AusBonsai

treeman wrote:

hugh grant wrote:

delisea wrote:Interesting material Neil, Any ideas about styling?
The Europeans appear to be styling their olives like the Japanese style junipers. I wonder what people think of this?

Noel_Trophy_2013_1.jpg

Noelanders-Trophy-2018-10.jpg

Cheers,
Symon

Interesting observation
This makes me think ... a question to all ... what is the indicator here suggesting that these are styled like “Japanese junipers” ? Keen to here peoples thoughts

It's pretty obvious I would have thought Hugh.

Actually they are not styled like Japanese junipers. They are styled like Japanese juniper bonsai.
The mandatory ''main branch sweeping down''. The rounded dome heads. The dense manicured ''pads''. The lack of visible tertiary branches. Al very easy, predictable and boring. Charming but boring and done to death.
I have many such predictable and boring trees....

It maybe Mike but I still appreciate the skill level involved , the carving on that deadwood, the tree/pot combo etc . I must admit though I do like that first olive that MAtts posted . Maybe a Walter Pall Tree?

Matt S - those ancient Olive pics are

I appreciate what I called the 'Japanese juniper styling' of olives. I think the makers intend them to be abstractions - they know they are not what olives look like.
It is probably more accurate to call it Italian styling as the Japanese are using less wire these days if the last two Kokufu are a guide.

The surface roots on the third olive tree posted by Matts look much like the exaggerated nabari on Japanese maples that people love to complain about.

I think some of the best naturalist trees (like the olive below) can be seen here: http://www.animabonsai.com/ Cheers,
Symon

Some great material there but I'm not a huge fan of Walter's ''tentacle'' style either. These don't look natural either as the work done on the branches is very obvious and intrusive.

This tree I like a lot. It looks like a real old wild olive. (probably because not much was done to it) Another difference between this image and the ''Japanese'' types is the question of perceived viewing distance. This olive (I believe Walter Pall's as well) is a near-distance image where we feel we are almost standing right up against the tree as we observe it. We can make out more detail in this case. Something like where the photo of the natural tree below was taken from. The Japanese images give us the perspective of viewing from a far greater distance. Perhaps several hundred metres? Here we have a discrepancy. The dead wood has much detail. The kind of detail which could only be seen from a near distance. Yet the foliage is representative of a distant image. To me this divergence of perspective renders the image fake looking. Lot's of thing to consider!

treeman wrote:
Here we have a discrepancy. The dead wood has much detail. The kind of detail which could only be seen from a near distance. Yet the foliage is representative of a distant image. To me this divergence of perspective renders the image fake looking. Lot's of thing to consider!

olivea1.JPG

That's a really interesting observation Mr Treeman. Many ways of seeing....

delisea wrote:
I think some of the best naturalist trees (like the olive below) can be seen here: http://www.animabonsai.com/

olive animabonsai.jpg

Cheers,
Symon

Oh wow. Those trees are awesome, thanks for sharing that link.

I am a massive OCD collector of bonsai images, but find that after some years it is just the same trees (or identically styled ones) being circulated and republished world wide. These are the first batch of trees that I have seen in a long time with a truly individual flavour.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk