CaptSeaweed
Seedling
I found it in the thread about favorite bonsai book and looking back it was partly your response then that made me look into it actually.
https://www.bonsainut.com/threads/whats-your-favorite-bonsai-book.57954/post-1024294
Can you give me a precise, accurate definition for the term literati bonsai?
- Thread starter Gabler
- Start date
https://www.bonsainut.com/threads/whats-your-favorite-bonsai-book.57954/post-1024294
NashsMan
Shohin
I can't quote any sources, but my sense of 'literati' is that there should be some essence of a tragic event that shaped it.
JRidge
Yamadori
I thought I had a handle on what a literati was until I saw the winner of the US National show. Which is a stunning tree, but, literati? Doesn’t seem to meet the definitions being discussed here at all.
NashsMan
Shohin
Apparently, most people also agreed with this.
milehigh_7
Mister 500,000
This is the best definition possible I do believe!
JRidge
Yamadori
So literati is like fight club? The first rule of literati is don’t talk about literati?
milehigh_7
Mister 500,000
Consider what I said from a philosophical angle. @rockm stated "WHERE" we get the idea and the terms. If you have ever been around truly brilliant academic folk (and I have had the privilege), they are far too busy in thinking about their field of study to consider or care about what it looks like to others. In fact they hardly know a world outside of their field of study exists. So looking at what @Michael P said and didn't say... it is the perfect definition based on WHERE we get the term initially. You see bonsai, is equal parts, art, science, discipline, and philosophy. Handbooks of definitions are not found at higher levels of academic thought.
stewarjm192
Mame
You can’t define the style by citing itself, but in the 2 dementia form. A lot of people
here are making a point about the literati style
of painting but missing the understanding of why it’s important. Literati is a feeling, much more than a defined style, although it certainly
has stylistic features. The paintings come from a subset of individuals that lived the “literati life-style”. John Romano, an artist here in the northeast has a wonderful presentation on the history and style of literati trees, or bunjin-gi
here are making a point about the literati style
of painting but missing the understanding of why it’s important. Literati is a feeling, much more than a defined style, although it certainly
has stylistic features. The paintings come from a subset of individuals that lived the “literati life-style”. John Romano, an artist here in the northeast has a wonderful presentation on the history and style of literati trees, or bunjin-gi
Last edited:
stewarjm192
Mame
It’s literati “inspired”….if
Not literati, how would you classify this tree you mention?
Gabler
Masterpiece
This tree?
It doesn't even fit my liberal definition. Definitely not literati.
It doesn't even fit my liberal definition. Definitely not literati.
stewarjm192
Mame
How would you cla
how would you classify it then? By no means is it the classic bunjin-gi, but it certainly breaks the rules of any other typical “style” we might try to conform this tree too. If not simply literati-style, why not literati influenced?
Ruddigger
Omono
For me the main thing a bunjin/literati needs is a long mostly taper-less trunk with quirky unpredictable movement and a lack of low branching. Most of the time that is accentuated by sparse foliage, but I don’t consider that to be a requirement. I do think a narrow foliage silhouette is mandatory though, just from a design perspective. I would consider that tree from nationals to be a literati, but I also consider these types of arbitrary labels mostly meaningless.
Personally I am partial to those types of think trunks with a little more foliage.
Personally I am partial to those types of think trunks with a little more foliage.
Gabler
Masterpiece
I would just call it informal upright.
Gabler
Masterpiece
Don't misunderstand me. Of all the trees to win an award at that show, the not-really-a-literati tree is my favorite. Notwithstanding, in the absence of a photo, if I had to describe it to you, I would call that tree a slender informal upright. It would not occur to me to call it a literati tree. That's my litmus test, anyway. It does not bear a family resemblance to other literati trees.
stewarjm192
Mame
I feel like the idea of narrow foliage silloette Sill
for me, I think that it’s balance of foliage and sparseness of foliage makes it difficult for me to call informal upright.
Gabler
Masterpiece
I am aware we're arguing semantics. It's in the title of the thread.
Gabler
Masterpiece
I would say that most literati trees are also informal upright trees, but most informal upright trees are not literati.
Ruddigger
Omono
Agreed.
leatherback
The Treedeemer
That book inspired me to make this tree during a demo, which to me is a literati, but I need to make sure the foliage does not get too dense
Potawatomi13
Imperial Masterpiece
I am not the authority. I point to those who are (Ryan and Michael). The demo trees Ryan made were excellent examples to use for this thread. I can see what is NOT Literati/Bunjin but my definition would be lacking to say otherwise. Working my own Literati I do it by removing what makes my tree non Literati. Perhaps working backwards to reach the goal. I see this thread as a circular argument to re defile or dilute the true definition to American standards. Be happyI just love an answer that explains how one answer is absolutely wrong without lending any understanding to a correct answer
Pretty lazy content for so many words.
.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
