AusBonsai

Here's why it wasn't thrown out!


1:3.2 bad arse ratio!

anttal63 wrote:Here's why it wasn't thrown out!

gallery_image11_large.jpg

1:3.2 bad arse ratio!

220px-Spoonful_of_cereal.jpg

I do not use strawberry I use Maple syrup

Just turn on the tap then;

That one has had branches removed I would not recognise or want it.

The flaw with this ratio theory is, it is measured from an horizontal base to the top of a vertical. This is fine for formal uprights were the trunk is vertical, however the true height of a informal upright or slant style is seen in the length of the trunk and should be measured accordingly. As for semi cascades and cascades it is the width or the length of the tail which creates the balance.

now can you see the flaw the ratio of 1:2-4 for formal uprights, it would only produce sumo style bonsai, which would explain the lack of formal upright pics to demonstrate this ratio. this ratio only works on informal uprights and stant style and is not a true measure of height. For example take a tree (formal upright) which is 30cm tall and the trunk is 5cm thick according to the ratio it is 1:6. now take that same tree and lean the trunk on a 45 degree angle and you form a slant style and according to the ratio theory now your tree measures 15cm tall and has a trunk thickness of 5cm giving it a ratio of 1:3 and yet the tree is still the same height. this is why I call it a theory, it can not be proven.

chris

Here's why it wasn't thrown out!




gallery_image11_large.jpg | (28.8 KiB) | Viewed 23 times



1:3.2 bad arse ratio!

I agree, but it's more like 1:6 if it was measured correctly.

chrisatrocky wrote:The flaw with this ratio theory is, it is measured from an horizontal base to the top of a vertical. This is fine for formal uprights were the trunk is vertical, however the true height of a informal upright or slant style is seen in the length of the trunk and should be measured accordingly. As for semi cascades and cascades it is the width or the length of the tail which creates the balance.

now can you see the flaw the ratio of 1:2-4 for formal uprights, it would only produce sumo style bonsai, which would explain the lack of formal upright pics to demonstrate this ratio. this ratio only works on informal uprights and stant style and is not a true measure of height. For example take a tree (formal upright) which is 30cm tall and the trunk is 5cm thick according to the ratio it is 1:6. now take that same tree and lean the trunk on a 45 degree angle and you form a slant style and according to the ratio theory now your tree measures 15cm tall and has a trunk thickness of 5cm giving it a ratio of 1:3 and yet the tree is still the same height. this is why I call it a theory, it can not be proven.

chris

We call it a concept or a feeling. It doesnt need to be proven the illusion has already been created, many times over. It has been measured properly. If it weren't for all this i'd say you were onto something. Now come on show me a tree. One of your's preferably. One that you have done

Where are yours antonio??

Pup wrote:Where are yours antonio??

Gee wizz i didnt think you needed to go far to find mine. Maybe they have dissapeared??? Maybe they are that bad that someone deleted them???



How about you Pup??? You entering the BC contests still??? They're international! Salvatore said that competition is a great platform to help improve your trees. I think i need to do more of them!

Brett
So like i said we could right a book on an endless list of hypothetical trees and where you should measure the diameter but that is not really feasible. This is where you must use your artistic ability. Where do you think the tree would be best represented by the Diameter to height ratio.

I agree with you in some regards Chris. How do we use the ratio rule in cascades and such. Just this trunk to height ratio section of the rules could take up the first volume in a full set of encyclopedias on the rules of bonsai if it was to cover all hypothetical situations. This is why I find the rules so fascinating. That so much can be in such a short sentence if you look at them from the culture they came from.

"Hints and suggestions are considered better guides than obvious directions"

The people who wrote the rules for us Westerners think this way. They did not expect us to take them at face value but to actually think about what they really mean.
You must use your artistic ability to solve what is happening.

Even if I measure this tree on the angle I get about 1:4. Now someone may call this tree graceful but I think it more represents about a 1:6 tree (average stature) so the interesting part just as I explained with Bodi's tree is we have to think and wonder how does it do this.
Just moving the apex over to the centre of the pot either by virt or visually in your head it is simple to see that it would change things dramatically in the stature of the tree visually.
Now think about how the eye travels over the composition to the end of the tree it is a fairly long route. From the base to the apex and then down to the tail. If we add this path our eye takes the ratio ends up at about 1:8 Now it starts to make visual sense. 1:4 top to bottom and 1:8 visual ratio working with each other gives us what we see without measuring about 1:6.
Nothing new here in the visual and fine arts I am sure they teach students the fact that our brain sees things a certain way and can create optical illusions. The artist that can decipher these optical illusions and use them to an advantage will make better art.

anttal63 wrote:

Pup wrote:Where are yours antonio??

Gee wizz i didnt think you needed to go far to find mine. Maybe they have dissapeared??? Maybe they are that bad that someone deleted them???



How about you Pup??? You entering the BC contests still??? They're international! Salvatore said that competition is a great platform to help improve your trees. I think i need to do more of them!

Still is the word here Antonio as I think you know Pup has entered his trees Internationally and got a pretty impressive result!

I remember how taken you where after Listening to Robert Stevens. You called him Mind warping after he worked on this tree for you Is this tree now to be chopped down or sold off now that you are a student of Salvatores teachings?

What about this tree. If you want us to look back through your trees for examples maybe you should clarify which ones fit your new movement first?

Yes atonio I have entered this month seeing as your mate Al Keppler is not there maybe you can analyse the tree form for me, as it has been placed in the top 3 of AB.c comp .
I have entered International contest and been in the top end of them world Bonsai Contest top 10 wwbf honerable mention, and JAL the Bottle brush that is in the National collection top 50. So yes I have entered International competitions.

Not just said and not done.

If I may ask a question on this topic (I feel like I'm interrupting ), because I'm not sure if I misinterpreted something along the way:

Is the 1:2-4 ratio only for ancient looking trees, or is this supposed to apply to every tree?

I kinda figure 'old' looking trees are more the 1:6-8 etc ratio, but if you want to make your tree look ancient then the point is to go for a smaller ratio. But I'm not sure if I misread something, because a lot of this discussion seems to pertain to every tree.

I'm also still not sure how to take this ratio when thinking about species with compound leaves - would the same rules still apply? That's not to say that I am going to take this ratio 'rule' as gospel. I'm just interested in the interpretation as a basis to learn from.

Yes yes yes thats right Friends of bonsai. Now i remember. Significant indeed Pup. BC also another tough one. Our banner is further proof of your accolades no doubt! Well done my hat's are off to you. You have definately achieved alot in all your 25 yrs doing this wonderful art.

I have really been enjoying reading the to's & fro's of this thread, however one thing keeps coming up that IRKS me...

The continued reference to "RULES", when the japanese first put down on paper for all us westerners to learn there art, they were not intended to be taken as "RULES" but guidelines. If we take them as rules this is the sort of merrygo round that happens, If you take them as intended "GUIDELINES" then its easy, and does away with the needless crap that seems to have emerged after just one man shared his views. There are lots of examples from around the world & also in the kokufu books that do not conform to the "rules" or "guidelines" yet often rate very highly or even win competitions.

There are also alot of renowned trees that do not have perfect nebari, far from it. Yet the japanese, chinese, every other nationality do not throw them away or layer to produce such unnatural 'perfect' nebari. Why do we continue to insist that the trees grown in this country match up to such a nonsensical and nonexistant standard.

JM2C

Matt

anttal63 wrote:Yes yes yes thats right Friends of bonsai. Now i remember. Significant indeed Pup. BC also another tough one. Our banner is further proof of your accolades no doubt! Well done my hat's are off to you. You have definately achieved alot in all your 25 yrs doing this wonderful art.

Hey Guy's, i think this thread is in danger of turning into a.." mine is bigger than yours." slanging match. I hope we are aware enough to understand that, yeah.