Bonsai design

[MoGanic]

no wabi sabi? what about the bulging trunk, the size ratio of the flowers to the trunk, the ratio of the width to the height. be more observant of the art.
when you hear someone singing in falsetto, it is wabi sabi at its best. no one speaks in their daily life in falsetto mode, are there any?
we are all here because wasi sabi appeals to us, some are just not aware.

bki, None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with wabi - sabi as I understand it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi
I think we must have have a completely different comprehention of it but it really is a different subject to this altogether.

"[w]abi-sabi nurtures all that is authentic by acknowledging three simple realities: nothing lasts, nothing is finished, and nothing is perfect."

What a powerful statement. IMO applies to a any tree styled in any manner. That'll do me as far as definition of Wabi-Sabi .

Cheers,
Mo

[Rory]

Well, if that is true, it is kind of irrelevant.
In that case, most of the male population in Australia must be Wabi-Sabi

and on a similar idiotic side note....

I can't help but think of the soup nazi from Seinfeld.
NO WABI SABI for you!!!!

[bki]

Characteristics of the wabi-sabi aesthetic include asymmetry, asperity (roughness or irregularity), simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy, and appreciation of the ingenuous integrity of natural objects and processes..
this is from your wiki links, treeman.
refer to the text in red.

[Rory]

Characteristics of the wabi-sabi aesthetic include asymmetry, asperity (roughness or irregularity), simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy, and appreciation of the ingenuous integrity of natural objects and processes..
this is from your wiki links, treeman.
refer to the text in red.

Yeah, I do get some of the similarities you are saying which definitely are the same. I think what Mike means is, it really touches on a whole lot of aspects that may not apply, some might, some don't, but you could kind of adopt that wiki definition of philosophy to almost anything really.

Its just simply: Copy a wild tree that you like, as accurately as possible. There isn't really a complicated philosophy to it.

[bki]

but you could kind of adopt that wiki definition of philosophy to almost anything really.

I second that.

we can talk about wabi sabi all night for weeks but I will never refer you to Wikipedia.

[Pup]

Characteristics of the wabi-sabi aesthetic include asymmetry, asperity (roughness or irregularity), simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy, and appreciation of the ingenuous integrity of natural objects and processes..
this is from your wiki links, treeman.
refer to the text in red.

Yeah, I do get some of the similarities you are saying which definitely are the same. I think what Mike means is, it really touches on a whole lot of aspects that may not apply, some might, some don't, but you could kind of adopt that wiki definition of philosophy to almost anything really.

Its just simply: Copy a wild tree that you like, as accurately as possible. There isn't really a complicated philosophy to it.

It could also mean to use some of what you see in a wild tree that you like, and incorporate it in your design.
Cheers pup

[kcpoole]

Hmm
4 days and so far no substance to the OP original's suggestion, nor replies to the points I have raised.

The Wabi-sabi / no wabi-sabi examples posted to me, really poorly support the argument, as for me the labels could be equally reversed, as I see no naturalistic styling in them which is what the discussion is about.

Ken

[evan]

I'm going to have to agree with Ken, get the discussion back to what it originally was. Wabi-Sabi is a characteristic you might find on a naturalistically styled tree, imparting that characteristic as an artist is impossible. Wabi-Sabi is something that a tree earns itself over time, we can enhance the feeling of Wabi-Sabi, but, we cannot create it.

It's also something you can't learn from books, so this circlejerk of a definition of what Wabi-Sabi is isn't really helping the discussion. If even the Japanese cannot give us a solid English language explanation of the term, what hope do we have from trying to learn it from Wikipedia?

Back to the original thread:

In terms of the rules, cookie-cutter bonsai, naturalistic styling, this discussion has been going on for years all throughout Bonsai. So instead of villainously attacking each others opinions, we should listen to someone's opinion and then judge them based on the work they produce from their philosophy. As treeman said in his original post, there is good art and bad art. And usually the best artists don't bother arguing over these issues, and instead respect one another, listen to each other, develop their own philosophy, and produce the best art they can.

So maybe instead of arguing over trivial s**t like this, we should all go outside and do some bonsai!

[wrcmad]

I can't help but think of the soup nazi from Seinfeld.
NO WABI SABI for you!!!!

I thought it was a Wiggles song.

[dansai]

I've been following this thread with great interest and have had many thoughts along the way. I've had similar thoughts to what has been already posted but the thing that sticks with me is that not only what we like differs, but also the way we approach Bonsai and why we do it differs. All are valid. All employ similar methods even if the degree of expertise may differ. All produce Bonsai. Some just wish to have beautiful trees to enjoy, others wish to produce true copies of what they perceive as natural and others want to represent ideas and concepts with their trees.

When does Bonsai become Art? Probably somewhere between the second and third idea. Is this discussion about when does Bonsai become Art? Probably Not

Mike (Treeman) first put forward the idea of this thread in another, Stevens Casuarina thread, although has mentioned it before on a number of occasions including this one. Basically he has tried to say in these threads that we shouldn't be styling all our trees like Pine Bonsai. Fair call.

And if you read his opening of this thread he isn't actually trying to say that this way of doing things is wrong, although he does feel there there is something not right with it, but rather that it a result of it being accepted that that is the way things are done. Further down he says that we should be conscious of what we are doing and why.

What I have taken from this is that we need to have intent in what we do, rather than just do because it is automatic. Whatever our style. And that we can look to nature for inspiration. I don't think we can produce replicas of natural trees, but we can study trees in their natural state and try and incorporate their natural character into our designs. Or we can create something more abstract and portray a story or feeling. As long as we have intent.

[Rory]

I've been following this thread with great interest and have had many thoughts along the way. I've had similar thoughts to what has been already posted but the thing that sticks with me is that not only what we like differs, but also the way we approach Bonsai and why we do it differs. All are valid. All employ similar methods even if the degree of expertise may differ. All produce Bonsai. Some just wish to have beautiful trees to enjoy, others wish to produce true copies of what they perceive as natural and others want to represent ideas and concepts with their trees.

When does Bonsai become Art? Probably somewhere between the second and third idea. Is this discussion about when does Bonsai become Art? Probably Not

Mike (Treeman) first put forward the idea of this thread in another, Stevens Casuarina thread, although has mentioned it before on a number of occasions including this one. Basically he has tried to say in these threads that we shouldn't be styling all our trees like Pine Bonsai. Fair call.

And if you read his opening of this thread he isn't actually trying to say that this way of doing things is wrong, although he does feel there there is something not right with it, but rather that it a result of it being accepted that that is the way things are done. Further down he says that we should be conscious of what we are doing and why.

What I have taken from this is that we need to have intent in what we do, rather than just do because it is automatic. Whatever our style. And that we can look to nature for inspiration. I don't think we can produce replicas of natural trees, but we can study trees in their natural state and try and incorporate their natural character into our designs. Or we can create something more abstract and portray a story or feeling. As long as we have intent.

Very well said mate. Very well said.
Mike has already said he unfortunately hasn't styled just about any of his stock since realizing this natural style.
Therefore there is no point in asking him to give more definitive examples.
I don't understand why people keep asking for more?

I went into a fair bit of depth about casuarina in one of Stevens threads about exactly why I feel his tree doesn't look natural to me and what I would do to correct this. Hopefully as the years go by I will have well developed natural stock to show users. Then they can see and judge for themselves if they feel it is a style more worth pursuing or not.

We have many good native natural styled trees posted over the years on this excellent forum here already and trees that don't look quite natural posted here.
If users can't see that, then it will fall on deaf ears

[Rory]

I can't help but think of the soup nazi from Seinfeld.
NO WABI SABI for you!!!!

I thought it was a Wiggles song.

Cold wasabi.... Cold wasabi!

[Rory]

Just remember guys. Keep a cool calm head and from rational discussion comes wise thoughts.

Anger leads to the dark side, and generally expresses a lack of confidence or willingness to communicate.

Do the Yoda....Stay calm and cool, and hopefully you'll live to 900 years old too.... albeit in a swamp though

[Matt S]

I'm coming in late to this discussion but it's been a great read and I commend Mike for starting it knowing that it could get a little heated!

When I first started Bonsai I spent a lot of time learning the rules, mostly from old Japanese magazines. However it wasn't until a few years ago that I realised that a a lot of my trees were trained in a style that didn't represent the species, and I was particularly guilty of doing what Mike mentions - styling a deciduous to look like a pine. I am now slowly selling off these trees and replacing them with more natural looking specimens. However there are 2 points I'd like to make:

For me some species lend themselves to experimentation. For instance Olives can be trained into any style you can think of, they are like unformed clay and I've seen some magnificent sculptures that look little like their native state, but I love them just the same.

Secondly I think that despite my earlier trees no longer being to my taste they still performed an important task by teaching me the basic styles and techniques that I feel so comfortable using today. I believe that a good grounding in the guidelines that the Japanese produced is needed so you know when the rules can be broken and still keep the integrity of the design.

Have you ever looked at a Henri Matisse paper cutout? In his later work he was able to portray leaping, moving dancers with very basic shapes of paper. Now look at his early work. Very realistic, accurate paintings showing a sound understanding of human anatomy. In fact if you look at many of the modernists early works you'll see they had a solid background of conventional art before they dove into Impressionism, cubism or whatever.

In short, don't beat yourself up about your earlier efforts, they gave you the grounding that allows you to now produce work that is closer to your ideals, much more so than if you plunged straight into naturalistic designs from the start.

Matt.

[Andrew Legg]

I think we overcomplicate this guys. It boils down to what defines bonsai? Is it a Japanese art form of trees in pots, or is it a global catch-all for trees in pots. The Japanese have a well developed style of tree, and it is for example clearly distinct from say a Chinese style. This type is something they have developed over many years and it is synonymous with their culture in many regards. But, it changes over time. Remember even Kimura himself was once a rebel who's trees were not appreciated by the establishment. Now they are fawned over.

If you look at bonsai as a global phenomenon then the book is open. Why? Because when you take a formula of tree + pot and use this to create something of your own, then it is your own culture and identity that will be reflected in the outcome, but, only if you are uninfluenced by the Japanese art of bonsai. Then your bonsai can be whatever you want it to be. Will it be any good, well, that's subjective, but your audience will soon establish this. Whether it needs to be any good to make you happy is yet again another question.

So the problem is what exactly? Well, the problem is that we all receive tuition in bonsai with the Japanese style trees as the baseline for our beginner's books. So we are never uninfluenced by their art form. Which beginners book can you tell me about which does not have a summary on styles and rules/guidelines. If bonsai is to be allowed to develop it' sown cultural identities in different parts of the world, then it must be taught differently. Students should be taught horticulture and then left too it. Or, if you wish for more easy on the eye results, just horticulture and basic design principles applicable to all art. Rhyme, rythm, balance etc etc.

I have an ongoing fun debate with a friend. It's about three vacuum cleaners in Perspex boxes at some la de dah gallery somewhere. He says it' art. I say it's rubbish, at best a conversation piece. There is a heck of a lot of art out there, but not much is particularly good. It's the same for bonsai. The outcome will depend on your objective, and to a significant extent, whether you are any good at pulling it off. Whether folks will like it . . . . . Who knows.