Bonsai design

[wrcmad]

.... I feel to reduce more 'stylised' trees to a 'caricature' is a little unfair and diminishes the work of the old masters like Kimura and Nagato etc. They certainly could not be considered noobs with too little vision to see a tree for what it was.

I don't think using the term 'caricature' diminishes anyone's work. It is not used as a derogatory term, or with any negative connotations at all. It just is what it is.
Kimura, for example, is the one who first turned a tree on it's head. Nothing natural about that.
I also note that Treeman used one of Kimura's more famous trees as an example of what is 'Unnatural' in the above post.

maybe when i perfected this skill, all of my trees will be styled like the cookie cutter Japanese bonsai. I love those classic Japanese bonsai, they started me on this hobby.

I'm with you bki.
Love the classic looking trees.
However, I will put a footnote here regarding the frequently used term "cookie-cutter":

... This concept of cookie cutter, of classic, of generally-accepted stylistic rules and principles – that’s a western concept applied to a community of bonsai that most people simply haven’t experienced in depth nor understand.
Ryan Neil

[squizzy]

What a thought provoking discussion

Nothing to add yet as I think I am still confused ( a lot like the feeling I get every time I start to work on my trees) Am I the only one? Pictures are definitely helping. Thanks Mike. Although as you say some fall into both categories

squizz

[kcpoole]

Does anyone agree with my point of view here?

Err No!

Of all those trees you posted, they all look like quite nice developed trees and at first look seem to be Bonsai to me of varying styles and grooming detail.
None look Awkward ,contrived and or out of place
they are just different interpretations on the art and the artists has created each tree in their own styles with the trees features in mind.

Having said that, I have a Formal upright Trident maple on my bench that I think might cause you apoplexy , but hey that is one of the styles I enjoy

Ken

[Rory]

Rory, as far as I'm concerned, what's 'fashionable' is not a fixed point in time. Whether it's highly stylised or naturalistic, it doesn't matter. You at this point in time, feel like recreating a tree in miniature is the pinnacle. That is fair enough, but I feel to reduce more 'stylised' trees to a 'caricature' is a little unfair and diminishes the work of the old masters like Kimura and Nagato etc. They certainly could not be considered noobs with too little vision to see a tree for what it was. The fact is that their end goal was just different from what you are aspiring too. I'll be damned if there are wild JBP's out there with short, stout trunks and ridiculous amounts or ramification, or wild shimpaku juniper with quite the amount of swirling deadwood as they use and clouds of foliage. Their 'styles' weren't popular at fist either, and in fact, a more naturalistic style was popular at the time.

I commend you for striving towards your own style and expression of what the trees truly are, but never forget, what you see is what YOU see. There are reams of scientific and philosophical papers stating as much. I look forward to seeing and being inspired by the fruits of your labour, but will also continue to enjoy and be inspires by other, more stylised trees of equal quality.

That is a very well said post. It made me think a lot. That is definitely food for thought.

.... I feel to reduce more 'stylised' trees to a 'caricature' is a little unfair and diminishes the work of the old masters like Kimura and Nagato etc. They certainly could not be considered noobs with too little vision to see a tree for what it was.

I don't think using the term 'caricature' diminishes anyone's work. It is not used as a derogatory term, or with any negative connotations at all. It just is what it is.
Kimura, for example, is the one who first turned a tree on it's head. Nothing natural about that.
I also note that Treeman used one of Kimura's more famous trees as an example of what is 'Unnatural' in the above post.

Yes, I certainly didn't mean the term 'caricature' in a derogatory term either. Like I have previously said, I do love trees that have clearly had a massive amount of high quality work applied of course, and just because it may not look natural to me, doesn't diminish my admiration for their skill at all.

Funny that when I collected mine, the branches were dead straight for about 3M with the occasional wisp of foliage. and a sprig or 2 of green at the end. It was jut one of 100s the same, so i am thinking that is how the naturalists would style it. if one was to create that in miniature then it would look really silly IMHO.
Similar thing with casuarina i reckon.

Ken

Yes, I do get that. There will always be 'scrawny' wild trees out there, and yes, some of them will of course look rather sick or perhaps they may have been severely attacked or diseased or just downright 'plain', and I'm sure it is up to the discretion of the owner of the tree, as to which form of 'wild' they choose to embody in their tree.

having said that, I am happy to be proved wrong when someone gets around to posting some examples rather than still just talking about how we are all doing it wrong.
Ken

Ken, I am very sorry if this thread has come across this way. If so, I am sincerely sorry. In no way do I mean for my opinion to be saying others are growing their trees 'wrong'. It is always about preference. Again, I apologize if it is perceived this way. I am only trying to convey food for thought as to a type of bonsai tree that I aspire to. Whether it becomes mainstream or not, as objectors have pointed out doesn't make it right or wrong, but just a different approach.

[Rory]

A lot of the bonsai that are styled like bonsai and not like trees are almost like a caricature on life.

I reckon Rory nailed it. "... a caricature..."
I didn't understand how much the Japanese love caricature until I had visited Japan. It is a cultural part of their artistic expression and enjoyment.
From the flamboyant and outlandish to the simple and direct, even the more "basic" artwork can still be visually striking.
It tells a story. This type of art form demands great emotional involvement from the viewer.
It involves Japanese cultural nuances. Japan's history, language and worldview are woven into a great deal of caraciture and anime on many levels. Some shows are takeoffs on Japanese history or raid Japanese mythology for story ideas.
They surround themselves in it. Advertisements, billboards, signage, flyers, TV, computer games. They invented anime, and they even try to imitate it in fashion.
Have you ever walked through Shibuya?

carac1.jpg

carac2.jpg

Caricature aims to depict very discernible and identifiable features, by exaggerating them to make an image instantly recognisable, while not look much at all like that which it represents. Here is an example:
Here is a good example:

carac9.jpg

I think this caricature carries over into the Japanese bonsai art form. To use examples of how very discernible and identifiable characteristics are used to represent that which they are trying to depict, here are some examples with trees.:

carac4.jpg

carac5.jpg

carac6.jpg

carac7.jpg

carac8.jpg

This as well, is a very well articulated post of they way I see many of the bonsai trees today as contrived. It isn't wrong, and I certainly didn't mean that. I do see that a lot of people may be just more 'artistic' than me in the way they want to perceive a tree.

[kcpoole]

Yes, I do get that. There will always be 'scrawny' wild trees out there, and yes, some of them will of course look rather sick or perhaps they may have been severely attacked or diseased or just downright 'plain', and I'm sure it is up to the discretion of the owner of the tree, as to which form of 'wild' they choose to embody in their tree.

having said that, I am happy to be proved wrong when someone gets around to posting some examples rather than still just talking about how we are all doing it wrong.
Ken

Ken, I am very sorry if this thread has come across this way. If so, I am sincerely sorry. In no way do I mean for my opinion to be saying others are growing their trees 'wrong'. It is always about preference. Again, I apologize if it is perceived this way. I am only trying to convey food for thought as to a type of bonsai tree that I aspire to. Whether it becomes mainstream or not, as objectors have pointed out doesn't make it right or wrong, but just a different approach.

Don't apologise as everyone is entitled to their own ideas and express their comprehension of each tree they style (and that is the correct term)
I refer to the OP who said

When we look at bonsai at the various shows, on line, in books etc we may think something is not quite right. Many if not all of the trees could appear to us as clones of each other or very similar to many others we have seen. As if they had been developed according to a set of rigid rules. Why is this? Well it's because they were! Perhaps they might not look like trees to us. I will show some examples of what I mean further on

That sorta kinda says we are all doing it wrong But as i quote below.

This thread has lots of comments about artisitic expression, painting, Art and stuff about how we have all these natives that are designed like Japanese styled trees, but no examples or pictures of what people are trying to achieve.
Ken

To break it down, describe in both words and pictures what you guys are trying to say, Post an individual tree and then describe what you see is Wrong with it, then describe how to fix it as per your own interpretations.

Posting a heap of trees showing off something without elaborating on each of them is pretty much useless

Let me post some pics to consider.

Of these they all look Contrived , Styled, Awesome / Whatever you like to label them, but all are bonsai by my definition.
I have no idea what the supposed fault with the first lot and features are with the second.

Ken

[bodhidharma]

I have no idea what the supposed fault with the first lot and features are with the second.

Agreed! And this thread is now just bumping it's gums about how we all see things differently! And human beings have known this for Century's.

[Reece]

Let me post some pics to consider. I regard some as having a ''natural feel'' to them and some that do not. Naturalistic styling is nothing new and the trees don't have to be minaturized versions of real trees. They are usually more idealized representations but still have an ''untouched'' feel about them to me. Also it is easier to achieve naturalism with deciduous trees than with pines and junipers IMO

For want of a better word I'll name the first group ''Natural'' and the second ''Unnatural'' There are also plenty of examples out there that I could only put half way between these two! Some of these trees may even fall into that group?? I have not included natives yet. Does anyone agree with my point of view here?

Group 1:

n1.JPG

n2.JPG

n3.JPG

n4.JPG

n5.JPG

n6.JPG

n7.JPG

n8.JPG

Group 2

u1.JPG

u2.JPG

u3.JPG

u4.JPG

u6.JPG

u5.JPG

u7.JPG

u9.JPG

I definitely see what you are getting at with this post Treeman, but for me I treat Bonsai the same way as I treat Music...

There is stuff I love, stuff I dislike and then just fillers.

I love the first few "natural looking" tress in group 1 but I also love the "cookie cutter" conifers in group 2 that you could almost put a stencil over. I also like the more natural conifers! (I adore conifers)

The only trees I dislike are 1 and 7 in group 2. I've never really like that style of deciduous bonsai.

The rest I can give or take. I appreciate them but that's about it so they are fillers.

I think as long as you like what you are doing, who cares?

[Reece]

.

[Reece]

Good discussion though!

[delisea]

Hi, I'm not a regular poster here, but one of Walter Pall's recent blog posts I think makes a good contribution to this discussion:

http://walter-pall-bonsai.blogspot.com. ... world.html

The artist, decides what is art and what is not. For what it's worth the first group of 'naturalistic' trees from Treeman are more pleasing to my eye.
What I really can't understand is why Australian's make endless maples, pines and junipers - oops put those worms back in the can.
Cheers, Symon

[treeman]

I also note that Treeman used one of Kimura's more famous trees as an example of what is 'Unnatural' in the above post.

I specifically chose that particular tree because everyone knows it and most people love it (including me) In fact when I first saw a picture of it 20 years ago I thought that this was the ultimate state of the art! I don't see it the same way now. Even though it is extrodinarily impressive and probably even more so in the flesh, I tend to look at these creations with massive, wild and twisted deadwood with a clean, neat dome of fresh foliage as kind of unmatched. One part is completely freeform and wild, the other domesticated and groomed. I still like it but I cannot help seeing it (and others) this way now. It's no big deal really. Just a different way of seeing things. Whatever satisfies you is the RIGHT thing to do. Many if not most of my trees have been styled in a ''traditional'' manner as they where started more than 20 years ago. I still like a lot of them and I'm not about to cut all the branches off and start again. However, now when I look at a trident maple with downswept branches I consider it a tree which was produced without due consideration of how deciduous trees actually grow. Some would not give a hoot about that and that is perfectly fine...for them.

[treeman]

I have no idea what the supposed fault with the first lot and features are with the second.

Agreed! And this thread is now just bumping it's gums about how we all see things differently! And human beings have known this for Century's.

Well obviously we all see things differently. That's what the discussion is about. Are you saying that the discussion is futile because you now realize that fact?

[treeman]

Of these they all look Contrived , Styled, Awesome / Whatever you like to label them, but all are bonsai by my definition.
I have no idea what the supposed fault with the first lot and features are with the second.

Well Ken, If those examples do not clearly illustrate to you the difference between them then I'm not sure that posting anymore will clarify things for you. But I'll try! What are we trying to achieve in a bonsai. A green thing in a pot with a pleasing shape or a realistic representation of nature in minature? A sculpture which draws attention to the creator or a natural manifestation which gives the viewer a feeling of wild, untamed, natural spirit? It is not wrong to like one or the other or both. But isn't it important that we recognize the difference between them?

Which of these 2 trident maples has the ''natural spirit''

This one

m1.JPG

Or this one. Even though this tree may not represent exactly how tridents grow naturally. It is an idealized form. We don't need to rigidly stick to the natural form but IMO we(I) need to make the tree express naturalness. (if that makes sense)

m3.JPG

[bodhidharma]

Even though it is extrodinarily impressive and probably even more so in the flesh, I tend to look at these creations with massive, wild and twisted deadwood with a clean, neat dome of fresh foliage as kind of unmatched. One part is completely freeform and wild, the other domesticated and groomed.

I guess it would depend on how one looks at it. If we read Peter Chan's book "Bonsai Masterclass" where he is talking about wabi/sabi, then Kimura has captured this perfectly. Again, different strokes for different folks.

Well obviously we all see things differently. That's what the discussion is about. Are you saying that the discussion is futile because you now realize that fact?

No discussion is ever futile Mike, having known for a very long time that people seeing things differently is what makes us all unique, and ultimately will be the end result of this thread, we all in our own way strive to leave an impression on our chosen endeavour (Bonsai in this case) and we all have a little bit of ego attached to that endeavour, but, as i said earlier, it has all been done before. One only needs to travel to Japan to understand that. I think we would all like to have a Masterpiece which is inherently ours but we get our idea's from the Masterpieces that have gone before and i for one would love to have just one in this lifetime, if it is possible. This thread encourages me to keep trying and again i reiterate, a great topic.