AusBonsai

gargar wrote:I dont think we copy nature, we intrerpret if you will. I love the analogy of bonsai being like a caricature of a persons face. We accentuate and exaggerate the features we wish to stand out to capture the esscence of the subject. We may reduce, simplify or diminish other features. In bonsai too we enhance some areas(nebari,trunk) and diminish others(amount of branches, foliage) to create a caricature of an old tree. Most of the trees in nature that knock my socks off, may not look that good if i got out my shrinking ray gun and reduced them to bonsai size. I've also be taught that they would be too busy if we put every single branch on there. So we try to capture the esscence, the flavour, the feeling be it native or exotic. yes the feeling of some trees are lighter, taller and thinner especially natives sometimes. I just dont think it always translates that well to a bonsai. If it is an image that inspires and you want to capture it, i still think an artistic impression of it is your best shot. Dont keep the branches that fight the design, enhance those that complement it.

Re perspective: when you understand it and how your mind sees, it can be a useful tool for enhancing illusion. Groups especially.

This discussion has been great, a lot to think about. Some good thoughts from all areas.

on a personal note i have not cut my trees hard enough over the years so some of my current trees could be better. i have re styled 6 trees since coming back from AABC, with a tighter tree/trunk ratio and a few less branches. And they are more powerful, evocative trees for it. i took a lot from the weekend. Not rules, just concepts to think on.

Hi gargar
You even have both sides of the discussion agreeing with you so that's a great start As I was saying to Mitchell we will never get certain things to such a small scale in bonsai so we must use tricks to represent a large tree on a small scale.
In the posts above I suggested that Stevens Avatar of a real gum in a bonsai pot did not look convincing as a bonsai and I thought the answer was much like you say. But I want to get busy on the virts one day to explore this a little more.
As I have shown the ratio of the trunk to height is very similar so is it all in branch placement that makes a real tree not look like a bonsai or just a little of the top? It has been said to me that Gums such as Stevens avatar are old forest trees after clearing so they are some what unnatural representation of a true gum form in the open. Also I think his pot is a little big

Hi Bretts.

Attached is a redgum on geelong rd, 1st werribee exit. This is in my top 10 trees. I love it but photo doesnt quite capture its beautiul design, balance or the feeling this tree imparts. However i gave up on the thought of bonsaiing it long ago when i realised a redgum wouldnt do this for me. That and the powerful twisting branches that hover just above the ground and the writhing trunkline are the impressive features to me. In a bonsai pot the branches would make the trunkline hard to see and the design cluttered. i think i would be better off trying to capture the feeling and style of this tree which is what i hope to do with this little port jacskson fig.(when the weather is warmer).

it wont be the same tree or species even. I hope it remind me of the gum, and display its best features. It will have a lower tree to trunk ratio to the gum and it would need to, to feel the same. When you see the gum in the flesh, the thickness in the trunk, it's power and weight are impressive. To capture that on a smaller tree it would need to exaggerated slightly-to have the same impact.

this post is just to give visual to my earlier one

its good everbody throwing in their 2 cents or 2 bob even. add it all up and bonsai community is richer for it!!

well said gargar thats it to copy a redgum in the wild you dont allways need a redgum look at powerfull junipers they dont grow like that in the wild we are just using trees as a medium to create an image in our minds of an old majestic tree i think we can all get caught up in species a bit why cant we do a fig like a gum if it suits more than a gum like a gum this is an art and theirs hundreds of paints tiles textures materials that artists use to create landscapes why cant we do the same some will work great some wont its up to us to find that out

That's an interesting comparison Gargar I put this thought forward a while back in the ausbonsai native competition
And visa versa

Brett
The other interesting thought was that other countries often use various species to create the image of a different species. A great example is Buxus is used to recreate Live Oaks. I am far from saying that we should not use natives but it is interesting to consider why using substitutes is never considered in Australia.
Is it possible to create the image of a gum with a buxus?
And does a Melaleuca have to look like a Melaleuca when we use it as bonsai?

I have been searching google for some pictures to discuss this further as to the hieght ratio!

That is a great pictureof the gum Gargar. I have no luck finding pics of full mature gums like this on google. I have had to rely on the couple that I have taken.
As best I can gather as the base is obscured I get about 1:8 for your gum.
The gum is somewhat similar to some gums posted by a member who loves his gums Flybri. I had been meaning to check the ratio of his trees so I went and stole them from his thread for us here.
Average is about 1:8 so I think 1:8 is a fair estimate for yours as well The fig you are representing it with is about 1:5 and I would say you have very fair representation of the gum. But maybe not what I envisage for a gum tree.

The gum tree is an amazing style of tree it seems to have every aspect of trees/bonsai thrown into one mix kinda like our Platypus
Call me crazy but I see alot of maple in their crossed with penjing and the deadwood and hollows of deciduous and conifer combined.
It is hard to find pictures of the style of maple I am thinking of but here is a penjing trident maple to start with. I will put the rest in a new post so I don't lose this

Here is the same tree in all it's glory I get about 1:6 on this one.
Here is another in this maple style that reminds me of our Gums. I think with a little tweaking of the branch structure and a more penjing influence the basic style reminds me of gum. I get about 1:7 for this

It is hard to imagine this one as gum without the leaves but here is a maple at about 1:8 Why can't we represent Gum trees at the natural hight ratio of 1:8 These gum of yours Gargar and Fly's I think of as a tall elegant Gum fitting the 1:6 and over and that is in line with normal consideration in bonsai. I have shown a gum at about 1:5 in early posts and I am sure there are stouter ones so I just don't get why there is a notion that the design principles we use on other bonsai don't suit gums. Sure there is a difference in style of trunk and branch movement but not in ratio! The gum is often a tall and elegant tree and the flexibility of the upto 1:12 should be used in our natives just as any other species as bonsai.

Here is one more Walters maple. I think I shocked Pup the other day suggesting that I saw a gum tree here but I often see multi trunked gums in my travels that remind me of this light airy tree. Another amazing tree at 1:6 so much for having to be under 1:4

Hey Brett. I can see what you are saying about the maple. Thats really cool. food for thought in that. Also like pics especially the 1:9. would look good captured as a bonsai snapshot of wild and free old eucy. But which species to use? i think this may get off topic so when i get a mo' i'll try to get another chat goin with you on australian tree shapes in STYLING or NATIVES

I had heard a 'whisper' that someone was disappointed with the 'bad talk' regarding Salvatore's presentations.

When we attend conventions ... even if we come away with just one new idea, or one idea revisited and therefore reinforced, we have learnt. I believe that if I come away from a convention with three new ideas then I have had real value for money.

Although I did not personally agree with everything Salvatore delivered, he did create and deliver some beautiful trees. We all have differences of oppinion on soils, wire, religion and politics. We all have in common a desire to create beautiful little trees. Thankfully a whole bunch of us also enjoy fermented grapes in bottles and the fun of socialising with each other through the conjute of these little trees.

How wonderful it is that we all have different opinions, that we respect our differences. Through our diversity we have strength. Through the respect we have for diversity we have an environment that encourages debate and discussion, an environment condusive to the development of thought, encouragement of 'risk taking' and thereby the development of the art and science of bonsai in Australia.

When I travel overseas I make every effort to learn 'important' local customs. I do know that I make mistakes and undoubtedly 'insult' inadvertently through my mistakes. For these mistakes I hope I am forgiven, for errors in Salvatore's delivery I believe we too are strong enough to rise above the 'offence' and to learn from what was delivered.

Congratulations must be extended to Brenda Parker, Jamie Milner, Chris DiNola and all the Illawarra team who put in the long hours in the planning and delivery of a very successful and fun AABC Ltd Convention. Well done everyone ... let us reflect and learn from the programme and look forward to future exchanges of bonsai ideas in Australia.

A Coming Together ... WA in 2011 ... let us start planning now!!!

Nice one Andrew. I do like the theme for the WA convention next year

Come Together

Our chosen theme is “Come Together”. This represents what is happening to bonsai throughout the world today. During the convention we are going to celebrate the coming together of the different styles and philosophies of bonsai cultivation from different cultures within our region. In this case, China, Japan and Australia. It is important that we appreciate and understand the reasoning behind the different ways bonsai are grown and maintained by our regional neighbours.

Pup wrote:Again we have this potato. I have just received my latest copy of Bonsai Focus. In it there is an analysis, of a tree of Steve Tolly by Francois Jekker, page 80.

While I have not seen Salvatore Liporace I have seen pictures of his tree's, by his height ratios this tree by Steve Tolly should be thrown out.
It did however win at the Ginkgo awards in 2007 .
So again we have one mans opinion.
What makes me answer is as Mojo Moyogi has said there are many, as has already been expressed will follow blindly.

JMHO

Cheers Pup

I was able to purchase a copy today; Therefor i can now comment. This tree that you mention measure's 1:3.2 to be exact. Yet it is feminine. Fascinating isn't it BTW Jezz this photo was taken straight on!

Ya got that right.
Now I will have to go and learn all these NEW ideas that are coming out.

Like removing branches to change there appearance.

Pup wrote:Ya got that right.
Now I will have to go and learn all these NEW ideas that are coming out.

Like removing branches to change there appearance.

ok

How about a picture for the rest of us

Bretts wrote:How about a picture for the rest of us

Him or me I have a few maples I have to do some work on soon.

Either I mean the tree in Bonsai Focus

Again we have this potato. I have just received my latest copy of Bonsai Focus. In it there is an analysis, of a tree of Steve Tolly by Francois Jekker, page 80.