TREE HEIGHT
-
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 2221
- Joined: April 26th, 2010, 11:47 pm
- Favorite Species: Maple
- Bonsai Age: 0
- Bonsai Club: CBS
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 475 times
- Been thanked: 228 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
I think the only useful point is that a good solid trunk, in relation to the height, always looks better than something that's weedy. Unfortunately humans think that if X is good, then 5xX is going to be better, when it may not be true at all. Hence we get trident maples that look like Jabba the Hut, to great acclaim, just because they are excessively "good", when the requirement to reflect nature is completely forgotten. If you are analysing in terms of numbers, you're not looking at the tree as art at all.
I'm reminded of human breeding of dogs, where a flat face has been a quality admired in pug dogs. Human competitiveness (flatter must be better) now produces show-winning dogs that can barely breathe. When we agree on a "standard", and figure that "more = better" we lose sight of the point of the exercise. Which to my mind is a tree in a pot that closely connects us with the real, natural world, and that nasty undefinable word called "art". Much more difficult. And it doesn't score points easily.
Just my 2c. Putting off doing some real work.
Gavin
I'm reminded of human breeding of dogs, where a flat face has been a quality admired in pug dogs. Human competitiveness (flatter must be better) now produces show-winning dogs that can barely breathe. When we agree on a "standard", and figure that "more = better" we lose sight of the point of the exercise. Which to my mind is a tree in a pot that closely connects us with the real, natural world, and that nasty undefinable word called "art". Much more difficult. And it doesn't score points easily.
Just my 2c. Putting off doing some real work.
Gavin
- treeman
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: August 15th, 2011, 4:47 pm
- Favorite Species: any
- Bonsai Age: 25
- Location: melbourne
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 578 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
Agree completely Gavin. I am also wainting for the day when all these ''Kimura style'' pines and Junipers with their perfectly groomed interchangable crowns begin to be seen for what they are. Surely bonsai of all things should not be about cloning but about individuality..GavinG wrote:I think the only useful point is that a good solid trunk, in relation to the height, always looks better than something that's weedy. Unfortunately humans think that if X is good, then 5xX is going to be better, when it may not be true at all. Hence we get trident maples that look like Jabba the Hut, to great acclaim, just because they are excessively "good", when the requirement to reflect nature is completely forgotten. If you are analysing in terms of numbers, you're not looking at the tree as art at all.
I'm reminded of human breeding of dogs, where a flat face has been a quality admired in pug dogs. Human competitiveness (flatter must be better) now produces show-winning dogs that can barely breathe. When we agree on a "standard", and figure that "more = better" we lose sight of the point of the exercise. Which to my mind is a tree in a pot that closely connects us with the real, natural world, and that nasty undefinable word called "art". Much more difficult. And it doesn't score points easily.
Just my 2c. Putting off doing some real work.
Gavin
Mike
- wrcmad
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 547
- Joined: April 25th, 2014, 10:57 pm
- Favorite Species: Maple, Pine, Fig
- Bonsai Age: 34
- Location: Northern NSW
- Has thanked: 135 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
Not sure I agree with bonsai having "the requirement to reflect nature". I always saw it as a "representation" of nature... and that is what gives bonsai it's artistic element.GavinG wrote:I think the only useful point is that a good solid trunk, in relation to the height, always looks better than something that's weedy. Unfortunately humans think that if X is good, then 5xX is going to be better, when it may not be true at all. Hence we get trident maples that look like Jabba the Hut, to great acclaim, just because they are excessively "good", when the requirement to reflect nature is completely forgotten. If you are analysing in terms of numbers, you're not looking at the tree as art at all.
I'm reminded of human breeding of dogs, where a flat face has been a quality admired in pug dogs. Human competitiveness (flatter must be better) now produces show-winning dogs that can barely breathe. When we agree on a "standard", and figure that "more = better" we lose sight of the point of the exercise. Which to my mind is a tree in a pot that closely connects us with the real, natural world, and that nasty undefinable word called "art". Much more difficult. And it doesn't score points easily.
Just my 2c. Putting off doing some real work.
Gavin
While some would argue that mirroring natural trees is the aim of bonsai, it has been stated before on this forum that, in general, mirror images of natural trees tend to look not so good in bonsai pots.
Artistic or aesthetic ratios are not a "standard" to use for analysis, and are referred to only as a guide because that is what looks pleasing to the eye... and that is the "point of the exercise", and bonsai as an art.
BTW, I like sumo tridents... and I also own a pug.
- Rory
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 2847
- Joined: January 23rd, 2013, 11:19 pm
- Favorite Species: Baeckea Phebalium Casuarina & Banksia
- Bonsai Age: 24
- Location: Central Coast, NSW
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 482 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
I could not agree more.GavinG wrote:I think the only useful point is that a good solid trunk, in relation to the height, always looks better than something that's weedy. Unfortunately humans think that if X is good, then 5xX is going to be better, when it may not be true at all. Hence we get trident maples that look like Jabba the Hut, to great acclaim, just because they are excessively "good", when the requirement to reflect nature is completely forgotten. If you are analysing in terms of numbers, you're not looking at the tree as art at all.
I'm reminded of human breeding of dogs, where a flat face has been a quality admired in pug dogs. Human competitiveness (flatter must be better) now produces show-winning dogs that can barely breathe. When we agree on a "standard", and figure that "more = better" we lose sight of the point of the exercise. Which to my mind is a tree in a pot that closely connects us with the real, natural world, and that nasty undefinable word called "art". Much more difficult. And it doesn't score points easily.
Just my 2c. Putting off doing some real work.
Gavin
If your goal is to produce a tree that looks like a tree, then use whatever ratio looks right for the tree.
If your goal is to produce an artistic interpretation in your eyes of a tree then also use those recommended practises.
But I would be saddened to think that new members or a novice would take advice of producing more aust. native material and strive for a set ratio because it is 'generally' used on northern hemisphere material to great acclaim. I stand by my opinion that Pup is right in that our native trees are much higher in their ratios. The majority of eucs don't have to be growing in a forest setting to develop a high ratio, for the majority, it is their growth pattern. I personally do not think that our natives need to be compromised because they wouldn't look good being displayed like they grow in the wild.
I don't feel this thread is pointless at all, and in fact I feel it is the opposite, (not for the sake of saying you should or shouldn't strive for a set pattern), but more so to make the grower think about what they are producing and what they want their end product to reflect. For myself, I want my trees to look like trees. Some will be 6:1, some will be 40:1 But on the whole, a lot of our more famous native material just doesn't normally exhibit the 6:1 said ratio in nature. Whether you want to reflect that beautiful imagery of our strong tall trees that our natives develop in your bonsai is up to you.
Again, this is and I am not saying there is anything at all wrong with a 6:1 ratio, I am saying think what looks best for the tree you are growing, rather than what looks best as a bonsai.
Rory
I style Bonsai naturally, just as they would appear in the wild.
Central Coast, NSW
Bonsai: Casuarina Leptospermum Banksia Phebalium Baeckea Melalueca Ficus
Growing Australian natives as Bonsai: viewtopic.php?p=289480#p289480
Buying and repotting Native nursery material: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=30724
Growing tips for Casuarina as Bonsai: viewtopic.php?p=244995#p244995
How to reduce moss from the trunk without damaging the bark: viewtopic.php?p=295227#p295227
I style Bonsai naturally, just as they would appear in the wild.
Central Coast, NSW
Bonsai: Casuarina Leptospermum Banksia Phebalium Baeckea Melalueca Ficus
Growing Australian natives as Bonsai: viewtopic.php?p=289480#p289480
Buying and repotting Native nursery material: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=30724
Growing tips for Casuarina as Bonsai: viewtopic.php?p=244995#p244995
How to reduce moss from the trunk without damaging the bark: viewtopic.php?p=295227#p295227
- kcpoole
- Perpetual Learner
- Posts: 12275
- Joined: November 12th, 2008, 4:02 pm
- Favorite Species: Maple
- Bonsai Age: 15
- Bonsai Club: the School Of Bonsai
- Location: Western Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 86 times
- Contact:
Re: TREE HEIGHT
We are growing Bonsai last time i checked so I am going to grow what looks best as a bonsaiRory wrote: Again, this is and I am not saying there is anything at all wrong with a 6:1 ratio, I am saying think what looks best for the tree you are growing, rather than what looks best as a bonsai.
you seem to be fixated on the ration of 6:1. All references of tree dimensions speaks of a range of ratio of 6:1 - 12:1 creating a balanced tree
That means that any tree trunk 20mm diameter can be anywhere between 120mm and 240mm tall, to be in that range. All of my natives i am growing have trunks 2 or more times that diameter, and none of them are more than 500mm tall.
Again why is the discussion about ratios relevant?
no one that i know of goes around measuring and calculation it on trees on display ( unless the topic comes up here again). We just look and know because we understand the proportions look about right on our trees/
Ken
Check out our Wiki for awesome bonsai information www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki
What is Bonsai? http://www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki/index.php?title=Bonsai
What should I do now? http://www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki/index.php?title=Newbie
How do I grow a Bonsai? http://www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki/index. ... _a_Bonsai?
Visit a Bonsai nursery to see some real nice trees http://www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki/index. ... _Nurseries
What is Bonsai? http://www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki/index.php?title=Bonsai
What should I do now? http://www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki/index.php?title=Newbie
How do I grow a Bonsai? http://www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki/index. ... _a_Bonsai?
Visit a Bonsai nursery to see some real nice trees http://www.ausbonsai.com.au/wiki/index. ... _Nurseries
- wrcmad
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 547
- Joined: April 25th, 2014, 10:57 pm
- Favorite Species: Maple, Pine, Fig
- Bonsai Age: 34
- Location: Northern NSW
- Has thanked: 135 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
Well said.Rory wrote:
If your goal is to produce a tree that looks like a tree, then use whatever ratio looks right for the tree.
If your goal is to produce an artistic interpretation in your eyes of a tree then also use those recommended practises.
- wrcmad
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 547
- Joined: April 25th, 2014, 10:57 pm
- Favorite Species: Maple, Pine, Fig
- Bonsai Age: 34
- Location: Northern NSW
- Has thanked: 135 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
Anyone willing to say they wouldn't give their right arm for this?
It was sold at the sales tables at the Green Club in 2014.
Ratio - 1.25:1
It was sold at the sales tables at the Green Club in 2014.
Ratio - 1.25:1
Last edited by wrcmad on January 26th, 2016, 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Rory
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 2847
- Joined: January 23rd, 2013, 11:19 pm
- Favorite Species: Baeckea Phebalium Casuarina & Banksia
- Bonsai Age: 24
- Location: Central Coast, NSW
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 482 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
Sorry, but to me it just looks contrived. Just my opinionwrcmad wrote:Anyone willing to say they wouldn't give their right arm for this?
It was sold at the sales tables at the Green Club in 2014.
Ratio - 1.25:1
However I'm sure the ancient Egyptians would have paid more than a limb for it.
Last edited by Rory on January 26th, 2016, 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rory
I style Bonsai naturally, just as they would appear in the wild.
Central Coast, NSW
Bonsai: Casuarina Leptospermum Banksia Phebalium Baeckea Melalueca Ficus
Growing Australian natives as Bonsai: viewtopic.php?p=289480#p289480
Buying and repotting Native nursery material: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=30724
Growing tips for Casuarina as Bonsai: viewtopic.php?p=244995#p244995
How to reduce moss from the trunk without damaging the bark: viewtopic.php?p=295227#p295227
I style Bonsai naturally, just as they would appear in the wild.
Central Coast, NSW
Bonsai: Casuarina Leptospermum Banksia Phebalium Baeckea Melalueca Ficus
Growing Australian natives as Bonsai: viewtopic.php?p=289480#p289480
Buying and repotting Native nursery material: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=30724
Growing tips for Casuarina as Bonsai: viewtopic.php?p=244995#p244995
How to reduce moss from the trunk without damaging the bark: viewtopic.php?p=295227#p295227
- treeman
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: August 15th, 2011, 4:47 pm
- Favorite Species: any
- Bonsai Age: 25
- Location: melbourne
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 578 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
Rory wrote:Sorry, but to me it just looks contrived.
It looks contrived because it is contrived. (actually that's not strickly correct. You can have something contrived which doesn't appear to be so the person who styled this tree made no attempt to hide it or did not even consider that aspect) Pine trees don't actually grow like that naturally. Only in manicured Japanese gardens. That is not to say it isn't of the highest quality work...it is. But the more I look at modern bonsai and conifers in particular, the more I'm getting really bored with these interchagable neat pagoda crowns. And that's why I'm becoming less interested in all the current ''master demonstrators'' doing the rounds who will just make another tree which looks like this one. There's a new wind-a-blowin my friend....It hasn't reached everywhere yet but it will.....
Last edited by treeman on January 27th, 2016, 11:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mike
- Matt S
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 756
- Joined: February 21st, 2015, 8:57 am
- Favorite Species: Olive
- Bonsai Age: 30
- Bonsai Club: S.A. Bonsai Society, Victorian Native Bonsai Club
- Location: Adelaide
- Has thanked: 538 times
- Been thanked: 441 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
I love these threads but I always seem to come late to the discussion!
The original question - why do we see so many thinner trunked bonsai in Australia? I think there are 2 main reasons:
1. Inexperienced bonsai people are usually keen to get to the ramification part of creating their trees. Growing large thick trunks and branches can be frustrating for a novice who wants to get stuck into their trees, and they want something in a bonsai pot as quickly as possible. Added to that is the fact we haven't been practicing bonsai for as long as most countries and that means fewer experienced people who will correct the novice efforts. I still have a couple of my original trees with skinny trunks and well ramified branches but I have been slowly getting rid of them. They taught me how to develop branches, but it's time to let them go in favour of better trees.
2. Traditional bonsai subjects (pines, junipers, deciduous) haven't been growing in Australia for very long, nothing longer than the first European settlement. Therefore we don't have the same ancient trees with massive trunks to inspire us. The obvious exception are the Australian natives but these haven't been used as a bonsai subject for very long, and for some reason a lot of people don't like working with them.
Actually I just thought of another reason - fashion. Massive trunks and helmet like apexes are all the rage in Europe and Japan atm. Maybe Australians are less interested in staying fashionable?
As for the 'correct' dimensions - I think a thicker trunk will always give a tree a feeling of age and power which I like but it's always down to the artist and the image they are trying to convey. In any art there will be the traditionalists and the mavericks and there will always be room for both. I still think that a novice should know the traditional rules before charging off but that's another discussion.
Matt.
The original question - why do we see so many thinner trunked bonsai in Australia? I think there are 2 main reasons:
1. Inexperienced bonsai people are usually keen to get to the ramification part of creating their trees. Growing large thick trunks and branches can be frustrating for a novice who wants to get stuck into their trees, and they want something in a bonsai pot as quickly as possible. Added to that is the fact we haven't been practicing bonsai for as long as most countries and that means fewer experienced people who will correct the novice efforts. I still have a couple of my original trees with skinny trunks and well ramified branches but I have been slowly getting rid of them. They taught me how to develop branches, but it's time to let them go in favour of better trees.
2. Traditional bonsai subjects (pines, junipers, deciduous) haven't been growing in Australia for very long, nothing longer than the first European settlement. Therefore we don't have the same ancient trees with massive trunks to inspire us. The obvious exception are the Australian natives but these haven't been used as a bonsai subject for very long, and for some reason a lot of people don't like working with them.
Actually I just thought of another reason - fashion. Massive trunks and helmet like apexes are all the rage in Europe and Japan atm. Maybe Australians are less interested in staying fashionable?
As for the 'correct' dimensions - I think a thicker trunk will always give a tree a feeling of age and power which I like but it's always down to the artist and the image they are trying to convey. In any art there will be the traditionalists and the mavericks and there will always be room for both. I still think that a novice should know the traditional rules before charging off but that's another discussion.
Matt.
- Charliegreen
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 10th, 2015, 10:21 pm
- Favorite Species: Black Pine
- Bonsai Age: 0
- Location: QLD
Re: TREE HEIGHT
"Inexperienced bonsai people are usually keen to get to the ramification part of creating their trees."
Spot on Matt, Nearly all my first trees have this issue. I airlayered two just last weekend in an attempt to correct.
I think its probably an inevitable part of the learning process with the sparse resources we have in Australia and local inhabitants thinking that they can free style it.
Spot on Matt, Nearly all my first trees have this issue. I airlayered two just last weekend in an attempt to correct.
I think its probably an inevitable part of the learning process with the sparse resources we have in Australia and local inhabitants thinking that they can free style it.
-
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 143
- Joined: April 29th, 2015, 3:38 pm
- Favorite Species: Maples and Pines
- Bonsai Age: 2
- Location: The Hills, Sydney
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: TREE HEIGHT
Looks amazing wrcmad, it's clearly a tree that was carefully looked after and meticulously crafted for every year of it's life. You don't get yamadori looking like that, it needs to be purposely grown from the start that way.wrcmad wrote:Anyone willing to say they wouldn't give their right arm for this?
It was sold at the sales tables at the Green Club in 2014.
Ratio - 1.25:1
- wrcmad
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 547
- Joined: April 25th, 2014, 10:57 pm
- Favorite Species: Maple, Pine, Fig
- Bonsai Age: 34
- Location: Northern NSW
- Has thanked: 135 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
As is most of the best rated, and most valuable art.Rory wrote:Sorry, but to me it just looks contrived. Just my opinion
Last edited by wrcmad on January 27th, 2016, 7:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
- jacques graulus
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 2
- Joined: December 16th, 2015, 8:23 pm
- Favorite Species: Acer
- Bonsai Age: 15
- Location: Near Brussels
- Contact:
Re: TREE HEIGHT
Rule of thumb (and only rule of thumb)
1cm trunk diameter = 6cm height
2,5cm trunk diameter = 15cm height
5 cm trunck diameter = 30cm height
and so on ...
1cm trunk diameter = 6cm height
2,5cm trunk diameter = 15cm height
5 cm trunck diameter = 30cm height
and so on ...
- treeman
- Aussie Bonsai Fan
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: August 15th, 2011, 4:47 pm
- Favorite Species: any
- Bonsai Age: 25
- Location: melbourne
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 578 times
Re: TREE HEIGHT
wrcmad wrote:
In Japan, the best rated and most valuable bonsai are Shimpaku Junipers that were shaped by nature. Their value lies in their trunks and branches not the clipped hedge (''art'') on top. That is only transitory and can always be changed. These are valued at 2 to five times any black pine. (maybe more...Jow might be able to clarify that) The whole point of bonsai was originally to capture the experience of nature in some way. That is where the true artisty is (or used to be). Modern bonsai has strayed from that concept in many circumstances. (IMO)As is most of the best rated, and most valuable art.
Last edited by treeman on January 28th, 2016, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mike