AusBonsai

1. I would rather critique this tree when it's in leaf. Deciduous trees can be deceiving in how they look from one season to the next.

2. Most of the verts I've seen in my estimation are attempting to make this tree into a design that was intended for and developed from Pine. I hate broad leaf trees with pointy tops.

In general, the upper canopy branches need to be lowered and broadend out, how much I cannot tell untill I see the tree in leaf. I must admit that in my old age, I tend not to follow the rules, rules are meant to be broken, and a maple should look like a maple. I'm sure this tree is of high quality when you see it from season to season, and finally, I love warts they are an indication of a long hard life warding off the ravages of time and beastly things that go bump in the night.

Randy

Pup wrote:

kcpoole wrote:I do not see a problem with critiquing a tree that has been posted on a public website?
I assume that when I put a photo on the web, that that invites Comment and criticism. The only thing I can say re this is that if the owner of the photo requests it removal, then it should be linked directly instead.
Is the tree posted with a "please do not use" comment or disclaimer? If not then it is in the public domain and as long as not used for profit then should be OK.

the intention is to use the subject for education rather than just bashing the example shown

Ken

Ken, did the Owner give permission for it to be published on an open site for critique?

Like Tony, I would not presume as I have not been asked by the owner. Of the tree.

I assume that the Photo came from a published website.
I have just read that Jarrod took the photo himself so he is the copyright owner so that's OK.
Just is it OK to critique an unknown Artists tree?

For me I do not have an issue as we are using for a learning tool rather than as a profit making exercise or trying to comment on a tree for sale.
A grey area, but for me its OK.

Ken

Great tree, would love it as is on my bench any day and if it was mine I would tilt a little more to the left and pot it a little more to the right of the pot. Perhaps the roots could be a little bit better. Would be nice to see it in leaf as well.

Hi Plantmanky,

Perhaps your are right?

The only right way to improve this tree, may be to transform it to a juniper ? !!
Now it looks good !!

( Perhaps I had my juniper eye in again ? HA !! )

Though to be honest now I would remove the lower left branch................or jin it !!


Regards,



Paul

PaulC no disrespect intended, but can you do a virt of where it might look like a deciduous tree or are you limited to only making juniper-like bonsai...? Don't get me wrong I love a good Juni or Pine, but should all bonsai look like Juni in your eyes...?

Someone once told me 'Make your bonsai look like a tree, not your tree look like a bonsai' perhaps they had no juniper eye

Sigh....
Does anyone else yearn for the days when the list of things we were allowed to do was longer than the list of things we were not allowed to do?

Just wondering.
Mojo

Mojo Moyogi wrote:Sigh....
Does anyone else yearn for the days when the list of things we were allowed to do was longer than the list of things we were not allowed to do?

Just wondering.
Mojo

Mojo,

In my eyes your allowed to do anything you want!!! It's your tree isn't it! Because i'm older, more crotchy, and an avid enthusiast of observing nature, I have become more inclined to let nature tell me what to do with a tree rather than that awful list of do's and dont's. We have become all to complacent and single minded in what constitutes a good tree by a rulebase rather than exploring the vast landscape imagery that nature has to offer us as examples. If a tree is "balanced" to the eye in it's overall appearance and tells a story through its imagery it's a winner to me. What's the literal translation of the word bonsai again! "tree in pot", not pine tree in a pot, juniper in a pot, or japanese design in a pot. So, put a tree in a pot and make it look like a tree! Not all trees in nature are balanced and pretty but for any particular genus or species it's pretty consistent not withstanding it's environmental conditions.

Randy

Hi Elias,

Well as I said to Plantmanky,

Perhaps he was right with the third image, so took things into consideration, and for what I thought may have been humour ( a laugh at myself, mind you )

And going from the old name of the thread, which was, lets play a game......find the faults, to the new title, How would you improve the trees ?

The original verts, the 2nd one looks like a small maple, ( In my humble opinion ), and was a response to the original thread title.

And as I suggested, branch development and ramification from there, a restyle.

Plantmanky pointed out the suggestion of a `pine` or conifer in the 3rd pic.

The 3rd Image was a brave attempt to transform the maple to a juniper to IMPROVE it, to which the humour in it seems to have failed.

I was going to say, oh well, back to the drawing board, but on second thoughts I may be over doing pics for a while.


Paul

You should not refrain from doing virts, I'm just a beginner and was simply curious about your approach. Like I stated earlier no disrespect intended. And I'm sorry if that is how it was perceived.

Beautiful naturalistic tree, looks it belongs in nature. Love it.

Here is my Critique on this tree.

The nebari appears to be slightly messy but this could be just due to it being slightly buried while they further develop it (this is a deep pot for a Japanese maple in Japan) the photo is inconclusive. The lower trunk tapers well and flows into the trunks very well. The first branch on the right has a slight knuckle and is far too heavy for the trunk. Moving up the main trunk from there shows very little taper and the next set of branches appear to be barred which will in time cause this lack of taper to turn to reverse taper. There is a small step down in size to the next group of branches which form the apex. Here there is quite a lot of confusion. Two branches leave the trunk from the same spot and one dips low which is out of relation to all the other branches on the tree. The Apex appears to be quite well grown and creates a lovely dome. The smaller trunk has great proportions to the main trunk however there are a few points i think need to be noted. The lowest branch on this trunk is too low for the tree, and also appears to have a heavy branch coming out very high on the trunk.

On a side note, I have noticed that a few of you said you would rather see this tree in leaf before commenting, does this not defeat the purpose of creating fine twigs? I believe most of the major shows in Japan are held during winter because they wish to show of the hard wok they have put into growing and shaping the trees. The ramification and form of a deciduous tree in winter should be something to behold.

The other thing that has cropped up is people not wishing to comment on this tree as the owner has not requested it. Do you think that painters request all the critiques that occur to their work? Do you think sculptors’ try to stop people critiquing their work? This is another art form, and as such we need to loosen up a bit on critiquing trees. If you put your tree in a show/public arena do you really think people are looking at it and not critiquing it in their heads? Would you not rather hear the thoughts? And have a constructive conversation about the tree? I know I would. I would be happy to post up my own trees for this, I am probably my biggest critic, and not much of it is good. But it definitely makes me work harder to improve and grow nicer images.

Jarrod wrote:The other thing that has cropped up is people not wishing to comment on this tree as the owner has not requested it. Do you think that painters request all the critiques that occur to their work? Do you think sculptors’ try to stop people critiquing their work? This is another art form, and as such we need to loosen up a bit on critiquing trees. If you put your tree in a show/public arena do you really think people are looking at it and not critiquing it in their heads? Would you not rather hear the thoughts? And have a constructive conversation about the tree? I know I would. I would be happy to post up my own trees for this, I am probably my biggest critic, and not much of it is good. But it definitely makes me work harder to improve and grow nicer images

Jarrod, i wasn't sure about this thread at the beginning, however when i read your last post, , i think your right,. and as long as it is a sensible discussion i dont see the harm in a little constructive critiquing. i'm not keen on the total redesign of the tree in the way of Virts ,but would rather only see virts of minor changes

Craig wrote:

Jarrod wrote:The other thing that has cropped up is people not wishing to comment on this tree as the owner has not requested it. Do you think that painters request all the critiques that occur to their work? Do you think sculptors’ try to stop people critiquing their work? This is another art form, and as such we need to loosen up a bit on critiquing trees. If you put your tree in a show/public arena do you really think people are looking at it and not critiquing it in their heads? Would you not rather hear the thoughts? And have a constructive conversation about the tree? I know I would. I would be happy to post up my own trees for this, I am probably my biggest critic, and not much of it is good. But it definitely makes me work harder to improve and grow nicer images

Jarrod, i wasn't sure about this thread at the beginning, however when i read your last post, , i think your right,. and as long as it is a sensible discussion i dont see the harm in a little constructive critiquing. i'm not keen on the total redesign of the tree in the way of Virts ,but would rather only see virts of minor changes

The biggest problem is, it is not your tree Jarrod, if it were I would have no problem. It belongs to a Japanese grower, and as such he deserves more consideration from Bonsai enthusiasts. Who do abide by the rules of etiquette, these are my thoughts and of some other members here.
Though some do not seem to mind if they offend others. Last word goodbye.

You cannot critique a tree from an image you can only make observations, to do a REAL critique you must see the
tree and be able to move it around

Jarrod wrote: The other thing that has cropped up is people not wishing to comment on this tree as the owner has not requested it. Do you think that painters request all the critiques that occur to their work? Do you think sculptors’ try to stop people critiquing their work? This is another art form, and as such we need to loosen up a bit on critiquing trees. If you put your tree in a show/public arena do you really think people are looking at it and not critiquing it in their heads? Would you not rather hear the thoughts? And have a constructive conversation about the tree? I know I would. I would be happy to post up my own trees for this, I am probably my biggest critic, and not much of it is good. But it definitely makes me work harder to improve and grow nicer images.

I'm with you on this one Jarrod. I think when one puts one's trees in the public domain, just as with any other art form, you need to accept the fact that people will form opinions and discuss those opinions. Whether they discuss them amongst one another using the medium of speech or whether they use the internet as a medium makes little difference. I think the problem comes in when we talk about "critiques". It has a negative connotation. The thing that I find interesting here is that most of those who have given their "criticism" of the tree have both done so in a positive and constructive (or humourous - thanks PaulC) manner, but interestingly I think almost everyone has said that they would be only too happy to have it on their own bench. A higher praise one can't really ask for!