Rory post_id=306807 time=1748856262 user_id=5244]
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.
You're dribbling again Rory.
It's very easy to critique but unless you actually put your theories to practice, you cannot claim to have discovered the holy grail.
I have thought about this subject deeply and for longer than you have,( I spent 3 months preparing a talk on this very subject several years ago) and although I comprehend what you are you are saying, I'm here to tell you that you will find a lot of it is theoretical nonsense based on an idea rather than practice. As you continue with your quest, you will be brutally violated by reality. There many variations of naturalness in a particular tree species. For example you say that natural trees have low branching. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. You say that most trees have multiple trunks. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It depends on the environment they are growing in. You say that trees don't have fat trunks. That's funny because - taking for example Melaleuca styphelioides, I have seen them as short fat trees with a single trunk, short slender trees with a single trunk, tall multi-trunked trees and short multi-trunked trees, and even thin spindly trees with most of the foliage at the top. That was due to them growing in swampy conditions cheek by jowl. And massive billowing 100 year old monsters in botanic gardens. Have you ever seen a literati Banksia integrifolia? I have. Have you ever seen a windswept ground hugging Banksia? I have. Every form of just about any tree species you can think of probably exists in nature somewhere.
Tell me Rory, which one has a natural form?
Take the pine in my avatar. That is a tree form is would love to achieve. Is it possible? Perhaps but I doubt it. It would be too difficult to keep the differences in the foliage strengths without losing a branch or having one grow too strongly. The movement - It would take physically snapping branches off a strategic places and hoping what grows in it's place is the correct strength, shape, direction, feel, movement, and all the bumpy irregular features you would find. All the tiny features here and there that only nature can create. No you can only do an approximation of it at best. Trust me I have tried - and will continue to try - but I will never achieve it. As long as I can be happy with the progress, the journey, that's what matters.
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.
Again, you are missing the point. And it's a painful one that you must (and will) learn. (Hopefully, because if you don't you will never be satisfied with what you have)
Trying to make a miniature version of a natural tree you have seen will leave you wanting. Why? A few reasons. Firstly, you will fail because you can only successfully distil so much of the features of a natural tree in to a miniature scale. Even if you are lucky enough to find what you think is the perfect natural collected material, it will be impossible to keep it growing as it would in nature.
Secondly even if you could it would look odd. Things you may not notice in a full scale tree will become glaringly obvious in a bonsai.
But most importantly, the point is not to make a miniature version of a real tree, the point is to make something which the human eye/spirit can appreciate as something that could be a natural tree and be able to live with it for decades.
It is obvious you are missing this last important point because you say that the two Zelkova bonsai above look contrived. There is a difference between looking contrived and being contrived. All bonsai are contrived.
They look like two huge old trees growing in a field or a park somewhere.
It does not matter if they don't have the exact features of most natural zelkovas. It matters how they make you feel. If they don't make you feel like they do me, you are missing something or you have talked yourself into ignoring it because you feel as if you have stumbled onto some previously un-thought of brilliant concept. Trust me, you haven't.
Now, if you want to talk about how we can go about avoiding those techniques which give a tree that ''interfered by a human'' look or, conversely, using techniques which don't, that would be a worthwhile discussion. This one has run it's course.
your original reaction that prompted my displeasure actually was 
…..perhaps the lady doth protest too much…..or at least play the harmed party too hard under the thinly veiled guise of rigorous debate….
