Zelkova project

[treeman]

Rory post_id=306770 time=1748695444 user_id=5244]

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.

I think you may be missing the point. The ultimate goal is not and can not be to make a miniature version of a natural tree because you will always fail for various technical reasons. The goal is to produce a work that the mind can be tricked into believing is work of nature. Bonsai is and always will be an illusion. If it happens to look close to a real tree all the better - with the proviso that the real tree speaks to the observers sense of aesthetics. Only a few percent of natural trees I see while driving around fit that bill.

I feel that you still have some ingrained methods of the rules in your technique. No offence.

No doubt. (and none taken) The ''rules'' can only be broken when thoroughly understood and sometimes not at all.

I try as hard as I can to look at every aspect of the species in nature to create a natural looking tree.

If you do that with disregard for restrictions forced upon you by making a small tree in a pot, you won't get very far. You must translate a bend or change of movement of say, 200mm you might see in a real tree, to a miniature potted tree, to perhaps 5mm, this can only be done by cutting and re-growing, not with wire. This continuous cutting and regrowing can have unexpected results down the road. Your ''natural tree'' will begin to slip away from you.
The same can be said of branch placement. For example, to keep a branch, you have to allow for light penetration of the branches above. You cannot achieve the same type of arrangement you might see in a full size tree because you need to restrict the size, therefore the density you might be after might not be possible. These and many other factors come into play and they cannot be avoided.
You can either accept this or give up.

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.

As I said, that is just not possible. What happens when you think your tree is looking just as you want it? What then? You have to keep going, keep cutting, keep removing elements and introducing others. It never stops. Regardless of how much you try, the best you can hope for is a tree that continues to look natural.

[treeman]

Rory post_id=306773 time=1748729447 user_id=5244]
[
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.

That's not what I'm doing. After ten years I am only up to the third ramification or so. 80% of what grows during the season is removed with only the best placed elements remaining. This tree does not do what you want it to. It does what it wants and at the end of the year I am lucky to find a few things here and there that I can actually use. I am not trying to ramify as much as form the main structure at this point.

Again, take a look at Zelkova branching… long graceful branches

There are many variations.

zelkova1.JPG

[treeman]

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

There are two schools of thought.
One is that in the ''eyes of nature'' bonsai is just another man made object completely divorced from any natural influence.
The other is that nothing on this Earth is un-natural. Including everything that humans do. Which is in fact, is the actual truth.
That's why I laugh when someone says they want to save the planet. As if the planet actually cares what happens on it's surface.

[Rory]

I think you may be missing the point. The ultimate goal is not and can not be to make a miniature version of a natural tree because you will always fail for various technical reasons. The goal is to produce a work that the mind can be tricked into believing is work of nature.

To me that does not make sense. When someone says they want their tree to look most like a natural tree, you give as many considerations to this aspect as possible. If someone wants to give it their best shot, thats great. But if someone chooses to further that and give more consideration as to what makes it more natural looking, it isn't missing the point. In your eyes, you might think they would fail for technical reasons, because you still cling to what you find as unpleasing to your many experienced years of what makes an aesthetically pleasing bonsai.

The same can be said of branch placement. For example, to keep a branch, you have to allow for light penetration of the branches above. You cannot achieve the same type of arrangement you might see in a full size tree because you need to restrict the size, therefore the density you might be after might not be possible. These and many other factors come into play and they cannot be avoided.

The only plausibility to this would be if the leaf size was very large. Otherwise its proportionate and therefore not true. The smaller the scale, the same applies throughout the entire tree. It also depends greatly on the species. Eucalyptus for example can often be open and sparse and allowing all levels of light in, regardless of the scale. Ficus might develop long sweeping branches that keep their foliage on their extremities, thus shading most of the inner area of the tree from developing leaves in its interior anyway.
The sun travels differently all through the year among other factors.

If you do that with disregard for restrictions forced upon you by making a small tree in a pot, you won't get very far. You must translate a bend or change of movement of say, 200mm you might see in a real tree, to a miniature potted tree, to perhaps 5mm, this can only be done by cutting and re-growing, not with wire. This continuous cutting and regrowing can have unexpected results down the road. Your ''natural tree'' will begin to slip away from you.

I believe that logic to be flawed. By that rationale for a ratio, you're taking a 20 metre tall zelkova tree as the start, and applying that to the development of a ratio to a 5 metre bonsai?
A better solution is to take the tree at face value, and you could compare the main structure which is essentially the part that most people develop with preconceived formulas and work more on the comparison there, rather than trying to make a cut for cut comparison.

As I said, that is just not possible. What happens when you think your tree is looking just as you want it? What then? You have to keep going, keep cutting, keep removing elements and introducing others. It never stops. Regardless of how much you try, the best you can hope for is a tree that continues to look natural.

This doesn't make sense to me. Its the same for any bonsai in its late 'finished' refinement stage. There is no difference to what anyone does when they are happy with their overall tree and slows down the growth?
I don't get what you're saying here

That's not what I'm doing. After ten years I am only up to the third ramification or so. 80% of what grows during the season is removed with only the best placed elements remaining. This tree does not do what you want it to. It does what it wants and at the end of the year I am lucky to find a few things here and there that I can actually use. I am not trying to ramify as much as form the main structure at this point.

But that is what you're doing. You have taken a very aged trunk with a high start to its branchwork. It is now going to have so much taper in its branches, and transition, that it wont look natural is what I'm saying.

There are many variations.
zelkova1.JPG

That my good friend, is so interesting that you'd use that photo of that tree in your post.
Notice where the first branch starts.... at approximately 1/10th from the ground level, and not 1/3
Note the long sweeping branches with very little taper, and how they don't spread radially.
Its beautiful.

[treeman]

But that is what you're doing. You have taken a very aged trunk with a high start to its branchwork. It is now going to have so much taper in its branches, and transition, that it wont look natural is what I'm saying.

Rory, I'm devastated to have discovered that I've gone about this all wrong and I await your detailed instructions on how to build a large-sized Zelkova bonsai from the start.

[Rory]

But that is what you're doing. You have taken a very aged trunk with a high start to its branchwork. It is now going to have so much taper in its branches, and transition, that it wont look natural is what I'm saying.

Rory, I'm devastated to have discovered that I've gone about this all wrong and I await your detailed instructions on how to build a large-sized Zelkova bonsai from the start.

My points are the same for any species.

I feel there may be a hint of sarcasm with your good wit.

[treeman]

My points are the same for any species.

You don't get off that easy. How do I go about building a large sized zelkova?

[treeman]

For Rory..

I would have liked to end up with a tree like this.....

zelk3.JPG

But for various reason beyond my control I might end up more like this one (even though I won't see it)....

zelk2.JPG

Both these trees (particularly the second) were created using the same techniques I am using. I have tried to explain the procedure but it seems to have escaped you. If you need further clarification, please ask.

[Rory]

My points are the same for any species.

You don't get off that easy. How do I go about building a large sized zelkova?

I wasn't joking. My point was that unless it has the propensity to back bud way down low and all over the trunk, then I wouldn't have started with that material. Especially being a deciduous tree, I would gather that your enthusiasm was clearly the width of the base of this beast. But when others may see potential, I see a longer road to a natural look. Personally I would always recommend starting with material that is younger or would have more viable options rather than a baseball bat start. Don't get me wrong. I think very highly of both your expertise and your intelligence, but I just disagree that this will ever look natural.
It doesn't take that long for evergreen material to start to look natural, but for deciduous of course it is a much longer road to travel on, but I still feel that this road you are on is never going to get there (for my eyes). Others will see your tree eventually as splendid and well refined. But that picture you posted of the Zelkova with the laughing emoji is a perfect example of what I am talking about. To me, that is the type of tree I aspire to, not the one you are going to produce.
As best as I can convey, the old advice of starting with a thick base trunk and working your way from there is redundant, IF you want your tree to look as close to natural as you do. Clearly, most people on this forum perhaps do not agree. Which is fair. But don't confuse unwillingness to an open-minded acceptance that the traditional methods of trunk building and ramification and systematic branch building produces a green helmet to some extent, ... with dismissing an admittance that a more natural approach to trunk and branch placement can look much more natural.

The main issue is that a lot of people will say they are producing material that looks natural, but don't want to listen to those pointing out other significant differences and a different approach that will produce more natural looking trees.
Its easy to dismiss those trying to offer advice of how to make a tree look natural, because they don't want to start all over again. I can understand this. But the most common reaction is often anger or angst to realize that your bonsai may not actually look as good as it could have, had you not spent an eternity with perfect ramifiction, or a super sumo trunk, or having all the branches come out in unison, etc etc etc. I often hear people say that this species or that species grows this way in nature, which is why I do this or that, but don't want to listen to anything more than what suits their tree.

There are many members who are starting to trial natural methods of growing, which in one main observation, is to stop the theory that you need a super thick base to create age. if anything, most natural trees do not exhibit this trait, and if you get the proportions right, and stop to think about the maths, it surprises most people that this is one of the main reasons the tree ends up looking contrived, as compared to the majority of the species in the wild.

When you first start drawing an eye, you might draw two circles, but as you get more willing to look closer, you might draw two ovals, then later on, you draw a slightly shallower oval, with small areas for the tear ducts.... i guess you could say you refine and look at the actual subject you're drawing, rather than what you remember or think it looks like.

[Rory]

For Rory..

I would have liked to end up with a tree like this.....

zelk3.JPG

But for various reason beyond my control I might end up more like this one (even though I won't see it)....

zelk2.JPG

Both these trees (particularly the second) were created using the same techniques I am using. I have tried to explain the procedure but it seems to have escaped you. If you need further clarification, please ask.

And that ..... is my point.

Both of these are bonsai, and look contrived. To me, they do not look like a natural zelkova in the wild.

There may come a point in someones Bonsai journey, when they suddenly see what I'm saying. From that moment on, you will never see a bonsai the same. You will always see the grossly oversized trunk, the perfect ramification spreading radially, or with giant branches with perfect ramification, and always well apart from each branch. You will see the absence of lower branching, and the list goes on.
I cannot ever unsee this now. For me, it was a gradual buildup of clarity, to which i am forever grateful.
But again, each to their own. I no doubt believe your Zelkova Bonsai will look beautiful in time Mike, especially under the exceptional skill that you wield.

[treeman]

Both of these are bonsai, and look contrived. To me, they do not look like a natural zelkova in the wild.

There may come a point in someones Bonsai journey, when they suddenly see what I'm saying. From that moment on, you will never see a bonsai the same. You will always see the grossly oversized trunk, the perfect ramification spreading radially, or with giant branches with perfect ramification, and always well apart from each branch. You will see the absence of lower branching, and the list goes on.
I cannot ever unsee this now. For me, it was a gradual buildup of clarity, to which i am forever grateful.

With the greatest respect for your enthusiasm Rory, you have not grown enough trees and for a long enough time to claim that what you are saying is any more than inexperienced, theoretical gobbledygook.

[Rory]

Both of these are bonsai, and look contrived. To me, they do not look like a natural zelkova in the wild.

There may come a point in someones Bonsai journey, when they suddenly see what I'm saying. From that moment on, you will never see a bonsai the same. You will always see the grossly oversized trunk, the perfect ramification spreading radially, or with giant branches with perfect ramification, and always well apart from each branch. You will see the absence of lower branching, and the list goes on.
I cannot ever unsee this now. For me, it was a gradual buildup of clarity, to which i am forever grateful.

With the greatest respect for your enthusiasm Rory, you have not grown enough trees and for a long enough time to claim that what you are saying is any more than inexperienced, theoretical gobbledygook.

I have been growing bonsai since 1995, but that doesn't dismiss my observations, as you are moving the goal posts away from the fact that to me your tree does not look natural. You cannot say that someones logic is flawed because they have only been growing for 30 years and not 50 years.

That sort of sounds like you're at the point where you would rather dismiss someones abilities because you prefer not to engage in a discussion on observational points, and instead find it easier to dismiss their validity of an argument because their observations and critique irritates you.

[treeman]

[quote=Rory

"You cannot say that someones logic is flawed because they have only been growing for 30 years and not 50 years. "


I am not saying that.
I am saying that all you've shown me is words
Show me some of your 30 year trees and where you believe your approach differs from everyone else's
If you can't, all you have is theories. I will need more than words.

[Rory]

[quote=Rory

"You cannot say that someones logic is flawed because they have only been growing for 30 years and not 50 years. "


I am not saying that.
I am saying that all you've shown me is words
Show me some of your 30 year trees and where you believe your approach differs from everyone else's
If you can't, all you have is theories. I will need more than words.

Well...what you said was patronizing to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about. Why would I need to show you my trees to point out the many critiques of why any particular bonsai doesn't look as natural as it could?
Your rebutle of saying that someone can't point out a visual difference is only allowed if they display their trees, is akin to saying:
Someone who has no arms can never critique art because they haven't painted something themselves. Thats absurdly dismissive.

Nonetheless, I update my trees here with photos usually every year. Every time I work on my trees I try a little more to give it a more natural look before I cut back or style. Over the decades that I have been growing bonsai, I have probably grown somewhere near about 1000 trees, and over those decades I have built up slowly over time a realization of why a lot of bonsai don't look like their native wild counterpart.
It is in the last 5 years or so that I have started applying this to my trees and also why ... as I tried to explain ... why I realized that to acquire a more natural look you often have to start all over again and choose better material, and start the process early, rather than later. So with this acceptance I have started a lot of material from a young age for that exact reason.

Again, if you can't see the difference between the Zelkova trees you literally posted in this thread showing you the stark difference, then you never will. The bonsai photos you uploaded as to what type of tree you want to strive for, versus the natural tree photo of the actual Zelkova tree you posted here as well, is blatantly obvious to me as the massive differences.

I honestly cant understand how you cannot see the difference between what I strive for as natural beauty, and the goal you put for your bonsai.



But again, its not hard to read what I'm saying and compare the differences in the end products, to that of a real tree. As you said in one of your own replies: .... imagination I wouldn't say to you, show me this tree that you're working on as a finished tree before you can have any opinion on it either???

[Keep Calm and Ramify]

Every time I work on my trees I try a little more to give it a more natural look before I cut back or style.

Rory another vague statement mate - What is it you actively do to your trees to give them a more natural look?
Again...what's the technique?