treeman wrote:
I do not believe that we can place the art of bonsai together with other traditional art forms where complete freedom to create whatever comes from the human mind is acceptable.
My reasoning for this is simple. Bonsai has (or at least had, and for me, still has) a specific purpose.
From ''The Masters book of Bonsai'' (JBA),...... ''Bonsai is a tree or plant in a container and is therefore small in size, but yet in it's entirety expresses the beauty and volume of a tree growing in it's natural environment''
Ok, so from that and numerous other similar definitions, the purpose of bonsai is to express NATURE. In my mind as soon as a deviation from this concept becomes evident, the original purpose is diluted and the tree is rendered inferior.
If you believe that the purpose of bonsai has now changed and the goal is, or can be, to express a more vague concept of a tree (as some of the more abstract impressionist or avant garde art works) then the sky is the limit and you would be wrong to criticize a ball on a stick as someone's interpretation of a tree and being just as valid as any other bonsai. After all it has all the main features of a tree - roots, trunk, branches and leaves. You can no longer use the argument of ''trees don't grow like that''. To do so leaves you open to the counter argument of ''trees also don't grow the way they are styled in modern exhibitions either''. Why is one ok but the other is not?
You might consider this a ridiculous example but if you think about it, it is not. If there is no line drawn the definition becomes extremely elastic. So, of course there must be a line drawn and it should be quite narrow.
Obviously there should be quite some latitude given when evaluating trees. Even if the intention of the creator was the same - to express the image of a natural tree - there will always be many degrees of proficiency. And there will always be many degrees of success.
The modern manicured look seems to me to be - at least in part - a result of a deviation from the original concept (above) to the desire to compete with another's technique. The aim of perfection is the wrong road to take in this art form. Real natural beauty lies in imperfection. So after all that, I would have to say is there right and wrong? Maybe not. Are there superior or inferior bonsai when considered with the original concept in mind? There can be no other answer than yes!
My question is, how is it not?
If the definition/purpose of bonsai is/was solely to express nature once upon a time, how the 'nature' is expressed, and the qualities of nature that are being expressed are entirely up to the artists themselves. (By the way, was this definition written before or after the introduction of the use of wire in bonsai? If it was before, then we are ALL bastardising bonsai)
Traditional oriental paintings of nature are also supposed to express nature (the man who taught me to paint also painted in the traditional, oriental manner, and the language is used a LOT), but I'm yet to see a scroll painting done in ink that contains ANY photo-realistic renditions of nature.
18th Century Japanese:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... kei-zu.jpg
18th Century Dutch:
http://www.priory-fine-art.co.uk/Featur ... owers.aspx
Even though the Japanese silk screen contains more detail, the image itself feels more stylised. This is common among in MANY Japanese artforms (and arguably extends to the current iteration of bonsai in Japan). It's obviously a painting of something from nature, but it's very manicured, and sanitised, and it's apparent what the artist/client felt was more visually interesting/aesthetically pleasing, because all those things are accentuated beyond their natural state (every fibre on every feather is visible, for example). The Dutch example, while actually containing less detail, far more closely emulates the natural forms as a whole.
Here's another example. Having been involved in the aquarium industry too for a very long time, I saw the rising of a concept known as "The Nature Aquarium" in Japan. These planted aquariums were grown to EXPRESS the beauty of nature with a Japanese aesthetic. Beautiful, undoubtedly, but when you REALLY looked at them, did they ever truly represent a single existing ecosystem in nature? No! They gave the IMPRESSION of nature, and emphasised the aesthetically pleasing. They represent an idealised wilderness, not the thing itself.
See this link for some pretty nice examples of 'Nature Aquaria':
http://www.adaaust.com.au/gallery/gallery02.htm
Anyway, I get the feeling that the major point in contention is what is meant by "to express nature". There seem to be two definitions I have arrived upon from the reading of a few of the arguments being put forward in this thread and others (granted, there must be others).
A) A tree must closely approximate one in the nature to express nature
B) A tree expresses nature if it can evoke feelings for nature
This is not a debate that is only salient to bonsai. It's one that once upon a time raged on in ALL genres of art.
For example: When is a landscape painting no longer a landscape painting? Is a painting worth less if the particularities of its subject are not captured? At what point is it just laziness? etc.
I believe my previous example of impressionist art is quite appropriate for this debate.
Previous to the popularity of impressionism, paintings were meant to LITERALLY convey reality i.e. the more closely a painting resembled the subject, the better the art and the artist.
For centuries, this was the case.
Then some people turned up that thought they wanted to capture the ambience, and the feeling of the subject, even if it meant compromising on time-honoured rules like solid, defined forms, lines of perspective needing to be in place, and mixing your damned paints before applying them to the canvas.
Instead, impressionist paintings (as the name implies), give the IMPRESSION (i.e. the light, the mood, the 'energy') of the situation, the environment, the subject. The reaction to these paintings is far more emotional/evocative and less 'objective' (Oh yes, that's a beautiful rendition of an English Elm, it can be confused with no other tree... nyur nyur...).
Van Gogh died penniless because people at the time did not appreciate his approach to painting. They just considered them crap paintings. In reality, it was because their tastes didn't align with Van Gogh's.
As I said before, different people will prefer different approaches. One appeals more to those who appreciate the craft necessary to miniaturise a tree while still maintaining the holistic appearance (warts and all) of a wild one, and one will appeal more to those who feel more moved by a more idealised/derived form, or representation of nature (i.e. wow, I wish a tree that perfect/beautiful existed in nature...).
The fact that you feel more strongly about something doesn't mean others have to too. Or that judges/competitions must necessarily share your view.
And ultimately, what would the course of action be? To create a list of bonsai derived genres? Or just go from calling things bonsai to 'trees in a pot' (which would be hilariously ironic) if they don't fit our definition?
At the end of the day, it's all pretty arbitrary and we all grow trees in the way we like to, whether it's like the trees of yore, or a more modern, clean look, or a mixture of both. Sure, it would be nice to have recognition for your efforts and what you feel is a great (or dare I say it, the true...) expression of an artform, but art in its purist form has never been about popularity, nor should it. The only questions that really matter in the end are:
"Does it look like you want it to?"
And if the answer is "No", then:
"How can I make it do so?"
Cheers,
Owen
