AusBonsai

Treeman,

I'm drawn to No. 2 as my choice. No. 1 is to pretty and ordered. No. 2 has a lot more interesting bits, the live veins appear to not be coloured or polished, there are branches at lots of different angles. No. 1 has a number of 'like' pods, No.2 has differing branch structures that offer variance in length depth and direction.

However if you are looking to unload either, I'll have either!

Regards
Paul C

I am not a fan of number 1 at all. It looks nothing like a tree to me.

Number 2 is somewhat better, but still doesn't look natural to me either. Its the whole twirly whirly look of the deadwood, then its like the forces of nature stopped and the conditions turned perfect for the remainder of the growth to look so healthy and normal.

Though not owing a single pine nor a single juniper, perhaps makes me more bias to not preferring either of them I think.

I'd love to read another of these threads with Australian native material Mike.

Hi mike
#2 would be my first choice, i like the wild look about it. It sort of reminds me of some of the wild looking eucs out there which i love. I will say though, i don't like the coiled spring look near the top and i would get rid of some of the jins , however as has been stated before i would offer my left tes*+;^le for no1 . No1 is a very close second as i do appreciate the skill to achieve it
Peterb

Number 2 for me (sorry, my puerile sense of humour cant help but smirk at the potty reference - I blame it on having primary school aged children!).

It's unapologetically imperfect and for mine more evocative as a "tree". Saying that, if I was any good at Bonsai I'd probably have greater appreciation for the artistic and technical achievements of number 1 and rate it higher than number 2. Give me a few more years of killing trees and I'll get back to you....

Are these the same tree? Isn't this the tree Kobyashi re-styled? I remember seeing a YouTube vid on it. Tree no.1 is the before and no.2 the after he worked on it. Kobyashi said he shaped it that way as he doesn't have to impress anymore and styles trees more naturally. I could be wrong. I prefer the first version as it's more refined but the wild characteristics of tree no.2 are appealing.
Andrew

Personally, I find tree No.1 more visually and aesthetically appealing.

From a design perspective, it's got more movement, contrast and rhythm. It's obviously not supposed to look like a real tree, but is a rather elegant expression of traditional Japanese bonsai, a great representation of how close a real tree can be made to resemble depictions of tree in their art.

Tree No.2 might be a decent piece of material (can only see it from one angle), but this current front I find to be a bit unflattering. All the movement is very tightly restricted, giving the tree a columnar silhouette, and there's a total lack of visual contrast between the bark and the deadwood, so it gets a little lost unless you look closely.

Having said that, I do prefer junipers that lean towards the stylised look. Other trees I feel differently about, oddly.

Hi Treeman,

Great question, reminds me of similar questions Robert Steven asks on Facebook.

I like both tree's as they convey a different story, but if I had to choose a tree I would go with the first. It appeals to me more than the second, there is flow throughout and the deadwood looks more realistic. One could say it is elegant.
The second tree has few parts that stand out for me that detract from it, the top area of the trunk with the 'Zorro-like' movement, for me it could be partly hidden by some foliage that would prevent the eye from following the trunk at that interval, which by doing so would give it a more natural flow. The jin's on the shari seem too regular, when looking at them, its as if the lower ones are mirrored directly above them, but from a different angle and do not reflect the randomness that nature throws out.

Also, the deadwood itself on the second. The live vein looks like deadwood should look with washed out and bleached greys, it has texture and interest, whereas the deadwood looks like a funky ikea chair, bone like, very polished and manicured.

Again, great question as there is no right or wrong answer.

Cheers

David

I prefer No.2 for its potential - its a much more interesting tree, but there are aspects with the styling that grate on me. With a few tweaks I could really like.

These two trees are at each end of the spectrum as far as styling goes - which I'm assuming is why Treeman chose them. I think I prefer something in the middle, I wouldn't pass up either of them though if they were offered to me!

Andrew E wrote:Are these the same tree? Isn't this the tree Kobyashi re-styled? I remember seeing a YouTube vid on it. Tree no.1 is the before and no.2 the after he worked on it. Kobyashi said he shaped it that way as he doesn't have to impress anymore and styles trees more naturally. I could be wrong. I prefer the first version as it's more refined but the wild characteristics of tree no.2 are appealing.
Andrew

Have you got any pics of that tree? It sounds interesting.

From a purely subjective stand point number 1 just appears to flow better to my amateur eyes.

Wow 10 all so far!
For what it's worth my view is that #2 is a better tree by very very far for many reasons. Putting aside the fact that #1 was styled 5 minutes ago and #2 is far from finished, one of the main reasons I prefer the second is that it actually looks like a tree as many have said already. It does have minor flaws such as the crown which needs spreading, the zig zag shari which would be better if it had some foliage brought to the front to hide some of it, The highest left-hand branch needs flattening and it needs general tweeking all over the place. However, not only does it look so much older than the #1 (it probably isn't but the illusion is very important), You can't deny that yo can imagine a grand old tree sitting on top of a mountain so tall that a bird would have to work hard to reach the top branches. It ''looks'' like it's 30 or 40 metres tall and it ''looks'' like it is 400 years old. Also I disagree that it looks unbalanced. To me it looks perfectly balanced in both the foliage masses and the stable stance.
Tree #1. This one is styled in a common, mechanical and formulaic fashion. Completely non-unique. There are a million others which look exactly the same. When I say exactly I mean the crown could be easily interchanged with countless others. So what is the point of all this uniformity? Well I think there is no point. I believe that these things are styled by people with disgregard for true natural form and with the admiration of others in mind. In other words, styled to keep on trend, to compete with others, win the prize at the show, shaped like this because the modern ''masters'' say that that is the way to do it. I have a few trees styled like this and I'm now unsatified with them. Restyling would be no easy matter! Five years ago I would have prefered this one but after studying so many of them, they now do nothing to stimulate the imagination anymore. This tree looks fake, plastic and most importantly, it lacks dignity and spirit. It's a ''pop'' bonsai. A ''top of the charts'' tree with it's polished bark and it's fake looking grain on the shari and every branch in just the right place. Would I still take it?....probably.

Here's #2 a bit further on. Pic was taken at a slight angle for some reason: The top still needs rounding a touch and the branches need to be seen more, but it has settled down quite well I think.

I believe many would jump ship having seen that later pic of number 2.

Number 2 tree is suddenly looking better!

treeman wrote:

Which would you have prefered 2, 5 or 10 years ago?

The further back you go the more I would have liked number 1. However I agree with Piscineidiot - I like Junipers that are highly styled but I prefer other species (particularly deciduous) to be more natural.

Matt.

MacGuyver wrote:I believe many would jump ship having seen that later pic of number 2.

Ahh Nope not me.
The dead wood and shari look unnatural and contrived to me.
Added to that, the harshness of the deadwood, contrasts / conflicts dramatically with the large and rounded crown of foliage. The original foliage on that looks more in tune withthe trunk style in that it is much more sparse and rugged.

Imho nowhere in nature could I imagine a tree to develop like that.
It reminds me of the pictures of japanese ladies with all over clear unbrella that comes down to the knees

Ken

Here is a natural version of it in the wild. It is more so the foliage that I have an issue with in Mikes photo. But that's just me
Notice on the wild tree, the jinned branches look exactly the same as the live branches, just dead.