dansai wrote:I agree with you Mike. There is nothing attractive about this tree's presentation at all. The trunk looks like it would be interesting but is lost behind the clipped topiary style foliage. I don't care that the artist is famous or that it may have been done under a clients request. Don't like it. It may well have required great skill and many hours work but it completely lacks imagination and respect for the material
I came across some other trees recently that although not manicured to the point of Mike's example, just didn't sit right with me. I don't think its about natural styling or manicured styling, its about consistency of image. Trees with wild twisted trunks should express that in there branches too. Here's one example that although not overly manicured I feel has had its foliage just follow accepted styling rather than any art.
Twisted.jpg
And this one has an obviously wind, possibly salt laden wind, affect the trunk and a great lowest branch that is in sympathy with it. Then the second branch starts losing the plot and the apex belongs on a different tree.
Winswept trunk.jpg
Well thank you Dansai. I agree completely with all you say here.
Just a few comments on some of the other replys...If I may.
Rory, I know where you stand brother..
Gerard, non bonsai people don't matter. They can go watch Home and Away....again.
Pup,
You can pull me to pieces
I thought it (this thread) should have died long ago
Any thing this contrived has to be questioned
Adam.
#1, This is not art, it has nothing to do with art, and it does not require an artist to make it. It requires a technician.
#2, I'm not setting out to be rude or personal. I am however commenting on this particular work in a strong way because I feel strongly about it.
These works - more often than not - are held by the bonsai general community to be the state of the ''art''. It is not the only one of course, there are countless others but this one happens to be one of the more grotesque examples I've seen.
They are worked on by apprentices yes, but they are overseen by professionals. If this styling was requested by the owner of the tree, I do hope that some effort was made by the professional to convince him that this was not a desirable outcome. If not, that was the first mistake. The second mistake was to allow it to be proudly displayed on the internet which will only lead to the damming criticism it deserves. It is only a matter of time that this kind of thing will be seen by the majority of the bonsai community to be just plain awful and - as dansai has already said - disrespectful to this rare material.
If you would like me to clarify why I dislike it.....
Well, firstly (apart from what has been said already), Let's have another look - if you can bare to.
Are bonsai supposed to look like trees? Yes (unless I'm wrong). Does it look like a tree? No. I have seen more realistic images of trees in the Bugs Bunny show. There are no trees on this earth that could come close to it. Even if there were, they would not make good models. You may say that the intention was never to make a realistic image of a tree. Ok, so then you make an abstract or avant garde. ''Experimental'', ''Modern Art''. Even though I don't believe that ever was the intention, It falls short here as well. The very form of it is not pleasing to me. It is too tall, too straight, too even, too heavy and the top is in complete conflict with the base. When looking at it for long enough, my impression is that of a green mass which is descending. Moving down and spreading out rather that moving upward. And with more to flow down from above. Like someone tipping a giant can of green paint over some triangular object. (create your own image...)
Does it look like a bonsai? Not really. From a distance, even the most basic of bonsai give the impression of a tree of some sort. My first impression is a green hill. But not even a natural hill, a man made one.
When we observe good bonsai, we should not look for technique. In fact, ideally there should be no evidence of it. When I look at this thing, I see nothing but evidence of the process. The PROCESS not the result! It's almost like the intention was to demonstrate skill in technique rather than to create an image. Like I said I cannot say enough negative things about it!
I am not interested in it's history, who owns it, who made it, or their reasons, how long it took or anything else other than the image. I'm interested in the image in front of me and how it makes me feel. And so should any viewer. There should be no need for explanations or qualifications.
To place any work in the public eye, you should expect and even encourage comment. Positive or negative.
But yes, the technique seems to be the goal rather than the finished image these days. I think part of the problem with this is we have seen a lot of exposure of the styling of folk such as Bjorn or Mauro, and not enough of Shinji Suzuki - an absolute legend of natural styling. 
- it might as well be spray painted in red to make a STANDOUT STATEMENT 
