is not how he would have styled it, but that is how the Master wanted it to be styled. When you are an apprentice, you do what the Master (or Senior) says. No questions. I will have to say that it took a lot of skill to make such perfect placement. I couldn’t do it f I tried. In this case, Owen did what what he was told. Because that was what the owner wanted. This is a variation on the “pagoda” style, mimicing the roof structure of the shrines in Japan. As such, it is probably unique to the Japanese culture and those of us outside Japan see it as fake and unrealistic. It’s not supposed to be realistic. In this regard, it could be seen as topiary, but using bonsai techniques rather than shears. There is a market for trees styled in this manner in Japan, just as there is a market for trees that look like pompons here in the US for formal gardens.

.

Jezzus Christ spare me! I couldn't give a shit about markets for trees or wishes of the owner or culture or tradition or skill any other excuse you want to come up with. That's the trouble with you Adair, you are too caught up in the process and missing the main thing. It's about the damn tree in front of you not the history of it.
Forget the first tree then. Try any number of other ones. Here's one I happen to have on hand. There are millions of others. You cannot look at the dead wood in this tree and take it into consideration because that was not designed, it was enhanced.

The second tree, is a mess. While you may say it’s naturalistic, it just looks unkempt. It doesn’t look “naturalistic” to my eye! On the right side, the lower branches are very sparse, they’re being shaded by the overly dense canopy above them. Ok, I’m sure you’re going to say that’s natural. Fair enough. But what about the left side? There the lower foliage is very dense, and the upper foliage is thin! You can’t have it both ways! The movement and flow is inconsistent as well. Frankly, this looks like a composition that was well styled at some time in the past but has been neglected for a couple years.

A ''mess''!. ''You can't have it both ways''! ''Unkempt'' My god, you are so wrong and so blind and so removed from nature I won't even comment on this further. There is no hope for you.

 

[MichaelS]

I agree... not a big fan of either tree pictured... that second tree would look fantastic if a little wire was skillfully applied, though.

You are also stuck in automatic mode. Folks working on this said ''this tree should not be touched by wire'' or words to that effect. Why do you think they may have said that?

 

[Adair M]

Jezzus Christ spare me! I couldn't give a shit about markets for trees or wishes of the owner or culture or tradition or skill any other excuse you want to come up with. That's the trouble with you Adair, you are too caught up in the process and missing the main thing. It's about the damn tree in front of you not the history of it.
Forget the first tree then. Try any number of other ones. Here's one I happen to have on hand. There are millions of others. You cannot look at the dead wood in this tree and take it into consideration because that was not designed, it was enhanced.

View attachment 198369



A ''mess''!. ''You can't have it both ways''! ''Unkempt'' My god, you are so wrong and so blind and so removed from nature I won't even comment on this further. There is no hope for you.

I have no problem with this tree, Michael. Junipers in the mountains do have foliage like this. It might be a little too dense, a bit of thinning is in order, I think.

Do you have junipers in Oz?

 

[Lorax7]

You cannot look at the dead wood in this tree and take it into consideration because that was not designed

Depends on who you ask. Marcel Duchamp would disagree. The deadwood could be regarded as a ‘readymade’.

 

[TN_Jim]

 

[music~maker]

Hardly sublime! Design suggests total control and that just does not work with bonsai. It leads to a parody.....
This tree was designed...

View attachment 198349

On the other hand, letting go of total control gives you a chance of finding sublimity.......
This tree was not designed.....It has been carefully controlled over many decades yes, but not designed.
Both of these trees are collected material.

View attachment 198351

Tell me you can see the difference.
Tell me you understand which can really be the only way forward when trying to capture what bonsai is supposed to capture.

Both trees could have been designed. One looks over-designed, but there could easily be a design in either case. I grow and develop my trees with the intent of them looking natural. and vastly prefer trees like the bottom over ones that look like the top pic. And even though most of the time I'm letting the tree grow wild, there's often still some sort of a design in mind. The design may be a lot more fluid, and it may morph and shift as the tree grows, but there's definitely a design and at least a rough plan of where I'm going. Especially as the trunk and major branches get locked in.

You are choosing to define "design" in a very narrow way that implies total control. That's not at all what I would mean if I said that I designed a bonsai tree. If I choose how many trunks the tree has, that's a design decision. If I choose to style it as a cascade vs. a windswept vs. a broom style, that's most definitely a design decision. Guiding the tree down a particular path is a design decision (and as a throwback to a previous conversation from long ago, it's also an artistic one). Does that mean I have complete, 100% control of the tree? No, that's patently ridiculous, and I don't think anyone above novice level would suggest that I do.

Trees are dynamic, living things, and the work you do is in direct cooperation with the tree. Sometimes the tree cooperates, sometimes it doesn't. But at any given point, I can have a design that I'm working towards, even if my trees look more like the second than the first.

 

[Adair M]

Jezzus Christ spare me! I couldn't give a shit about markets for trees or wishes of the owner or culture or tradition or skill any other excuse you want to come up with. That's the trouble with you Adair, you are too caught up in the process and missing the main thing. It's about the damn tree in front of you not the history of it.
Forget the first tree then. Try any number of other ones. Here's one I happen to have on hand. There are millions of others. You cannot look at the dead wood in this tree and take it into consideration because that was not designed, it was enhanced.

View attachment 198369



A ''mess''!. ''You can't have it both ways''! ''Unkempt'' My god, you are so wrong and so blind and so removed from nature I won't even comment on this further. There is no hope for you.

Michael, I give specific reasons why I do, or do not like something. All you ever say is stuff like “you are so wrong”, or I’m blind, or stuck on dogma. Never specifics.

Here is another specific problem with your beloved pine forest: no sense of scale. You see there are pads or clumps of foliage in some places. In those places you can’t immediately see the individual needles. That is a “from afar” view forest. The viewer is in a meadow, looking at the forest in the distance. But, there are a few twigs sticking up out of the canopy. These twigs are a bit sparse, and yes, you can see the individual needles! This TOTALLY DESTROYS the “from afar” view. These out of control twigs with sparse neefles are all over the composition. Making it look disjointed, losing the feeling of perspective, and making the whole thing out of balance.

Oh, I know, I’m too ignorant, too stuck in the status quo, too programmed to recognize art. Not so.

You are full of BS, and you cry like a baby when someone can defend their point of view by calling them names.

Oh, and for the record, I took as close s look at your cedar and your wiring. Your wiring is ok, not great. You use way too much wire, but probably because you are using aluminum on cedar, and Cedars are very springy. Copper works much better. But the real problem is what you do with the branches after they're Wired. You take a secondary branch and bend it back to cross the front. Trees don’t natirally do that. If you rail against “unnaturalistic styling”, you better start with your own trees before you go attacking others.

There. I just gave you ANOTHER specific.

 

[MichaelS]

I have no problem with this tree, Michael. Junipers in the mountains do have foliage like this. It might be a little too dense, a bit of thinning is in order, I think.

Do you have junipers in Oz?

You must know very little about the distribution of the planets flora!

 

[MichaelS]

You are choosing to define "design" in a very narrow way that implies total control. .

Ok, so then you pick the word I should use and I promise I will use it.

 

[Adair M]

You must know very little about the distribution of the planets flora!

I know a little. I do not claim omniscience.

I’m sorry, Michael. You know everything. And you assume everyone must know everything, too! I’m truly not worthy of conversing with someone who is as conceited as you!

 

[MichaelS]

"Adair M,

Michael, I give specific reasons why I do, or do not like something. All you ever say is stuff like “you are so wrong”, or I’m blind, or stuck on dogma. Never specifics.

Areas 1 and 2 (2 two main focal points of the tree) are things that only real a master would ''design'' into a composition. These features which would normally be quickly civilized by most of us have been very wisely retained. It shows great insight and maturity.

Area 6 is another feature which is intentionally retained even though it is normally frowned up in bonsai design. Two trunks of equal height and mass? Outrageous! Yet there they are and it works beautifully. That's why they are kept that way.

Areas 4 and 6 are examples of branch tips that no wiring could ever improve. This is actually how pine braches form themselves. You cannot improve them, so you don't try.

The whole (7) looks beautifully settled and balanced. Totally serene, and evocative of a natural exposed, nutrient poor, windy rustic place.
It is recognized as a masterpiece as it should be. I would add that it is a masterpiece of nature which has been skilfully maintained by masters.

Here is another specific problem with your beloved pine forest: no sense of scale. You see there are pads or clumps of foliage in some places. In those places you can’t immediately see the individual needles. That is a “from afar” view forest. The viewer is in a meadow, looking at the forest in the distance

.

Wrong. This is a near view scene not a distant view. If you have imagination ( which seems unlikely) you should be able to imagine yourself one the verge of walking into it.
It is not a ''forest''. It is one old tree.

But, there are a few twigs sticking up out of the canopy. These twigs are a bit sparse, and yes, you can see the individual needles! This TOTALLY DESTROYS the “from afar” view. These out of control twigs with sparse neefles are all over the composition. Making it look disjointed, losing the feeling of perspective, and making the whole thing out of balance.

See above. Just face it Adair, you are out of your depth on this subject. Maybe you need a new teacher?

Oh, I know, I’m too ignorant, too stuck in the status quo, too programmed to recognize art. Not so.

Yes very much so.

You are full of BS, and you cry like a baby when someone can defend their point of view by calling them names.

What does that even mean?

Oh, and for the record, I took as close s look at your cedar and your wiring. Your wiring is ok, not great. You use way too much wire, but probably because you are using aluminum on cedar, and Cedars are very springy. Copper works much better. But the real problem is what you do with the branches after they're Wired. You take a secondary branch and bend it back to cross the front. Trees don’t natirally do that. If you rail against “unnaturalistic styling”, you better start with your own trees before you go attacking others.

I use aluminium because that is what I have on hand. Don't try to lecture me about cedars being springy because I have worked with far more than you ever will.
As for the secondary branches, Be specific and show me exactly what you are talking about on which tree and we can discuss that further.

 

[MichaelS]

I know a little. I do not claim omniscience.

I’m sorry, Michael. You know everything. And you assume everyone must know everything, too! I’m truly not worthy of conversing with someone who is as conceited as you!

What a stupid childish place you take refuge in. Sarcasm is for the weakest, most contemptible form of communication. I expect more from you.

 

[Adair M]

Areas 1 and 2 (2 two main focal points of the tree) are things that only real a master would ''design'' into a composition. These features which would normally be quickly civilized by most of us have been very wisely retained. It shows great insight and maturity.

Area 6 is another feature which is intentionally retained even though it is normally frowned up in bonsai design. Two trunks of equal height and mass? Outrageous! Yet there they are and it works beautifully. That's why they are kept that way.

Areas 4 and 6 are examples of branch tips that no wiring could ever improve. This is actually how pine braches form themselves. You cannot improve them, so you don't try.

The whole (7) looks beautifully settled and balanced. Totally serene, and evocative of a natural exposed, nutrient poor, windy rustic place.
It is recognized as a masterpiece as it should be. I would add that it is a masterpiece of nature which has been skilfully maintained by masters.






View attachment 198372


.

Wrong. This is a near view scene not a distant view. If you have imagination ( which seems unlikely) you should be able to imagine yourself one the verge of walking into it.
It is not a ''forest''. It is one old tree.



See above. Just face it Adair, you are out of your depth on this subject. Maybe you need a new teacher?



Yes very much so.



What does that even mean?


I use aluminium because that is what I have on hand. Don't try to lecture me about cedars being springy because I have worked with far more than you ever will.
As for the secondary branches, Be specific and show me exactly what you are talking about on which tree and we can discuss that further.

You are absolutely unreal! This last image of the pine with all the “areas” circled is not the same image that I critiqued! In fact, pretty much all the points I made have been addressed in this new image.

Maybe I do know a bit about bonsai!

And sarcasm? It suits you.

 

[music~maker]

Ok, so then you pick the word I should use and I promise I will use it.

You can use whatever words you like, but you seem to latch on to very narrow definitions of words that you yourself assign, and then you argue endlessly about why you're right. I've seen you do it with the word "art" and now I've seen you do it with the word "design".

You are entitled to your own words, but you can't make up your own definitions and expect people to just know what you're talking about or see eye to eye with you on anything.

For the record, the word design is defined as:

- 1) a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
- 2) purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
- 3) decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.

I would argue strongly that all three of these can and do apply to bonsai, whether you are looking at trees like pic 1 or developing trees like pic 2 in your example.

 

[Cable]

What kind of a bonsai man are you?
You're worthless and weak!
You do nothing, You are nothing, You sit in here all day and play with that stick, repulsive, twig in a pot!
I learned on my own and you, You parrot that, that, that, Ryan O’Neal!
Who are you!?!
Where do you come from!?!
Are you listening to me!?!
What do you want to do with your bonsai!?!

 

[Dav4]

You are also stuck in automatic mode. Folks working on this said ''this tree should not be touched by wire'' or words to that effect. Why do you think they may have said that?

Hey, I'm just voicing my opinion on the tree. I think it would be better wired out. You disagree. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.

 

[JudyB]

Hardly sublime! Design suggests total control and that just does not work with bonsai. It leads to a parody.....
This tree was designed...

View attachment 198349

On the other hand, letting go of total control gives you a chance of finding sublimity.......
This tree was not designed.....It has been carefully controlled over many decades yes, but not designed.
Both of these trees are collected material.

View attachment 198351

Tell me you can see the difference.
Tell me you understand which can really be the only way forward when trying to capture what bonsai is supposed to capture.

And as we all know- happily there is much middle ground between these two trees. Why decide to be one or the other? If you do such a thing, then you are making your options so narrow that your trees will likely suffer in the process.

 

[my nellie]

... ...This last image of the pine with all the “areas” circled is not the same image that I critiqued!... ...

Adair please take a closer look, for the sake of truth.
This is the same tree.
And it is not a forest, this is a raft Pine tree.

View attachment 198372

View attachment 198351