Bonsai design

[Piscineidiot]

Not at all, Treeman. My interpretation of refinement is something along the lines of consistent and attentive application of craft. What style the tree is in is immaterial, though my personal tastes lean towards the naturalistic for most species.

[JaseH]

Good discussion, I do like naturally styled tree's and tend to agree with most of what is being put forward here. But it grates on me a little when people get all anti 'bonsai rules' as if they are stifling artistic creativity or not representative of creating a naturalistic styled tree.

I don't like to call them rules, because they aren't. There are no rules in art. As some are saying here, bonsai is an 'artistic' representation of a tree - not simply a scale miniature. Most art uses exaggeration or subtle 'tricks' to emphasise certain features, to evoke emotion, to push a certain feeling or set an atmosphere. The ancient greeks did it with their marble statues, they look anatomically correct but they have actually cleverly exaggerated features to make them more pleasing as 'art'. A landscape painting will invoke certain feelings or emotions that a plain old photograph of the same landscape may not - because they have used these subtle tricks, thats what art is. For good bonsai I feel this is certainly the case. The 'rules' people talk about are simply artistic guidelines that work to help us create an image that is pleasing to the eye and avoid things that work against a pleasing artistic image. They aren't rules to be followed like an instruction manual, they are simply tricks that work and we must be aware of them when creating our bonsai art. They don't say a bonsai tree cannot look like a natural tree in nature.

I urge everyone to read this excellent website by Andy Rutledge - it does an excellent job of explaining artistic guidelines of bonsai:

http://www.andyrutledge.com/book/index.html

[Rory]

Okay, so before this thread takes a big tangent which it appears to be doing, I think a few points of Mike need to be properly addressed before further comments are made. I don't mean this in a negative way, I just mean, the idea seems to just be a little bit misinterpreted.

What Mike means (and myself) - when he says we need to consider styling trees in a more natural element - is not literally place a tree in a pot and let it grow 'wild'. What he means is, try not to style a native tree of ours into a traditional northern hemisphere type snow-laden trees, or something you wouldn't see it normally grown like. (this is a matter of personal preference we all understand). But, for example, if the tree you are styling does not really look like that of the species grown in the wild, then it isn't reflective of what you are trying to achieve.

Also, this means, don't be afraid to have multiple trunks with few branches far and in between, just like the wild material, don't be afraid of reverse taper if done so to look effective, don't be afraid of a branch that starts out very low and continues up the tree to form part of the canopy. There are a multitude of examples, you only need to look at nature. Hopefully in a few more years I will have my collection at a point of showing more what I am ranting on about when I have refined my native stock.

The whole 'rules' thing, is just a collective example, Mike doesn't mean following it more loosely or quite strictly will produce contrived trees, but more so that the entire idea of what style makes a good bonsai is a lot of the time the problem with advice being given.

We have to assume that most growers actually do want to have their tree being a small cloned version of the native equivalent. If this is not your intention, and you simply want an 'artistic interpretation' of a real tree, then by all means, rant away and ignore this thread, but if you are indeed wanting a miniature version of nature, then continue to comment/contribute/think.

I have and will always be a firm believer in what Mike is saying. One of the main brick walls this philosophy faces is that the vast majority of peoples bonsai are styled like bonsai and to accept this philosophy would have to probably wait another 10 years + to get to this point of restarting over.

Now, 20 years + ago, everyone was styling in that wishy washy 'curved with a branch at the curve' type tree, which created cringe worthy specimens. Again, back then, people baulked at the idea of doing anything else, and thus refused to adopt a more native approach to the design.

But when people say this thread is flawed or not possible, there are oodles of examples of it already working, its not hard at all. Look at a lot of the eucalyptus trees that are styled very similar to their wild counterparts, it is just a matter of actually stopping, reflecting on what is being said here. Even if you want to discredit it or mark it as nonsense, just stop and think about it if you can, because I guarantee you in 20 years time, Mikes thread here will come to fruition. I would place money on it, as it is already happening with a lot of our natives already.

[Piscineidiot]

Okay, so before this thread takes a big tangent which it appears to be doing, I think a few points of Mike need to be properly addressed before further comments are made. I don't mean this in a negative way, I just mean, the idea seems to just be a little bit misinterpreted.

What Mike means (and myself) - when he says we need to consider styling trees in a more natural element - is not literally place a tree in a pot and let it grow 'wild'. What he means is, try not to style a native tree of ours into a traditional northern hemisphere type snow-laden trees, or something you wouldn't see it normally grown like. (this is a matter of personal preference we all understand). But, for example, if the tree you are styling does not really look like that of the species grown in the wild, then it isn't reflective of what you are trying to achieve.

Also, this means, don't be afraid to have multiple trunks with few branches far and in between, just like the wild material, don't be afraid of reverse taper if done so to look effective, don't be afraid of a branch that starts out very low and continues up the tree to form part of the canopy. There are a multitude of examples, you only need to look at nature. Hopefully in a few more years I will have my collection at a point of showing more what I am ranting on about when I have refined my native stock.

The whole 'rules' thing, is just a collective example, Mike doesn't mean following it more loosely or quite strictly will produce contrived trees, but more so that the entire idea of what style makes a good bonsai is a lot of the time the problem with advice being given.

We have to assume that most growers actually do want to have their tree being a small cloned version of the native equivalent. If this is not your intention, and you simply want an 'artistic interpretation' of a real tree, then by all means, rant away and ignore this thread, but if you are indeed wanting a miniature version of nature, then continue to comment/contribute/think.

I have and will always be a firm believer in what Mike is saying. One of the main brick walls this philosophy faces is that the vast majority of peoples bonsai are styled like bonsai and to accept this philosophy would have to probably wait another 10 years + to get to this point of restarting over.

Now, 20 years + ago, everyone was styling in that wishy washy 'curved with a branch at the curve' type tree, which created cringe worthy specimens. Again, back then, people baulked at the idea of doing anything else, and thus refused to adopt a more native approach to the design.

But when people say this thread is flawed or not possible, there are oodles of examples of it already working, its not hard at all. Look at a lot of the eucalyptus trees that are styled very similar to their wild counterparts, it is just a matter of actually stopping, reflecting on what is being said here. Even if you want to discredit it or mark it as nonsense, just stop and think about it if you can, because I guarantee you in 20 years time, Mikes thread here will come to fruition. I would place money on it, as it is already happening with a lot of our natives already.

I don't know that anyone is disputing this point, Rory? I certainly am not.

Art is highly contextual. The 'charicatures' of trees that the Japanese grow are an expression of their perceptions, culture, and values. I recall Ryan Neil making just that point in one of his demos on Youtube (I believe the one in Canberra?). A 'naturalistic' miniaturised version of a native expressing its natural 'essence' only really expresses what YOU consider to be its 'natural essence' (not being critical, just pointing it out). Looking at any tree in the wild, I notice exceptions to things that I don't consider typical of that species etc. all the time (as I'm sure we all have). Doesn't make the image you have in your head, or what you are trying to achieve with a specimen of that species in bonsai culture any less aesthetic or legitimate.

I certainly agree with yours, and Mike's approach, and tend to do it myself (though I'm just starting out myself), but admittedly, a few of my trees are also styled to look a little more like horticultural sculptures than they are true representations of how the species grows in the wild. The JBP's and the juniper that I currently have, are a little more 'Japanese' in their aesthetic than the other trees in my collection, and my aspirations for those trees are also different than the ones I have for my leptospermum and ficus (which I truly want to refine to the point where they look like miniaturised versions of their wild selves).

However, as I said before, there really is no 'better' in any sense. Just things that are closer to what WE value, which we perceive as being 'better'. I'm not a fan of expressionist painting, but I appreciate that competent expressionists put every bit as much thought and effort into the design and execution of their painting as a realist (closer to the sorts of things I like). Ultimately, our bonsai (whether they are more stylised, or naturalistic), are expressions of what we want in a tree, and what the tree is capable of. I see little point in arguing what is 'better', outside of the more general principles of effective design i.e. Is it visually 'interesting' for whatever reason, whether it is because you've highlighted its natural essence as a species, a natural feature, a feature you have created, or tried an interesting new concept out (like different growing angles, exposed roots etc.)?

Sure, there will always be things that become more or less 'fashionable', but what does it matter what 'most' people do or appreciate? It's your tree, in your care. You do with it as you wish - just don't expect everyone to appreciate it the same as you do. (by 'you' I mean anyone). No point growing a tree that's more 'fashionable' or considered 'more' aesthetic by others if you yourself don't enjoy it (unless of course, you want to make a business of it...).

[bodhidharma]

Sure, there will always be things that become more or less 'fashionable', but what does it matter what 'most' people do or appreciate? It's your tree, in your care. You do with it as you wish - just don't expect everyone to appreciate it the same as you do. (by 'you' I mean anyone). No point growing a tree that's more 'fashionable' or considered 'more' aesthetic by others if you yourself don't enjoy it (unless of course, you want to make a business of it...).

Agreed and we will always run into the same problem the Japanese are having when we make "Fashionable" trees. They become cookie cutter tree's. If we go into "Naturalistic" styling then we will encounter the same problem 20 years down the road and somebody will want to change it. As Rory stated, a curved trunk with spiralling branching was the norm and now people are throwing them out because they all look the same and the same will happen with any fashion. The truth, as i see it, is if you have developed a tree and it has stunning development of ramification and nebari, trunkline etc it will always make our mouths water, and inspire. Everything has already been done before, just need to visit Japan to see that. Do it all i say experiment, change design, try to be different practise, practise, practise. Going out to prune now.

[Rory]

hehe, i do understand what you both are saying. It is very interesting to step back and think about what others' say and why they would say it.

By using the term 'fashionable', I presume you are suggesting that to mimic the actual tree is fashionable. I would say that a design of the tree that is a scaled clone of 'the actual tree' would essentially be somewhat of what I would consider 'the perfect bonsai'. I would think the word 'fashionable' wouldn't apply in this context, but I can understand your viewpoint at using it.

I guess what I mean is about Mikes thread is : I don't actually see it as an artistic display of the tree, but more of trying to make an actual copy of the tree. There in lies the massive difference in my eyes. So I guess you would say that the artistic component is the skill required to do this, which is obviously great and that is the artists job to copy the tree in the wild.

When you are very young and you draw a picture of a persons face, you often use slightly round circles for eyes, or a line for a mouth, or a squiggle for a nose. But as you get older and older, you try to train yourself to acutally see what you are looking at to draw, rather than what you think you are seeing.

There is a lot to be said for copying a blueprint, as opposed to interpreting the blueprint... I guess this is the crux of the issue here.

From my eyes, creating your bonsai tree to exactly look like a giant majestic tree is an absolute breath-taking achievement and one to be admired. It is not at all easy, and requires the person to literally see the blueprint of the tree, and not just apply the same type of branch development to 'most' trees, or the same trunk style growth, or the same segmented branching that may or may not be appropriate depending on the species you are growing etc etc.

I would think it would be far easier to produce an artistic interpretation than to produce a wild piece of stock that looks like a tree for the traits that it holds in the wild.

[bonsaisensation]

here is a casuarina that won equal first prize in a bonsai exhibition in Taiwan in 2012.

100_2895.JPG

100_2896.JPG

obviously different to the conventional black pine look.

[kcpoole]

This thread has lots of comments about artisitic expression, painting, Art aand stuff about how we have all these natives that are designed like Japanese styled trees, but no examples or pictures of what people are trying to achieve.
Had an interesting conversation at he show re this exact subject and specifically referring to my own collected Kunzea and Stevens Casuarina. About how it would be nice to have it designed as a "naturalistic tree" rather than as they are.

Funny that when I collected mine, the branches were dead straight for about 3M with the occasional wisp of foliage. and a sprig or 2 of green at the end. It was jut one of 100s the same, so i am thinking that is how the naturalists would style it. if one was to create that in miniature then it would look really silly IMHO.
Similar thing with casuarina i reckon.

having said that, I am happy to be proved wrong when someone gets around to posting some examples rather than still just talking about how we are all doing it wrong.

Ken

[kcpoole]

obviously different to the conventional black pine look.

What makes you say that? I woud hardly call that a naturalistic styling at all.
I have seen many pines that look similar to that.
Branches with lots of movement, Foliage clouds at the end. ( albeit these move upwards, but have seen pines that have not been pulled down)
Overall triangular outline with a rounded canopy.
Right left Back Branching

That tree, has nothing like the growth habits of any Casuarina I have seen on Oz, and that include many dead straight ones in coastal areas, ( like the photos i posted) and twisted contorted ones in he inland areas around Capertee as is Stevens. Stevens tree has tight clipped foliage just like this one you showed except his is less sparse .

Ken

[bki]

my bonsai stage at present is very newbie, I am learning to wire and create clouds of foliage or pads.
maybe when i perfected this skill, all of my trees will be styled like the cookie cutter Japanese bonsai. I love those classic Japanese bonsai, they started me on this hobby.

[bonsaisensation]

here is a celtis from the same exhibition.

100_1390a.jpg

[Piscineidiot]

Rory, as far as I'm concerned, what's 'fashionable' is not a fixed point in time. Whether it's highly stylised or naturalistic, it doesn't matter. You at this point in time, feel like recreating a tree in miniature is the pinnacle. That is fair enough, but I feel to reduce more 'stylised' trees to a 'caricature' is a little unfair and diminishes the work of the old masters like Kimura and Nagato etc. They certainly could not be considered noobs with too little vision to see a tree for what it was. The fact is that their end goal was just different from what you are aspiring too. I'll be damned if there are wild JBP's out there with short, stout trunks and ridiculous amounts or ramification, or wild shimpaku juniper with quite the amount of swirling deadwood as they use and clouds of foliage. Their 'styles' weren't popular at fist either, and in fact, a more naturalistic style was popular at the time.

I commend you for striving towards your own style and expression of what the trees truly are, but never forget, what you see is what YOU see. There are reams of scientific and philosophical papers stating as much. I look forward to seeing and being inspired by the fruits of your labour, but will also continue to enjoy and be inspires by other, more stylised trees of equal quality.

[kcpoole]

here is a celtis from the same exhibition.

100_1390a.jpg

Nice tree
Is that supposed to support the discussion or contradict it

Ken

[bonsaisensation]

here is a celtis from the same exhibition.

100_1390a.jpg

Nice tree
Is that supposed to support the discussion or contradict it

Ken

Exactly my point. What are we discussing here?

[treeman]

Let me post some pics to consider. I regard some as having a ''natural feel'' to them and some that do not. Naturalistic styling is nothing new and the trees don't have to be minaturized versions of real trees. They are usually more idealized representations but still have an ''untouched'' feel about them to me. Also it is easier to achieve naturalism with deciduous trees than with pines and junipers IMO

For want of a better word I'll name the first group ''Natural'' and the second ''Unnatural'' There are also plenty of examples out there that I could only put half way between these two! Some of these trees may even fall into that group?? I have not included natives yet. Does anyone agree with my point of view here?

Group 1:

n1.JPG

n2.JPG

n3.JPG

n4.JPG

n5.JPG

n6.JPG

n7.JPG

n8.JPG

Group 2

u1.JPG

u2.JPG

u3.JPG

u4.JPG

u6.JPG

u5.JPG

u7.JPG

u9.JPG