Is inverse taper a deal-breaker for you?

[Leo in N E Illinois]

Like the kid in the movie "The 6th Sense" "I see dead people"

"I see Inverse Taper"

The trick for bonsai hobbyists is to learn to recognize it, see it, and then learn to ignore the more minor occurrences of inverse taper.

If a tree is early in development, less than 75% or so of the final desired trunk diameter, lower sacrifice branches can be allowed to grow to thicken the trunk below the inverse taper. Carving can also be done on some trees. Other tricks can work. The closer to the final desired trunk diameter the trunk is, the more difficult it becomes to fix inverse taper. Then at some point, the issue of whether the inverse taper is serious enough to be viewed as a fatal flaw or not will have to be considered.

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

Pachcaul trees are trees, usually from desert environments that have a spongy water storing layer under their bark. Some examples are baobabs, frankincense (Boswellia), myrrh (Commiphora) and the New World copal trees (Bursera). All these trees have areas of their trunks that swell, because their trunks hold water like sponges. They all have zones of inverse taper as part of normal growth. If one were to grow one as bonsai, the resulting tree would always have odd bands of inverse taper, its just their nature. I have several seedling Bursera, as I love the fragrance emitted when one brushes their foliage. They will always be ugly ducklings as bonsai, but bonsai techniques will keep them compact enough for my windowsills.

So when it comes to judging bonsai, if there are desert shrubs styled as bonsai in a show, it will depend on the judge's personal familiarity with the species displayed as to whether or not the inverse taper of the specimens shown will be accepted, ignored, or cause dismissal due to inverse taper being viewed as a "fatal flaw".

 

[Lorax7]

Well, that all may be true if I wanted the tree to tell a story to the viewer. That really doesn't enter my mind when I design a tree. The shape and feel has to appeal to me only. If someone gets some pleasure out of seeing it, that's a welcome bonus. I will remember the story.........where I found it............what it looked like sitting there all shredded and forlorn..........how much I had to remove to get it into that shape. That's my reason for doing bonsai. It may not be for everyone, and that's ok.

Are you saying that fixing the inverse taper would somehow erase your memory of the tree’s backstory?

 

[Joe Dupre']

I had not responded to this thread when it was new, just got a new laptop, need to do some two hands, ten finger typing to break it in. Keyboard on the old laptop had quit working, had been doing the one finger pecking on the "virtual keyboard" for quite a while. It feels good to use all my fingers for typing again. LOL

@Joe Dupre' - I "gotta" bust your chops a little. If the ONLY person you did bonsai for was yourself, and yourself was your only source of your aesthetics, you would not be posting here on BNut, you also would not be a member of your local bonsai club , and you would not be exhibiting trees in your local shows. But you do exhibit, you do belong to your local club, and you do post here. Proof positive that your bonsai aesthetics are informed by external sources beyond yourself, you do care what others think. It is okay, it is a good thing to participate and to care what others think. This is part of being a member of the human tribe. We do care. Its in our nature to care. No man is really "an island". Art and aesthetics are part of, or are an extension of language, language is how we communicate. I know I am not consciously thinking of others when I design a tree, but yet, I do know that I want others to "see" what I see when I look at my tree. This does mean by extension, I am thinking of others when I design the tree. Its all there.

I was a student judge in the American Orchid Society judging program. I lasted all of 1 year. I left due to schedule issues, I might go back now that I am retired. The discussion of "Inverse Taper" parallels nicely the AOS topic of judging "Fatal Flaws" in orchid flowers. For example, size of a flower is only 25 points on the 100 point scoring scale for most orchid flowers. But for many judges it is the FIRST 25 points, in general, if a flower is known to average 10 cm in natural spread, if the flower submitted isn't at least 0.5 cm larger than 10 cm, no matter how good other traits like color or form are, the flower will get passed over. Another such trait is "floriferousness" meaning flower count for orchids that normally have more than one flower per stem. If the average is 5 flowers, a plant with 4 flowers or 3 flowers will generally not get judged even though flower count is only 10 or 15 points. These are all "Fatal Flaws", in that even though they contribute relatively small percentages to the total point counts in scoring an orchid in judging, not making the "perceived minimum" in these categories simply disqualifies an orchid from being judged.

Similarly, in bonsai, "Inverse Taper" seems to have similar properties to a "Fatal Flaw", it is tolerated to some degree in trees with other redeeming traits, but at some point it becomes the "Fatal Flaw" which if inverse taper is noticeable enough, it kills any chance of the tree being judged as a good tree, no matter how good other traits are.

I'd have to check, but I don't think I ever said I didn't care what people think about my trees. I definitely didn't say I was the only source of my aesthetics. I just don't let people's opinions have undue influence on what I create. I joined the club and show my trees there and here to get feedback and to share in the comradery of the hobby. I consider all points and then make up my mind. I've changed the complete design of a tree if I thought it would make it better. What I don't care about is undying allegiance to "rules" set forth by a handful of Japanese people. I REALLY don't care if my design doesn't align with some long dead Japanese gardener. If some choose not to even consider my trees "real" bonsai, I guess I'll have to accept that and continue growing my "artistic miniature trees". As far as I know, there are no rules for that.

 

[Joe Dupre']

Are you saying that fixing the inverse taper would somehow erase your memory of the tree’s backstory?

No, it would not. I just happen to think that the inverse taper doesn't need "fixing".

 

[Lorax7]

I'd have to check, but I don't think I ever said I didn't care what people think about my trees. I definitely didn't say I was the only source of my aesthetics. I just don't let people's opinions have undue influence on what I create. I joined the club and show my trees there and here to get feedback and to share in the comradery of the hobby. I consider all points and then make up my mind. I've changed the complete design of a tree if I thought it would make it better. What I don't care about is undying allegiance to "rules" set forth by a handful of Japanese people. I REALLY don't care if my design doesn't align with some long dead Japanese gardener. If some choose not to even consider my trees "real" bonsai, I guess I'll have to accept that and continue growing my "artistic miniature trees". As far as I know, there are no rules for that.

Although some of the traditional rules of bonsai are indeed quite arbitrary and rooted in peculiarities of Japanese culture (the rules about avoiding certain “unlucky” numbers of trees in a forest planting, for example), I think the aesthetic rules about inverse taper are rooted less in cultural peculiarities and more in the physics of binocular vision. Specifically, I think the importance of taper in bonsai originates from human observation of large ancient trees from a close vantage point, which has a tendency to exaggerate trunk taper because of parallax & perspective. Ancient trees have thick trunks and lots of root flare due to erosion gradually exposing surface roots. Because objects that are closer to the viewer appear larger and objects further away appear smaller, whatever trunk taper exists is exaggerated because of the perspective of the person looking upward from close to the tree. Bonsai tries to portray an idealized archetype of an ancient tree as viewed in awe by a human observer nearby.

In contrast, penjing places much less emphasis on taper and also focuses more on ensembles of trees together with their surroundings. I think that tendency toward representing whole scenes and the decreased focus on taper are largely a product of a different vantage point. Penjing aesthetics consider the trees and their surroundings as viewed from a distance rather than close up.

Considering how resistant you are to changing the inverse taper to make the tree fit in with traditional bonsai aesthetics, perhaps you’re not really all that enamored with bonsai, per se. You definitely like little trees in pots, but maybe your sense of aesthetics is more in line with penjing than bonsai. Just a thought. Maybe that’s something worth exploring.

 

[leatherback]

I mean, some of the things I do ARE part of the rules, but I do them because I think they look good.

I guess I interpret the rules as a pathway to acceptable trees. Some of them might be boring as *, but they do make a decent bonsai. Once you understand these basic concepts (I do not feel they are rules to be honest) you can start to interpret when and why they matter.

This larch I really like. I have however been told about a fatal flaw, which I really did not notice when I put the tree together, because the rest of the tree works well to me. I do not use the basic bonsai styling concepts to limit what I do, but to help me make choices. And I feel this is what everyone should do. If you follow up on all design elements, you will typically end up with a decent bonsai. As said, probably boring as anything..

 

[August]

@Leo in N E Illinois that's a really cool insight. I never considered the judging parameters for orchid shows and it's interesting that to even qualify and orchid's health should be "maxed out". Kind of like a dog show.

As for the topic, I'm very new to the culture, but most of the trees that I love and fret over are butt ugly. If they spark joy for me, that's what matters to me. Luckily my friends that see my collection are not plant hobbyists; they know or care not what reverse taper is and easy to impress

 

[Joe Dupre']

Although some of the traditional rules of bonsai are indeed quite arbitrary and rooted in peculiarities of Japanese culture (the rules about avoiding certain “unlucky” numbers of trees in a forest planting, for example), I think the aesthetic rules about inverse taper are rooted less in cultural peculiarities and more in the physics of binocular vision. Specifically, I think the importance of taper in bonsai originates from human observation of large ancient trees from a close vantage point, which has a tendency to exaggerate trunk taper because of parallax & perspective. Ancient trees have thick trunks and lots of root flare due to erosion gradually exposing surface roots. Because objects that are closer to the viewer appear larger and objects further away appear smaller, whatever trunk taper exists is exaggerated because of the perspective of the person looking upward from close to the tree. Bonsai tries to portray an idealized archetype of an ancient tree as viewed in awe by a human observer nearby.

In contrast, penjing places much less emphasis on taper and also focuses more on ensembles of trees together with their surroundings. I think that tendency toward representing whole scenes and the decreased focus on taper are largely a product of a different vantage point. Penjing aesthetics consider the trees and their surroundings as viewed from a distance rather than close up.

Considering how resistant you are to changing the inverse taper to make the tree fit in with traditional bonsai aesthetics, perhaps you’re not really all that enamored with bonsai, per se. You definitely like little trees in pots, but maybe your sense of aesthetics is more in line with penjing than bonsai. Just a thought. Maybe that’s something worth exploring.

I absolutely know about parallax and perspective, having done a bit of oil painting. I know full well the reasoning behind taper and vantage point. I simply chose to ignore it on this tree. You think the tree should not have reverse taper and I don't mind it .......ON THIS TREE! Get it?? ON THIS TREE! Not every tree. Not on the majority of my trees .......THIS TREE! Have you no tolerance for one person's preferences on ONE tree? I am an artist, not a bonsai craftsperson that cranks out cookie cutter versions of bonsai trees, dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's to end up with a "perfect", yet maybe rather bland specimen of a "real" bonsai. I'll keep doing what I do and try to keep one step ahead of the bonsai police............cranky fellows, I've heard.

 

[Joe Dupre']

I absolutely know about parallax and perspective, having done a bit of oil painting. I know full well the reasoning behind taper and vantage point. I simply chose to ignore it on this tree. You think the tree should not have reverse taper and I don't mind it .......ON THIS TREE! Get it?? ON THIS TREE! Not every tree. Not on the majority of my trees .......THIS TREE! Have you no tolerance for one person's preferences on ONE tree? I am an artist, not a bonsai craftsperson that cranks out cookie cutter versions of bonsai trees, dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's to end up with a "perfect", yet maybe rather bland specimen of a "real" bonsai. I'll keep doing what I do and try to keep one step ahead of the bonsai police............cranky fellows, I've heard.

Ok, I've taken action. Lorax7 is officially on my ignore list. I will not stand for falsely putting words in my mouth and thinly veiled (very thinly veiled) insults. I tried to have a civil conversation, but that didn't seem to work. Good day, Sir.

 

[Lorax7]

I absolutely know about parallax and perspective, having done a bit of oil painting. I know full well the reasoning behind taper and vantage point. I simply chose to ignore it on this tree. You think the tree should not have reverse taper and I don't mind it .......ON THIS TREE! Get it?? ON THIS TREE! Not every tree. Not on the majority of my trees .......THIS TREE! Have you no tolerance for one person's preferences on ONE tree? I am an artist, not a bonsai craftsperson that cranks out cookie cutter versions of bonsai trees, dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's to end up with a "perfect", yet maybe rather bland specimen of a "real" bonsai. I'll keep doing what I do and try to keep one step ahead of the bonsai police............cranky fellows, I've heard.

Dude, take a chill pill. I was merely suggesting that you take a look at the related but slightly different art of penjing because it seems like you might dig the aesthetics of it, perhaps even more than you dig bonsai.

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

@Lorax7 - for what it is worth, its my understanding that Penjing is even more heavily steeped in cultural aesthetic references in its styling rules than Japanese bonsai. The reason we as "Americans" do not realize this is that the majority of us are not reading the source Chinese literature in Chinese. What gets written in English, or any European language tends to have much of the cultural references washed out of it. Wikipedia, which we know is not always accurate, lists at least 14 regional styles that emphasize different artistic element and materials. Some regions use more stones, some use certain specific plants, some tend to do land and water arrangements. One region tends to style foliage in flat pads resembling clouds. Each region has its own characteristic set of "rules" which makes discussing Penjing even more bewildering than discussing Bonsai.

But partly due to the effects of the recent destruction of adherence to tradition by the communist party, and then the relaxation of this persecution and the re-introduction of the traditional arts back into society, there is a fair amount of tolerance for playing loose with the "Rules" or "Guidelines". Though I can not read Chinese, so my opinion is second hand and may be ill informed. But from what I have read over the years, traditional Penjing is steeped even more in regional Chinese culture than traditional Bonsai is steeped in Japanese culture. If you are discussing Penjing in China, you need to add what region to every discussion. Yangzhou is different than Jiangsu, Taiwan and Shanghai are most heavily influenced by Japanese Bonsai, Sichuan is thought of as simple and uncomplicated. Jiangsu is famous for the thin, disc shaped foliage pads said to resemble clouds, Guangxi style tends to use a lot of rocks, Guangdong has been written about in older western lit as Lingnan style, and is a fairly distinct style from southern China. In fact most of what is written in American literature about Penjing is largely dominated by Lingnan style Penjng. In addition to mimic the local landscape, some styles often mimic animal forms. So the complications, are limitless. If one wants to go deep, Penjing is the topic to dive into.

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

And again, while one should be cautious about believing everything in Wikipedia, but they are usually accurate in non-political topics. Evidence of Penjing being practiced in China appears in a tomb wall mural dated to 706 AD, the tomb of Prince Zhang Huai at the Qianling Mausoleum. Penjing was probably already a well developed practice in some areas of China by the end of the 5th century. By the early 6th century written accounts in Japan mention Buddhist students from Japan bringing home dwarfed tray landscapes from China. These tray landscapes eventually inspired the development of the uniquely Japanese version of the art that became Bonsai.

 

[Woocash]

I’ve been using videos of Kokufu shows as part of my littleun‘s nap routine for a while now, simply for the calming music and nothing else… What I have noticed, however, is that so many of these old master trees have inverse taper by virtue of their training and where many branches originate from similar planes on the trunk, even it does happen to be a node above, not to mention the effect of super aged bark and all the bulging that can create.

It really does seem to be that inverse taper is far less of a flaw in old refined material, so as with @Joe Dupre' s mulberry (forgive me for using it as the example), when that tree has a couple of decades of ageing, ramification and refinement, the whole rest of that tree will overshadow what is a pretty minor flaw IMO.

I think to dismiss a flaw like that so early in it’s development would be churlish, simply because it is so early in comparison with the old specimens. That said, I may still ground layer if it were not a species where the bark will age on the nebari as has above it.

…

Just as an aside, does inverse taper only matter in relation to the chosen front or does it relate to the tree from any view?

 

[Joe Dupre']

I’ve been using videos of Kokufu shows as part of my littleun‘s nap routine for a while now, simply for the calming music and nothing else… What I have noticed, however, is that so many of these old master trees have inverse taper by virtue of their training and where many branches originate from similar planes on the trunk, even it does happen to be a node above, not to mention the effect of super aged bark and all the bulging that can create.

It really does seem to be that inverse taper is far less of a flaw in old refined material, so as with @Joe Dupre' s mulberry (forgive me for using it as the example), when that tree has a couple of decades of ageing, ramification and refinement, the whole rest of that tree will overshadow what is a pretty minor flaw IMO.

I think to dismiss a flaw like that so early in it’s development would be churlish, simply because it is so early in comparison with the old specimens. That said, I may still ground layer if it were not a species where the bark will age on the nebari as has above it.

…

Just as an aside, does inverse taper only matter in relation to the chosen front or does it relate to the tree from any view?

Again, I just don't see the inverse taper on my mulberry as a flaw. Many do. That really is fine by me. I see it as a feature of this particular tree......sort of like a slightly quirky smile on a beautiful woman. Yes, if you want your tree to be judged at a show, inverse taper is a no-no. So are bar branches, and stilt roots, and pocket branches, and eye poking branches and, and and............ Soon what you have is some soulless, robot of a tree. Perfection. I personally don't like the whole concept of perfection......especially in art. If perfection is your goal, I say go for it. I'll still admire a perfect tree. I fully appreciate what it takes to get a tree to that level.

 

[sid4587]

Again, I just don't see the inverse taper on my mulberry as a flaw. Many do. That really is fine by me. I see it as a feature of this particular tree......sort of like a slightly quirky smile on a beautiful woman. Yes, if you want your tree to be judged at a show, inverse taper is a no-no. So are bar branches, and stilt roots, and pocket branches, and eye poking branches and, and and............ Soon what you have is some soulless, robot of a tree. Perfection. I personally don't like the whole concept of perfection......especially in art. If perfection is your goal, I say go for it. I'll still admire a perfect tree. I fully appreciate what it takes to get a tree to that level.

Even I found reverse tapering interesting with my mulberry.

 

[Joe Dupre']

View attachment 472248

Even I found reverse tapering interesting with my mulberry.

View attachment 472247

Yep, very interesting. Fine looking tree. Be proud to have it on your bench.

 

[Pspsy]

Here's a fine tree with inverse taper:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/10/08/tree-hunter-watt-ancient-cedar/

 

[Lorax7]

Here's a fine tree with inverse taper:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/10/08/tree-hunter-watt-ancient-cedar/

It’s perfectly fine for a tree in nature, but I don’t think it would make a great bonsai if you had access to a “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”-style miniaturization device to make it fit in a pot. Bonsai isn’t just nature in miniature. There’s also an element of abstraction to it. Bonsai is as much about human perception of trees as it is about the trees themselves. We’re not just making small trees. We’re making small trees that match up with the archetypes that exist in our minds as exemplars of “tree-ness”.

 

[ShadyStump]

It’s perfectly fine for a tree in nature, but I don’t think it would make a great bonsai if you had access to a “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”-style miniaturization device to make it fit in a pot. Bonsai isn’t just nature in miniature. There’s also an element of abstraction to it. Bonsai is as much about human perception of trees as it is about the trees themselves. We’re not just making small trees. We’re making small trees that match up with the archetypes that exist in our minds as exemplars of “tree-ness”.

I can't really argue with you, but I'll point out that what exemplifies "tree-ness" is still beholden to the eye of the artist.

Your statement on "an element of abstraction" does beg discussion on it's own, though, but applied to the original question it's almost an argument in favor of inverse taper. At least as it might be used as an exaggeration of what one might call "tree-ness." Something to highlight a particular branching pattern maybe, or perhaps to make a trunkline appear narrower at a lower point to in turn accentuate nebari and basal flair.

Artistically, there are many ways you might intentionally use inverse taper, but then we start to diverge from the "examplars of tree-ness" into truer abstraction very quickly.