Importance of Traditional Design

[CamdenJim]

Thank you all who replied. Certainly I understand the benefit of learning the basics first, expanding one's horizons and personal aesthetic before moving beyond that level. At this point, I'm interested in expanding my personal appreciation of the art of bonsai as both practitioner and -- for lack of a better term -- bonsai consumer.

And my personal experience in another form of artistic expression translates well into this new medium. But I still wonder how others feel/think about "doing this bonsai thing."

In the posts above, I found myself arrested by several clear expressions. To you I offer special bows in appreciation.

From Brian Van Fleet: I don't think I set out to do a certain style right now, I do what best plays
up a tree's best traits. Once done, it could be classified, but only if it's important for someone to classify it.

From garywood: When space is used harmoniously a style can be prescribed if necessary but who cares

From gergwebber: and if you want to stick a shohin in an old tequilla bottle, or root a fig over an old bust of shakespeare go right ahead and do it and don't take any guff from the bonsai fascists.

From Eric Shrader: Personally, the more surprising a tree is the more I usually like it. I hardly ever think about the category that it fits into.

From tona: One thing I love to do is bring a child or a person that is not a bonsai practitioner to a show and see what trees amaze them. Almost every time it is not the technically perfect trees, but the most artistically expressed trees.

From Ang3lfir3: some really brilliant people taught me early on to focus on what matters the most ... making great looking trees ... and to do that, I had to SEE great looking trees. After that I had to accept that I could make those same trees myself.

@grouper52: You made me want the book. It's not in any of our local libraries, so Amazon might get some business from me.

 

[grouper52]

@grouper52: You made me want the book. It's not in any of our local libraries, so Amazon might get some business from me.

Better to order one from directly from Elandan Gardens' web site: Usually they will come signed by Dan and Vic and I at no extra cost.

It's a great thread, BTW, and, as you have quoted, many great viewpoints.

 

[Paradox]

Thank you for posing this question. I have been wondering the same thing lately. I see a lot of pictures in books and on the internet of some really nice trees and some not so nice that all seem to follow the "rules" of a particular style or form. The more time I have spent in nurseries looking for trees with potental, the more I realize how hard it is to find something that is going to adhere to some traditional form or set of rules. I've got a pine right now that I bought last year and I've just started working on that has/had a sort of octo structure.

Somewhere someone posted that you have to make these trees a "onese" tree/trunk. I have to ask Why? This particular tree has a very strong trunk and some strong branches. I've thinned out one or two because it was too busy and can see one or two more that might need to also go at some point. That would leave 2-3 good sized branches on this comparatively large trunk. To reduce it to only one would unbalance the tree IMO.

So why is it wrong to just follow what I feel the tree is showing me and what feels right for it at this time just because it doesn't follow "the rules"?
Granted, I'm still very new to this and can't quite visualize yet what the future of this tree might be and it might end up being all wrong in the end. Who knows but that's how you learn.

 

[Bill S]

I raised this question to Ryan Neill a couple of weeks ago and he surprised me. He said that there isn't the huge divide we think there is between the US and Japaneese thought to styling. Most of it comes down to properly applied technique, and the fact that there is more well grown "pre bonsai", I also extrapolated that there is more of a gratify me now thought in the US so work gets done or not to fit the whim of the artist.

 

[Dave Leppo]

http://walter-pall-bonsai.blogspot.com/2012/04/platos-cave-analogy.html


.

 

[Bill S]

Want to add to the above that the extrapolate part is me thinking of what I have seen here over the years.

Ryan did say that the trees between our two countries are along the more naturalistic side of the old argument.

Thinking about it, anyone reading Peter Teas blog these days can get an idea of what the trees are like in Japan, in the earlier stages.

 

[CamdenJim]

Moving in the other direction

I enjoyed Walter Pall's "Plato's Cave" explanation of the fundamental relationship between trees as nature made them and traditional bonsai styles. Formal Upright as a style is a distillation or abstraction of the essential qualities of a naturally occurring tree shape, as is Windswept, Cascade, etc.

Beauty is there in both, and at this point in my bonsai life, I'm trying to make the relationship clear in my beginning level trees.

But what about the other end of the spectrum? Can a bonsai be a free sculpture, with no attempt at being a distillation of natural form? Is that even possible?

In my humble opinion [which I highly respect], this goes too far. http://pooktre.com/photos/

But is there a believable in between?

Just curious, questioning in the abstract - not really wanting to grow a chair, table, or toddler.

Looking for beauty in a pot, so to speak.

Jim

 

[edprocoat]

Huhh !?! I just came across this thread and I am so stunned I almost fell into my compuer headfirst! To see all these sentences from people here who always seem to offer "put it in the ground" is truly refreshing! I always looked at Bonsai styles not so much as imitating trees in nature, as I have said before, most trees in nature barely mimic their own species, rather I look at Bonsai at working to either improve upon nature in the sense of formal uprights and maybe slant styles. The other styles are more mimicing trees that have been shaped by the forces of nature such as wind or location, like cascade and windswept and any with jin/shari incorporated in the design. I constantly see Pines with 2-3 trunks, not something you see in Bonsai, and Bonsai formal uprights that have the perfect balance of branches each growing in the light and a perfect trunk to height ratio to my eye, not something you see often in nature. In nature bar branches are common, as common as a tree that has bent towards the light under a canopy or one that is 50 feet tall and skinny with a pad of foliage up at top that does not look like its enough to sustain the tree. Who has not seen a massive maple or oak in nature with a canopy of really large trunks up high and a few smaller ones growing way down the rtunk nearer the ground that are small and struggling as they do not get the light? This would not be acceptable in Bonsai circles.

I have a simple Bonsai philosophy, if its pleasing to my senses and kept in a small pot its Bonsai. On the other hand I appreciate most Bonsai, the main exception being the stump with branches which seems so popular anymore among the collector types. These trees look mostly unnatural, even in many cases highly unnatural too my eye along the lines of the "pooktre" abominations posted in this thread. They look very contrived and unseemly to me, more like a curiousity than a tree.

ed

 

[daygan]

Ed, I think you have a unique perspective, and getting unique perspectives, in my opinion, is valuable for evaluating/re-evaluating things (like artistic direction/design), so I'm really curious about whether you think the trees below are contrived or more natural-looking, or something else. Don't worry, they're not mine, and don't belong to anyone that uses this forum, as far as I know, so you won't be offending anyone that will likely read this thread if you don't like them (I think). And even if he does read it, I think he could handle the criticism. (I hope I'm not side-tracking too far from the original question)..

 

[jk_lewis]

I thin we're not trying to "mimic" nature as much as we are attempting to present an idealized image of nature.

And the idealization is in the individual mind of every one who does bonsai.

 

[daygan]

I thin we're not trying to "mimic" nature as much as we are attempting to present an idealized image of nature.

And the idealization is in the individual mind of every one who does bonsai.

And on that note, I think really, when we're thinking about what designs are pleasing, we are to some extent, drawing on a subconsciously recognized archetype.

Archetype: An archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated.

Usually, archetypes are talked about in psychology in reference to idealized human characters (mother, father, virgin) but I think we form archetypes for the natural world as well... and that plays out in the way we do bonsai.

 

[Vance Wood]

How much importance do you place on adhering to traditional bonsai design?

What is your typical response to a tree that is not so easily categorized as formal upright, windswept, clump, etc., but has a pleasing aspect and identifiable/definable visual aspects?

Is there some place in your personal concept of bonsai and its appreciation for bonsai conceived as free sculpture?

Perhaps the question concerns the breadth of our individual concepts of bunjin/literati style. Doe this make sense to you?

I'm quite the newbie [less than a year old], a recent retiree with an arts (music performance and education) background, and I find many, many bonsai images tickling my creativity in exciting ways.

To balance this, my favorite trees on our bench now are quite traditional and easily categorized by style.

Just thinking about boundaries and possible directions for my next tree.

Jim

I too come from a music background, I studied Early Music. You know when you first endeavour the study of music seriously you are required to embark on a learning experience in theory, scales, ear training, and classical litterature. Most of the theory is built around the study of Bach. So too bonsai should be approached from the view point of how it has been done, the art as practiced and the techniques that allowe these results to be reached. Once you have gained a grasp of the basics and understanding of how things have been done you can reach for your visions of what can be, what could be and what should be---in your oppinion. The problem: It is possible to grow a tree with bonsai techniques that looks nothing like what a traditional bonsai has usually looked like, but if you go down this road you should remember that art is in the eye of the beholder. Some will say it is not a bonsai and some my think it is something other than bonsai. As long as you understand this and it does not bother you then do what you want.

 

[edprocoat]

Ed, I think you have a unique perspective, and getting unique perspectives, in my opinion, is valuable for evaluating/re-evaluating things (like artistic direction/design), so I'm really curious about whether you think the trees below are contrived or more natural-looking, or something else. Don't worry, they're not mine, and don't belong to anyone that uses this forum, as far as I know, so you won't be offending anyone that will likely read this thread if you don't like them (I think). And even if he does read it, I think he could handle the criticism. (I hope I'm not side-tracking too far from the original question)..

Daygan, what can I say these trees are all stunning in their own way. I literally loved the first one and the last one by Harry Harrington as they look like trees I see every day, very natural looking. The third picture of the broken slant tree that is now a raft-like style looks contrived to me, yet with the pot its in it projects an image of age and its eye catching. I think the tree in a more standard type pot would be very odd looking, more like something created by someone never exposed to Bonsai, more a curiousity than a Bonsai but as I said the pot really helps to pull it off with its odd angles it almost looks like something growing along a river bank that has seen the destructive forces of both man and nature through its life. The second and third trees look like your standard informal upright trees, nothing special yet they are good looking trees in their own right, the second one could benefit from a different pot though. The two that really catch my eye and make me think are the first and the third one, the first as its so natural looking and the third as it plays to my imagination.

ed

 

[daygan]

Thanks for your thoughts, Ed I appreciate reading them.

 

[Tona]

Ed,
I think your analogy is spot on.
Tona