Studying Trees For Form

[Attmos]

When people say to study living trees in regard to styling.... are we talking about the standard, undisturbed, ideal version of a tree?

Or are we talking about studying pictures of those that have been... disturbed... in some way.

I ask because looking at the ideal growth of any particular tree is usually not very bonsai friendly or interesting, aside from the Junipers I knew in Colorado.

 

[RJG2]

As in everything with bonsai, it depends.

Oak - you might want to look at old sprawling trees in the middle of a field. Not one that has grown straight up competing for light in a forest

Pines - probably from rugged mountains/cliff sides; beaten by wind and snow.

Junipers - you mentioned; similar to pines

Other conifers (spruce for example) - trees from the timberline, exposed similar to pines and junipers, but still with a more upright form.

Maples, and elms - similar situation to oak, but more up and out forms.

As always: just my opinion disclaimer.

 

[Attmos]

As in everything with bonsai, it depends.

Oak - you might want to look at old sprawling trees in the middle of a field. Not one that has grown straight up competing for light in a forest

Pines - probably from rugged mountains/cliff sides; beaten by wind and snow.

Junipers - you mentioned; similar to pines

Other conifers (spruce for example) - trees from the timberline, exposed similar to pines and junipers, but still with a more upright form.

Maples, and elms - similar situation to oak, but more up and out forms.

As always: just my opinion disclaimer.

Well I appreciate it. Pretty much the response I was looking for. Thank you.

 

[Michael P]

Both.

 

[Wulfskaar]

It's probably good to study both "normal" boring trees and trees with more interesting structures.

I still see a lot of beauty in normal, natural trees, and that's what I'm ultimately going for in a lot of mine.

 

[Jrmcmich]

It seems when you see an old tree that captures your eye that would be one to study. Why did it catch you eye etc. normal trees great to see how branches tend to grow but as was already mentioned certain conditions that impacted that tree that potentially makes it stick out. At least that’s what I try to look for.

 

[Shibui]

Study 'normal' trees as well as those which have been modified. Look at general trends for each species or family- what angles do branches exit the trunk? Does that vary lower down or higher up the trunk? Do trunks and branches tend to grow straight, zigzag or curve in different directions? Is dead wood a frequent feature on the species? Hollows? What overall shape does the species tend to develop as it gets older? (flat top bald cypress and cedar, rounded elm) Does the species develop exposed nebari as it ages?
While there will always be exceptions, humans tend to subconsciously note patterns. It's those general patterns that can help you make bonsai that look 'right'
Knowing how a species grows normally allows us to make bonsai that actually look like the tree should look.
When you can identify a species from a distance, well before you can see individual leaves, is when you really know trees.

The exceptions and modified trees can also provide useful patterns for us to consider. They can give us info on what some species can cope with: whether branches will survive below horizontal, whether that species can grow after heavy pruning, how long will dead wood persist, etc.

 

[Vergil]

Interesting you should pose this question. I didn't even realize it, but subconsciously I have been asking myself the same question.

I only just recently got into bonsai and I find myself just "noticing" trees much more explicitly. One might say "studying trees" without knowing I am. Not that it really answers your question as to what you should do, but for what it's worth, I just look at all of them, absorbing it all in, the interesting and the boring. The interesting ones that stick out, are also, naturally, more memorable.

I'm far from being at the stage of designing trees (I'm still at the "am I wiring correctly?" stage), but I feel like over time, taking it all in and keeping a mental note of the ones that are interesting to me will end up helping me design trees that are interesting to me.

 

[Michael P]

When discussing "normal, natural or ideal" trees, we need to be aware of a cultural bias. In the West, we tend to think of "normal" trees as those growing in the open with plenty of space and no competition from other trees. These are sometimes called "wolf trees", and are the "ideal" forms. This is reflected in spacing guidelines for landscape trees. The usual aim is to produce symmetrical specimens with straight single trunks.

But most tree species did not evolve to live in such conditions. They evolved to grow in forests. This profoundly affects the "normal, natural" form of the tree. Then there are individual trees that have assumed an atypical shape due to environmental conditions, accidents, or human activity (sometimes quite perverse).

We learn from all of these forms.

 

[Cruiser]

When people say to study living trees in regard to styling.... are we talking about the standard, undisturbed, ideal version of a tree?

Or are we talking about studying pictures of those that have been... disturbed... in some way.

I ask because looking at the ideal growth of any particular tree is usually not very bonsai friendly or interesting, aside from the Junipers I knew in Colorado.

When it comes to form there are two major factors at play, genetics and stimuli.
Genetics are the blueprints for growth pattern, stimuli affect how they are expressed.

There aren’t any truly undisturbed mature trees. All experience damage/loss. Whether from some external force or self pruning.

“Standard form”, suggests a tree expressing its genetic blue prints relatively undisturbed. Often younger trees or those in full sun in a favorable location. Park trees, etc.

Ideal tree form is subjective depending on what a persons goals are. Ideal forest trees that I assess for work are tall, very straight, low taper, and branchless for their bottom halves or more. Pretty much the opposite of what most would consider ideal for bonsai.



I reference studying wild trees in some of my threads. What I mean is that people should see them in person if possible, numerous forms in different places. Study all. Identify features/forms common to a species or genus. Supplement these observations by reading about the trees too. The USFS provides decent species data sheets. State organizations are also likely to provide good reading.

Try to figure out why the trees appear as they do.
Eg. Park trees look like park trees because they face little competition for light, generally are pruned from below, treated for pests, and may be watered regularly. Studying this “standard form” can help piece together a trees genetic blue prints (how they want to grow vs how they have to grow.)
Forest trees look different. They appear less tamed and express how a species has to grow when faced with competition and affected by other stimuli. They usually are narrower, taller, and more damaged.



To really elevate understanding of form it is crucial to learn about why certain features and shapes develop. What causes them? Knowing the why provides context to form. Understanding context helps one style a tree into a more believable design.

There are some features that are relatively uncommon in bonsai because without context they are considered flaws or just ugly. But when one understands what a tree went through to form them, these unsavory features may suddenly appear beautiful.

 

[Attmos]

When discussing "normal, natural or ideal" trees, we need to be aware of a cultural bias. In the West, we tend to think of "normal" trees as those growing in the open with plenty of space and no competition from other trees. These are sometimes called "wolf trees", and are the "ideal" forms. This is reflected in spacing guidelines for landscape trees. The usual aim is to produce symmetrical specimens with straight single trunks.

But most tree species did not evolve to live in such conditions. They evolved to grow in forests. This profoundly affects the "normal, natural" form of the tree. Then there are individual trees that have assumed an atypical shape due to environmental conditions, accidents, or human activity (sometimes quite perverse).

We learn from all of these forms.

That's a good point. When I said (normal, natural, ideal), I was talking about those "Wolf Trees". Trees that are allowed to grow naturally and unobstructed.

But I can see how it might be misinterpreted. So... "Wolf Trees", I'll remember that term.

 

[Attmos]

Study 'normal' trees as well as those which have been modified. Look at general trends for each species or family- what angles do branches exit the trunk? Does that vary lower down or higher up the trunk? Do trunks and branches tend to grow straight, zigzag or curve in different directions? Is dead wood a frequent feature on the species? Hollows? What overall shape does the species tend to develop as it gets older? (flat top bald cypress and cedar, rounded elm) Does the species develop exposed nebari as it ages?
While there will always be exceptions, humans tend to subconsciously note patterns. It's those general patterns that can help you make bonsai that look 'right'
Knowing how a species grows normally allows us to make bonsai that actually look like the tree should look.
When you can identify a species from a distance, well before you can see individual leaves, is when you really know trees.

The exceptions and modified trees can also provide useful patterns for us to consider. They can give us info on what some species can cope with: whether branches will survive below horizontal, whether that species can grow after heavy pruning, how long will dead wood persist, etc.

Thank you.

 

[WNC Bonsai]

One trend is the east/west divide. Japanese seem to be more of an idealized form whereas in the west we are seeing a shift to a more naturalistic form. Walter Pall has been a major proponent of the naturalistic approach to bonsai development and Nigel Saunders always talks about designing an oak tree to look like and oak and a pine to look like a pine instead of the more formal Japanese styling.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

I think what is missing in this discussion is that the art of bonsai is about capturing the passage of time in the form of a tree. We all talk about how we aren't simply sticking saplings in pots and calling it a day. An "undisturbed" tree that grows in a field for 500 years is going to look and feel very different than the same tree when it was 20 years old. Captured in the passing of time is a story of wind and weather and seasons... birds and insects and Mother Nature all molding the tree into its eventual form. It is that story that is the basis for peoples' emotional reaction when seeing a great bonsai tree... the story of the tree's life - of all that it has seen and experienced - as evidenced by its form. Its pot is supposed to complement that story. In formal display, the accompanying trees/plants/painting - all are there to help tell that story.