Styling miniature versions of full sized trees vs. representations of "survivor trees"

[Agriff]

I keep coming back to this question when thinking about styling choices, because I don't see this distinction being talked about a whole lot.

In a basic sense, many of the styles of bonsai are modeled after the beauty that can be found in nature when observing trees that have managed to survive in harsh conditions: cascades on cliffsides, windswepts on mountain tops, literati's growing out of a pocket between rocks, etc. Foliage pads grow in nature because the tree doesn't have enough resources to put foliage out full blast, trunks grow spindly to find light, and so forth.

Then you have the styles that are more commonly found in deciduous trees: mighty maples with fat trunks and sprawling branches, broomstick elms that have a wide dome of foliage, etc. I feel like with deciduous it's more common to see discussions of proportion with respect to the trunk to height ratio, because the goal is to great a sense of scale. Trunk ratio and taper recreate the effect of standing at the base of a full grown tree and looking up at something grand and majestic. The intent is not to emulate something that has struggled to survive and find light, but something old and beautiful for its power.

My question is, why do these styling frameworks tend to fall along the lines of conifers vs deciduous? Does it have to do with the fact that deciduous trees struggling to survive in nature don't tend to look as good? And with respect to conifers, I feel like it's common to see them portrayed as "miniature full-sized trees" when it comes to forest style plantings, but it's hard to find bonsai examples of those types of trees on their own. For example, Google "douglas fir" and then Google "douglas fir bonsai". Does it come down to the fact that conifirs with no light/nutrition issues just aren't as interesting?

What am I missing here?

 

[Wires_Guy_wires]

I think the key word is romanticisation. I see thousands of pines every year, but none of them stick out because they're all so similar. We don't have any elevation, at all, in the entire country.
When I visit a mountainous area, the very few trees that live there evoke a feeling that pairs well with me being on a remote location. That's what I want to capture in a pot. Bonsai is art after all, and a tin of Campbell soup just isn't as interesting as a full sized great white shark in epoxy resin.

But I've seen oaks on cliffs that looked way better than some junipers did. But these oaks are common there too. The junipers stand out.
Not that interesting is a way of saying it, I think. But to cover the idea a bit better I'd include 'less naturally stylized' or 'less memorable'. Conifers tend to be high elevation survivors, where the elements do a hard job on them and even on us. Deciduous trees usually live at lower elevations and they have other attractive traits. A juniper without a nebari is still a good juniper. A maple without a nebari is crap. A broom style juniper isn't as cool as a crooked yamadori lookalike, because a broom juniper is the same juniper we can find in almost every city park. It's ordinary.
Ordinary can be good, and the deeper you dive the thinner the dividing line between deciduous and conifers becomes. Especially in the Phillipines and Thailand they're really getting good at making all kind of deciduous styles that mimic conifers. But for some reason, it feels to me like it isn't as powerful of an image.

In essence, I think both groups can be brought back to some keywords that really show how different they are. When I see a maple I think softness. When I see a pine, I think ruggedness. It's hard to mentally switch those around, and even harder to make a bonsai that way.

I think you're not missing anything at all. I think you're spot on.

 

[River's Edge]

Does it come down to the fact that conifirs with no light/nutrition issues just aren't as interesting?

Nope, I see no connection or validity to that reasoning? Character and uniqueness in Bonsai is created by many natural factors as well as deliberate man made interventions whether conifer or deciduous.
Perhaps a broader understanding of Bonsai aesthetics and elements that contribute to interesting characteristics valued in Bonsai Design would be helpful!
Over simplification of cause and effect simply invites misunderstandings based on misperception. Perhaps you should consider the aspects of Artistic value to form and shape, asymmetry, balance and unity to name a few.
Lots of great information out there to be studied. If you can find a great little book by Francois Jeker. Bonsai Aesthetics, A Practical guide. Volume 1 2006.
Other titles I would suggest.
Art of Bonsai Design, Colin Lewis
Principles of Bonsai Design, David De Groot
Bonsai from the Wild, Nick Lenz

Hope you find the suggestions helpful!

 

[Michael P]

The aesthetic and cultural reasons for this distinction are long and complicated, and could result in a book length discussion. There is one horticultural reason, perhaps minor in the great scheme of things. Conifers generally have much more durable wood than broad leaved deciduous species. This makes it possible to create jin, shari, and other signs of great trauma that will last for decades or longer on conifers. This was even more true during historic periods of bonsai and penjing when wood preservatives and hardeners were not available. So deadwood "struggle for survival" features became traditionally associated with conifers and not deciduous trees.