Zelkova project

[Rory]

haha.... however.... I presume you mean after many decades, you plan on having the crown all up and around the tree, and if that first branch is going to be 1/3 of the way up, its going to be a very long time.
The problem as far as looking realistic is, Zelkovas don't eventually have their first branch 1/3 of the way up, its nearly always much lower.
And the other issue I have with this, is that I understand you have exceptional skill and patience to develop the branching like this, but I don't see them growing like this in nature. The branching is much more elongated and with little taper, unlike yours.

I would have thought you of all people would have taken a different approach to a natural version of a Zelkova. I wouldn't have tried with this material, because in my eyes it will never look natural, but each to their own.

[treeman]

haha.... however.... I presume you mean after many decades, you plan on having the crown all up and around the tree, and if that first branch is going to be 1/3 of the way up, its going to be a very long time.
The problem as far as looking realistic is, Zelkovas don't eventually have their first branch 1/3 of the way up, its nearly always much lower.
And the other issue I have with this, is that I understand you have exceptional skill and patience to develop the branching like this, but I don't see them growing like this in nature. The branching is much more elongated and with little taper, unlike yours.

I would have thought you of all people would have taken a different approach to a natural version of a Zelkova. I wouldn't have tried with this material, because in my eyes it will never look natural, but each to their own.

Rory, you are confusing ''natural'' vs ''looks'' natural. Natural does not perforce mean desirable.

[Rory]

I don’t believe I am confusing them at all.
The tree will never look natural in my opinion because of the points I made.
If you had material that was designed like I said, it would appear more natural in my opinion.

Natural trees look desirable to me.
I feel that you still have some ingrained methods of the rules in your technique. No offence.

The trees of Boom64 often resemble natural very well in my opinion.
Those are the kind of bonsai I aspire to.

I try as hard as I can to look at every aspect of the species in nature to create a natural looking tree, rather than to force an already aged material to reflect that.
I find that to really create natural looking trees of their wild counterpart requires you to grow them from a young age and be very mindful of letting your mind run free and really allow the tree to develop like it does in nature.

To me, this Zelkova will be just another intensely ramified clone of a common style that disallows any of the true nature of its wild growth. No offence intended Mike.

I have have parted with about 70% of my material that I find doesn’t reflect a natural looking tree. Personally I find it somewhat easy to grow material material. But for what it’s worth, I find that nearly everyone with a few exceptions, still develops their trees with a formulaic approach and it doesn’t look natural to me.

[Keep Calm and Ramify]

I find that to really create natural looking trees of their wild counterpart requires you to grow them from a young age and be very mindful of letting your mind run free and really allow the tree to develop like it does in nature.

This seems like an extremely vague statement Rory. To create natural looking trees simply by being mindful of letting your mind run free?
What about Technique? Are you relying on nature alone to style your trees to ascertain they look natural?

[Rory]

[quote=Rory post_id=306770 time=<a href="tel:1748695444">1748695444</a> user_id=5244]
I find that to really create natural looking trees of their wild counterpart requires you to grow them from a young age and be very mindful of letting your mind run free and really allow the tree to develop like it does in nature.

This seems like an extremely vague statement Rory. To create natural looking trees simply by being mindful of letting your mind run free?
What about Technique? Are you relying on nature alone to style your trees to ascertain they look natural?
[/quote]

I find that to really create natural looking trees of their wild counterpart requires you to grow them from a young age and be very mindful of letting your mind run free and really allow the tree to develop like it does in nature.

This seems like an extremely vague statement Rory. To create natural looking trees simply by being mindful of letting your mind run free?
What about Technique? Are you relying on nature alone to style your trees to ascertain they look natural?

That is not the technique. I was referring to not following the usually and conventional formulaic approach that most users take hoch is to develop a trunk, then deal with branching when the trunk is developed. This way of growing doesn’t work with a lot of material because by then it’s too late to try and get branching down low, and your branches won’t usually have a taper that looks like it was developed as the tree aged.

When I say to open your mind and not stick to convention there are a multitude of things that people naturally do, which promote a contrived tree:


Developing a thick sole trunk is one
-Most tees don’t grow like this. They fork very early and in many divisions. But this is nearly always practiced because it was taught endlessly as bonsai gained popularity. The old adage of using sacrifice branching to thicken the base of a trunk is a bad idea.
Look at most species (most). The ratio of their base, to the height of the tree is nearly always a caricature in bonsai. It hardly ever reflects nature. This is why I say, look at a tree in the wild, and even take this tree Zelkova as an example. Do the math. Look at the base of Mikes tree. Look at the base of one in nature. The ratio is incredibly different.

Having a tree where the branching is ramified so much, that it looks nothing like real life. Figs are nearly always the comedic example of this. Most branch in in nature is not tapered heavily like bonsai are. They have longer sweeping branch work.
Again, take a look at Zelkova branching… long graceful branches with division that you can identify, and not split so much that you can’t see the spread.
Cutting and developing high ramification takes a long amount of patience, but it’s counter productive if you want your tree to look natural.
I fear that this advice will simply be dismissed as lacking skill, but if you open your mind and listen and think about what I am conveying, you may see your trees very differently going forward.

This is just a drop in the ocean for the quirks that are made with bonsai development for the mainstream techniques.
If you look at Ryan Neil’s development, it’s nearly always this error made. He takes a wild tree trunk that was collected, then refines the bejesus out of it, so it has this nice start, and then with a comedic refinement that nature would laugh at.
His trees are always green helmets from that perspective.

Most trees multi-trunk early or have strong division early. However, this obvious trait is nearly always ignored.

When you look at tree in nature, you might see a big old tree in a paddock and think, wow, that’s highly ramified to have all those leaves coving all around like a giant balloon.
But the misconception is that you need to grow your bonsai to start out with a million divisions early, which is where it becomes a caricature and why it doesn’t look natural.
The strong division is usually mainly at the extremities, and not the interior. The interior generally has the longer sweeping branches with much less division than bonsai growers realize.

[Keep Calm and Ramify]

Cutting and developing high ramification takes a long amount of patience, but it’s counter productive if you want your tree to look natural.

What about if you want it to look old

[Rory]

Cutting and developing high ramification takes a long amount of patience, but it’s counter productive if you want your tree to look natural.

What about if you want it to look old

And that question my friend, is the exact reason most bonsai look contrived. The mindset of the last century had been…fatten your trunk first, then deal with everything else later.

It will eventually look old if you adhere to my advice. A sumo trunk is not what creates the illusion of age.

Trees in nature aren’t trunk chopped every year and start regrowing. This is the issue. Because this encourages an eventual caricature of the trunk. A trunk will naturally thicken and so some degree of course you can trunk chop, but doing so repeatedly and repeatedly is what encourages the ridiculous ratios you see in Japan.
If you have branching down low and keep it, it will naturally thicken your trunk over time, but more so it will develop a much more realistic thickening ratio rather than a contrived one.

My methods growing means I control the growth of the low branching by depending on what look you’re after and reducing the mass of growth if you want to slow down the lower trunks and branching.
I have a lot of patience and don’t belive that sitting on a constant ramification over decades produces an aged look.
It is applying the development to the entire process from start that creates a really good natural tree.
It will take longer perhaps yes, but I value the end result more than a very highly ramified tree that looks contrived to me, regardless of after decades of strict technique.

[TimS]

It really depends by what anyone means by 'natural'. Is there even such a thing as a natural looking tree?

Zelkova in nature, presuming no external major influences to change their habit, will grow into more of a semi-mature Oak-like shape (ie strongly upright, many primary branches with fewer ramifications on each creating the volume and a more vertical than wide silhouette).

Certainly, the best I've seen are in Jameison here in Victoria for examples of Zelkova in the wild, but to achieve that in pot form? Incredibly difficult and realistically you'd need the tree to be in a 70cm-150cm height to begin to demonstrate it.

But why is that preferential to a broom style? Because you could jump in the car, drive to Jameison and go "ah yes, that bonsai Zelkova looks like that big Zelkova over there."

On the other hand i detest this need that people worldwide have with having an incredibly wild, ancient trunk movement and then popping triangles and pads everywhere. Yawn fest. I've pretty much stopped watching all bonsai youtube content now because everyone is making the same trees.

I see the other side with this particular tree; in great respect to Mike for i hold his growing in high regard having been fortunate to visit his property, see and buy his trees on several occasions, at this moment i find the proportions of trunk to canopy 'off'. But he isn't suggesting this tree to be 'finished' or in anything other than development. I have seen this tree in person a few times, photos cannot explain the size and scope of it, and the scale of the work required to correct the issue of moving the growth back over the center of the tree. It's a dedication to a single tree i rarely see anyone bother to do, certainly i would have given up long ago.

My only tree i consider a 'natural style' is my Chinese Elm, and i do not refer to is as being natural. It may be natural style, or natural looking, or natural-esque. But it is an ape of elms in parklands, not an attempt to accurately portray a specific tree in nature. Nor could it ever be. It gets every single thing it needs to thrive, and is protected from any dangers i possibly can. This is distinctly not natural.

We as humans are so hideously limited creatively that we seek to follow what we are told is 'right' aesthetically, and simultaneously discourage attempts by others to do things differently and challenge our base ideas we hold so dear.

It's not a 'traditional' broom, or a 'natural' tree but I for one am looking forward to seeing the incremental but dedicated future of this Zelkova, because sure as sh*t i wouldn't be doing it and that's the exciting bit.

[Rory]

It really depends by what anyone means by 'natural'. Is there even such a thing as a natural looking tree?

Your whole post was very funny, made me laugh.

The quoted point above is made many times. There are many sticking points I would reply to you, with this:

I feel to overlook the ratio of trunk diameter to the height of the tree is a massive oversight and creates a bad look.
The lack of division in trunks is often what gives it a contrived feel.
The intense ramification from the get go, produces a contrived tree.
Placing a large leaved species in a small pot produces somewhat of a contrived look.
Short branching that has to have a division every few cm creates a contrived look.
Older bark, with a sudden development of new growth as you start development, is an icky look.
Perfectly and even spaced radial ramification spreading outwards is a big turn off for me.

So yes, to answer your question, there is easily main sticking points about what makes a tree look contrived versus some basic guidelines for replicating a tree to look more natural.

But if you’re just after a decent representation of the tree in nature, then all is well. These are just guideline suggestions to make one think why their tree doesn’t accurately reflect a tree in nature if that is their intent.
The most common advice of development for a bonsai will usually produce a caricature

[TimS]

It really depends by what anyone means by 'natural'. Is there even such a thing as a natural looking tree?

Your whole post was very funny, made me laugh.

The quoted point above is made many times. There are many sticking points I would reply to you, with this:

I feel to overlook the ratio of trunk diameter to the height of the tree is a massive oversight and creates a bad look.
The lack of division in trunks is often what gives it a contrived feel.
The intense ramification from the get go, produces a contrived tree.
Placing a large leaved species in a small pot produces somewhat of a contrived look.
Short branching that has to have a division every few cm creates a contrived look.
Older bark, with a sudden development of new growth as you start development, is an icky look.
Perfectly and even spaced radial ramification spreading outwards is a big turn off for me.

So yes, to answer your question, there is easily main sticking points about what makes a tree look contrived versus some basic guidelines for replicating a tree to look more natural.

But if you’re just after a decent representation of the tree in nature, then all is well. These are just guideline suggestions to make one think why their tree doesn’t accurately reflect a tree in nature if that is their intent.
The most common advice of development for a bonsai will usually produce a caricature

Your whole post was very funny, made me laugh

All the points you just listed are purely derived from what you have been taught to consider contrived or natural.

Go walk in a park or wetlands and see how many trees fit your beautiful ideological idea of a natural tree. Sweet f*ck off of them will.

That's perfectly fine too for you to have your preferences, grow your trees that way to your heart's content. But you can go boil your head if you think everyone has to grow trees the exact same way for them to fit this mythical natural style.

[Rory]

It really depends by what anyone means by 'natural'. Is there even such a thing as a natural looking tree?

Your whole post was very funny, made me laugh.

The quoted point above is made many times. There are many sticking points I would reply to you, with this:

I feel to overlook the ratio of trunk diameter to the height of the tree is a massive oversight and creates a bad look.
The lack of division in trunks is often what gives it a contrived feel.
The intense ramification from the get go, produces a contrived tree.
Placing a large leaved species in a small pot produces somewhat of a contrived look.
Short branching that has to have a division every few cm creates a contrived look.
Older bark, with a sudden development of new growth as you start development, is an icky look.
Perfectly and even spaced radial ramification spreading outwards is a big turn off for me.

So yes, to answer your question, there is easily main sticking points about what makes a tree look contrived versus some basic guidelines for replicating a tree to look more natural.

But if you’re just after a decent representation of the tree in nature, then all is well. These are just guideline suggestions to make one think why their tree doesn’t accurately reflect a tree in nature if that is their intent.
The most common advice of development for a bonsai will usually produce a caricature

Your whole post was very funny, made me laugh

All the points you just listed are purely derived from what you have been taught to consider contrived or natural.

Go walk in a park or wetlands and see how many trees fit your beautiful ideological idea of a natural tree. Sweet f*ck off of them will.

That's perfectly fine too for you to have your preferences, grow your trees that way to your heart's content. But you can go boil your head if you think everyone has to grow trees the exact same way for them to fit this mythical natural style.

Wow, that is a very heated reply.
I was enjoying a discussion here with members and yourself, but after your reply, I won’t be engaging anymore.

Enjoy your trees and perhaps you misunderstood when I said I was laughing, because I don’t mean your logic, I respected that and have always thought very highly of you, I was laughing at how you said it was ridiculously hard to have the passion to take on the effort that Mike has with this tree. Then your comments on popping triangles and such made me laugh.
Take care.

[TimS]

My sincerest apologies Rory, i took your sentiment about my post making your laugh as being incredibly sarcastic and dismissive of the entirety of my post. That is what got under my skin and made my heated reply and what was what i percieved to be a reply in the same tone i had believed yours to be in.

I'm quite happy to have discussions on topics with people, but the notion that you simply found my thoughts on the subject to be a joke irked me significantly and i responded that way because of it.

I've dropped you a PM

[Patmet]

[/quote]
The most common advice of development for a bonsai will usually produce a caricature
[/quote]

Just some food for thought as I see and hear this topic of ‘natural’ bonsai debated a lot in Australia right now.

Is bonsai not inherently a caricature of sorts? Is the art of bonsai natural?

For me it’s far too limiting to stick to any strict guidelines to make a bonsai ‘stylised’ or ‘natural’. If it is expressing my intentions and is horticulturally sound anything goes. If I want to admire a truly natural tree I do so out in nature as they are intended to be. That’s not why I do bonsai. Part of it for me is trying to emulate nature, but then other parts are; Personal enjoyment, artistic expression, striving to hone skills and craftsmanship, and have a hands on connection with plants. I do understand it’s different for everyone though. As human beings we have our own tastes and goals.

[TimS]

The most common advice of development for a bonsai will usually produce a caricature
[/quote]

Just some food for thought as I see and hear this topic of ‘natural’ bonsai debated a lot in Australia right now.

Is bonsai not inherently a caricature of sorts? Is the art of bonsai natural?

For me it’s far too limiting to stick to any strict guidelines to make a bonsai ‘stylised’ or ‘natural’. If it is expressing my intentions and is horticulturally sound anything goes. If I want to admire a truly natural tree I do so out in nature as they are intended to be. That’s not why I do bonsai. Part of it for me is trying to emulate nature, but then other parts are; Personal enjoyment, artistic expression, striving to hone skills and craftsmanship, and have a hands on connection with plants. I do understand it’s different for everyone though. As human beings we have our own tastes and goals.
[/quote]

You have far more eloquently worded my point than i did. Bonsai, in my opinion, inherently cannot be natural.

But i have derailed Mike's thread for long enough, i'm out

[Keep Calm and Ramify]

But i have derailed Mike's thread for long enough, i'm out

me too! now I've got to go away & reconsider my Avatar name.

Nice cacti btw Mike!