Leigh Taafe wrote:I am very aware of what a forum is, and am also well and truly robust enough to take both positive and negative feedback, most would be aware it comes with the job.
I was only making a point that when considering whether you like it or not, we were governed by a number of parameters and we did not have a "golden opportunity to make something really unique".
If your ''hands were tied'' and you were forced to do this to the tree, fine, accepted. (that information was not available at the time of my post) It doesn't change the result nor does in change the fact the thread was not hijacked.
Although now it has been by you Leigh.
Last edited by treeman on June 19th, 2018, 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
how do you think people would feel if he walked into our 'national collection', had his way with a 50 year old tree and said 'just give it 15 years, trust me'
Mbunro wrote:i tend to enjoy your bluntness Treeman, but not sure i agree on this one..
if your comfortable would you be willing to give some insight into the direction you would have liked to see it go.
Comfortable? yes absolutely, willing? no not here.
treeman wrote:
Comfortable? yes absolutely, willing? no not here.
C’mon Treeman, base criticism with no explanation of what you would have (liked to have seen) done better is a bit blunt. You’re more than just an armchair critic.
For my money, it is a beautiful transformation. Lowering the branches (I know ‘seen it a million times’) really helped to ground and also give some body to what could otherwise have looked like a tall leggy and bare (at least up to a point) tree. Could be lightened up a bit (some branches removed, in particular up in the crown) to give it a more feminine and ‘spare’ look, which I think would work with the trunk.
I have to agree with both sides in this... Yes there is a fairly formulaic approach to pines - live with what the trunk has done, bend the branches sharply down, put some wiggle into them, and cove up the long bare bits on the branches with the foliage from higher layers. It is a routine. If the trunk is great, it works well.
On the other hand, having seen the tree:
The tree has age, but significant problems - the trunk is slender for the volume of foliage, and doesn't do a lot, the only useful branches arise from the top third or so, and are very long before you get to useful foliage. As a solution for a heritage tree, I believe what he has done is as good as it can be. Ideally, grafting foliage closer in, reducing the foliage mass by about 80%, and highlighting the trunk as best you can, might create an interesting literati but given the situation, it's not likely.
If we want more interesting pine trees than the "formula" we may need to grow the trunks better, and keep the branch foliage tighter as they grow. We have here the results of what happened in the '70s, '80s and '90s. Our expectations may have changed since then.
Incidentally, I saw another "formula" demonstration at the CBS club on the Saturday, on a "round the pole" trained juniper - quite large and old, but little taper, no low branches, and possibly not ideally trained. Mauro managed to inflect the curves of the trunk with some very well placed shari that made a fairly average tree move very well. Skill works.
I am not sure that yet more "make a bonsai in 2/3/5 hours" demonstrations are what we really need. There seems to be relatively little attention shown to how to GROW bonsai, over years, developing trunks with interesting shapes, and credible taper, ornamented with well placed branches, and not cloaked in stereotypical foliage masses that hide how awful the branches are. It doesn't make for an interesting show, but it seems to be where we need the most attention. Progression photos on this site are invaluable for this - cheers to Rory for his contributions!
treeman wrote:Disappointing to me. Yet another golden opportunity to make something really unique, once again turned into a ''Japanese'' version of beauty. Formulaic. Where is the individuality? Every modern demonstrator is the same.
Hi
I would be interested to know exactly what you would have done differently
Im also a little confused by your formulaic concerns considering i have read a few posts here with a distinct formula
The tree in question looks like a bonsai
Who here on this forum is producing unique individual bonsai ? ? If there is such a thing
I am interested in what you would consider doing to the tree, given your experience and high standards. And this is a well-run forum - if your comments are a constructive alternative there will be no problems.
I gave my thoughts about possibilities in the last post. (And yes, I don't like "formula" trees.)
There's a heck of a lot more to Mauro's work than you saw in a single example. If you can, go and see his demo at the Illawarra Bonsai Society.
I am lucky enough to have had a Scots pine given a new lease on bonsai beauty by him, last Saturday. When I've got photos of it I'll post them here.
It seems to me that some people on this forum enjoy a nice, fiery argument. Well, OK, but see to it that it has a solid base and isn't a rehash of things said many times before.
Lisa
Last edited by LLK on June 19th, 2018, 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If we want more interesting pine trees than the "formula" we may need to grow the trunks better, and keep the branch foliage tighter as they grow. We have here the results of what happened in the '70s, '80s and '90s. Our expectations may have changed since then.
I was lucky enough to attend on Tuesday night a great opportunity to watch an artist at work, the Bonsai that was created was far from “formulaic”. Many thanks to the Illawarra Club.
