It isn't from Oz but yew gotta love it!

[anttal63]

Typical boy response... throw a joke when confounded by an honest answer...

yeah maybe a boy thang but still curious about my question. i already know that somewhere in the future someone of your talents will take care of it. just wondered how and when. with some trees i too know i'll catch up with it somewhere along the way, waiting for clear options to appear. others there is just a clear plan that cant be deviated. so wondered where ya goin with it. either way its all good and i look forward to the lesson.

[Victrinia Ridgeway]

Typical boy response... throw a joke when confounded by an honest answer...

yeah maybe a boy thang but still curious about my question. i already know that somewhere in the future someone of your talents will take care of it. just wondered how and when. with some trees i too know i'll catch up with it somewhere along the way, waiting for clear options to appear. others there is just a clear plan that cant be deviated. so wondered where ya goin with it. either way its all good and i look forward to the lesson.

The truth of the matter still rests in the fact that truly old trees have no taper whatsoever. Not to any discernable degree anyway (baring basal flare). So that would make the story of my tree somewhat middle aged... as the deadwood speaks of old trauma, and the trunk is showing signs of uniform thickening. If I decide to do something to lighten the visual impact of that upper trunk, it’ll be by carving, and shari work. My main motivation for considering that work is rooted in wanting to have the viewer’s eye end with a soft right. It is already happening to a degree with the start of that jin at the top. I would like the trunk to resolve in a pleasing fashion, which will help with the legitimate issue of the strong left bend.

The consequence of that work will be to introduce a further feeling of youth in the tree if not handled correctly. Trees that taper to nothing are young trees, pure and simple. I don’t hold that as a stylistic goal… so what may be considered a flaw to some is a simple lack of exposure to ancient conifers baring it self out. If you have never seen the pattern of no taper played out over and over, how would you know it was right?

But then again it goes back to my deeply held belief that it is ok to style a conifer like a deciduous tree… but it is NOT ok to style a deciduous tree to look like a conifer. Which is a statement on maturity. Ancient conifers have stylistic characters like a deciduous tree… multiple apexes, interesting movement in branch structure, rounded tops, etc… a leafy deciduous tree never gets the tall arrow pointing trunk, with downward swooping branches that depart from the trunk at no matter what level the same size all around. At least not to my visual experience.

Now if it exists naturally, in multiple instances… I’d like to see that. It would be endlessly fascinating.

Sorry… didn’t mean to ramble… I have a lot of opinions on this apparently. And you were the one who asked for a lesson.


V

[anttal63]

your rambling is always informative, i appreciate you taking the time to explain. do you have any photos you can post of these ancient conifers that inspire you so? thanks

[aaron_tas]

i love peoples differing views on topics of the elements of bonsai...

and very well put miss V.

but i love saying to people who tell me, "conifers dont grow like that", or "you can certainly NOT have that acer grow the way you have it there", i say...

well, THIS one did.

but i do agree with the pointy topped conifers, my opinion is that only a few of the conifer species should be seen with that super sharp arrow at the top.