Designing Multi Group Settings- Advice please

[Mitchell]

Hey folks! Was interested in getting some opinions on the topic.
Have spent the last weeks or so contemplating layouts of multi group settings.

I think I have all I need to get started, but am still stuck on how to utilise the two groups to draw the eye to the central focal point.
I have read so many conflicting articles, I have decided to abandone any set one and have embarked on putting pencil to paper and building up the forest and structure tree by tree.

I have arrived at something as pictured in the GIF.

I believe the structure as chosen lends itself to drawing the viewer, to the middle /foreground, due to the groups being flipped identical images. It took me awhile to figure out the triangles of both groups, so the trees staggered down in height with leading to the sharp drops to center, and the outside angles tapering off the sides of the setting.

I am not sure if it will work, but something is telling me the groups "point" to center, thus allowing me to utilise this very prominent void of space.


Not too confident i am on the right track, yet feel I am getting the concepts at last.
The GIF is a very basic computer version of my detailed sketches. The sketches are to scale, the GIF is just quick, to get the point across.

In the final design , different terrain heights would be used as well as more trees in the groups. There wouldn't be as much free air inbetween trees in the large group...




What I would like to know is, do you employ any specific formulaes when creating group settings above the norm? I believe I have read most intermediate / advanced topics on the matter, but was interested in what our users, had to say about drawing the viewer in via use of voids and the angles of triangles.

Thanks for any advice.

[Mitchell]

Still contemplating elements.



Eight Manifestations of the Japanese Aesthetic

1. Totality in details: Bi
2. Parallel aggregation of details: Hei
3. Mutual harmony created by the appearance of details: Ma
4. Simplification leading to richness: Fu
5. Splendor created through concealment: Hi
6. The world was originally harmonious: So
7. Flowing beauty with no resistance: Ka
8. Destruction is creation: Ha


I believe it is "Ma" that I am intrigued with atm...

No one has any insite into attaining this on multi groups? Interesting.

[MattA]

Sorry Mitchell I am not a good one for theory (my teachers hated me)... I just do & see what works.. or not.. as the case may be...

I am drawn to Fu & Ha...

When I first started growing bonsai my trees never had more than 3 branches and a crown, the recent discussions on ratio's & people needing to reduce the height of there trees reminded me of my own origins, when you minimize you maximise. And destruction being creation.. what a concept.. and so true.. when a tree in a rainforest falls (destruction) it clears the way for many many others to take there chance (creation).

Keep us posted on how you resolve the dilemma.. one thing I would suggest tho is that you try to vary the components that make up the whole rather than just mirroring the 2 groups in each other.

Matt

[Mitchell]

Sorry Mitchell I am not a good one for theory (my teachers hated me)... I just do & see what works.. or not.. as the case may be...

I am drawn to Fu & Ha...

When I first started growing bonsai my trees never had more than 3 branches and a crown, the recent discussions on ratio's & people needing to reduce the height of there trees reminded me of my own origins, when you minimize you maximise. And destruction being creation.. what a concept.. and so true.. when a tree in a rainforest falls (destruction) it clears the way for many many others to take there chance (creation).

Keep us posted on how you resolve the dilemma.. one thing I would suggest tho is that you try to vary the components that make up the whole rather than just mirroring the 2 groups in each other.

Matt

Thanks for your reply Matt, I just do most of the time also. I am though enjoying on this occasion, stepping back and contemplating before I begin.

"one thing I would suggest tho is that you try to vary the components that make up the whole rather than just mirroring the 2 groups in each other."
Definitely, the groups were just to illustrate the concept, they won't be mirrors in the final design. I have all the group trees ratios and postions from dominant tree down pat, but was stuck on how the groups related to each other.

"when a tree in a rainforest falls (destruction)"
And that is why I started this thread, I think you just qualified what I was trying to achieve. I wanted the image to represent it was a whole complete forest, in which some of the major trees had fallen and created the void between the two groups isolating the small group on the left. I wanted to conjur the feeling of separation and loss of the group, yet still illustrate its own stature as an individual entity.

Thanks

[Jamie]

hi mitchell,

groups and settings can be one of the hardest styles to pull of convincingly, i have seen many many people put a few trees in the one pot and call it a group/forest when really they are all young trees, with no structure, i think that when doing forest settings the trees should have some form of training and structure to implement an aged feel, i also think placement is key, there should be one focal tree generally the biggest, and that is generally just off centre to the tray/pot and either slightly forward or back depending on what feel you are after, then you can start adding the rest of the trees around this focal tree, remember to have varying heights not only of the soil but also the trees, smaller ones to the outside and rear of the forest to implement depth. a small secind group can also be added of to the side with again one focal tree as the main and smaller trees around it. dont put this group in line with the main group, you want it to be towards the rear or front depending on which depth you are going for.

hope that helps a little