AusBonsai

Rhiannon wrote: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.

Rhi first loose the word rule! second only certain people are using the referance " every tree " I met you as a bright and intelligent young girl, please stay that way. Dont get caught in the accusations that some elaborate.

Now; 1:2-4...1:6 at the most in my personal opinion and view. Are ratio's that will give you a very powerful image. Now lets not take the word powerful out of context. I repeat; Are ratio's that will give you a very powerful image, regardless of the age, sexuality, shape, form, style, genda, transgenda, erotica, exotica, aggressive, calming, fast, slow...that you are trying to create. I think i covered all the possabilities and positions there???

A powerful image... providing all the elements in the design correspond to this ratio.

Even compound...

I hope this helps. the next time i see you i will teach you what i know,of this concept in real time. Face to face tree to tree. My journey on this path has only just begun so still so much to learn my self. The people that will benfit from this are the people who are open to what this is really all about.

Rhiannon wrote: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.

This is a great line of thought Rhiannon, and i see where it goes wrong. Every tree that is presented here as an example is a showable, aged tree but once upon a time they would not have fitted inside the rules. Especially if the tree tree being used as an example was a collected tree. It would have had to be reduced and regrown to a proportion to suit. So, to grow a tree on to get some size it would be, for a certain amount of its life, out of proportion. You know, to not confuse the issue, in my mind if you see a good tree it will have an impact on you whether it is proportional or not. Art is like that. Could you imagine how this debate started long ago when someone of renown in the Bonsai world said, GOSH..that is a great looking tree..i wonder what its measurements are? and so the debate was born. All of it is just a guide, the only thing that is set in stone is that it is a tree in a pot!

I very much agree Matt. I would love to talk about design principles without always having to discuss the breaking rules argument. Personally as I have siad here before I don't like the word Guidelines either though as I don't think that is a fair translation of what they really are either.
I now seriously doubt that there is one word that describes them adequately.

When Studying Fine arts or graphic design for 5 years teaching such things as perspective, visual speed, unity of design. They don't call them guidelines as they are sound design principles. It is your artistic ability to use these principles in practice that makes a great artist.

I think Bonsai Design Principles is the best definition of the rules.

The common thought in the ratio principle Rhiannon is much as you say. 1:6 is the average stature lower is a more sturdy tree. above is more graceful. You can relate this to age with some thought.
Edit an hour later after writing this I finally post it

anttal63 wrote:Rhi first loose the word rule!

That's why I threw the inverted commas around it. I don't like the word 'rule' much, especially because I seem to have a habit of breaking them in almost everything I do. It's just shorter to type than guidelines. But I probably shouldn't use it again as it tends to lead to confusion. I guess perhaps it would have been more accurate in this instance to refer to it as Salvatore's theory or something?

I find it easy to get lost in the million different opinions that float around, but I try to take as much out of each of them that I can. I'm too new to this to be able to have much of an opinion myself. Thanks for the clarification.

bodhidharma wrote:Could you imagine how this debate started long ago when someone of renown in the Bonsai world said, GOSH..that is a great looking tree..i wonder what its measurements are? and so the debate was born. All of it is just a guide, the only thing that is set in stone is that it is a tree in a pot!

To be honest, when this thread started I was amazed that it even was a debate. I'd never really read of ratios anywhere. I just figured you were supposed to make the tree look old, in proportion, but reduced in size compared to how it is in nature. I guess I'm showing my ignorance now. Perhaps these kinds of debates are born simply when people try to teach how they do things. It's like when people ask me for recipes for my dishes - unless it's a dessert I just tend to throw in whatever feels right and modify according to taste. I have no set rules, but when asked I have to conjure up a recipe because its the easiest way to translate information to someone who doesn't know how to learn by taste. I always imagined the same kind of thing with the first bonsai artists - that when they first began to teach their craft they had to lie down 'rules' which they perhaps didn't follow to a tee themselves, but were the easiest way of translating the information. So as much as I take things like this lightly, this thread has also provided me with a lot to think about as I start to experiment with my very first trees.

Thanks also for your input. It helps a lot cause, like I said to Antonio, I get lost amongst it all sometimes.

Now; 1:2-4...1:6 at the most in my personal opinion and view. Are ratio's that will give you a very powerful image.

Powerful could mean many things in art and bonsai but if by that you mean strong and Masculine then most already understood this as the basics of the ratio principle in bonsai and nothing new?.
But if you are insinuating that a tree over 1:6 can not make a powerful image in the meaning of your words "convincing bonsai" then as has been shown there are many powerful convincing bonsai over 1:4 Is Walters famous Maple not a powerful image?
A graceful tree of over 1:6 can make a powerful image in the true meaning of the word.
I am sure you will think I am playing games with words but it really is the other way around.

second only certain people are using the referance " every tree " I met you as a bright and intelligent young girl, please stay that way. Dont get caught in the accusations that some elaborate

The insinuation was that it had to be under 1:4 if it was to be a convincing bonsai.

On the weekend at the AABC in sydney Salvatore Liporace, told us we should be using from 2:1 to 4:1 ratio if we want to build good and convincing "Bonsai"

So I guess you didn't say every tree no, just the convincing ones. This is not elaborate accusations but your words.
Like I said 1:4 and under has always been known to give a strong masculine image there is nothing new here. It does not mean that over 1:4 can not be convincing and yes even a Powerful image.

rhi that analogy is so spot on!!! You got it girl. Time for you and the boy to pop over for a cuppa. Then we can really chew the recipe's! BTW this is not Salvs theory. Great artists all over the world have been making great trees to these ratio's for ever.

anttal63 wrote:rhi that analogy is so spot on!!! You got it girl. Time for you and the boy to pop over for a cuppa. Then we can really chew the recipe's!

Give me two weeks. I'm that far away from finishing my degree - I've got two major essay to do by June 14th and then my life as an undergrad is over - which I why I don't know why I'm so glued to this forum instead of researching like I'm supposed to be doing right now.

Little time wasting and learning at the same time is good. Not too much though.

When someone tells me I am wrong, they have to show me theres are better not bigger. That is my last word on this.

Thats what they all say at the end of a thread full of jibberish! come one come all!

Pup wrote:When someone tells me I am wrong, they have to show me theres are better not bigger. That is my last word on this.

I am Surprised it has taken this long Pup
I gave up Reading every post soon after my only post to it as it seems like it has gone round in circles 3 times then.

Don't know how many times in how many threads, Some people call them "Rules", but we all know they can be broken, or are not really rules but "Guidelines", or any other Euphamism you might use.
Dunno how many times We have all said that We can all like trees of different statures and be friendly about it. If we all liked the same thing, then life will get pretty boring.

How many times do we have to say show me yours and I'll show you mine! or I wil show you a better one, or I'll show one thet reinforces my opinion and your opinion is Wrong!

Get off it fellas! If Salvatore thinks that 1:2 trees are all rage now, then you do not have to spend the next 100 posts trying to prove that he is right and everyone else who might have there own opinion is wrong. If you agree with him then Great, If you don't. then that is great too.

Ken

Thanks Ken, you are saying what i am thinking

Beautifully played Mr Poole. The Labrador has been attached to the leg of this subject way too long

Mojo

OK Ken if you say so??? Sorry Salv i've been told! Ahhhhhh Ken you gotta tree?

Very interesting comments so far
This has been a really interesting topic
I must say I've found this thread incredibly enlightening. Admittedly, I've never thought (or heard) much about trunk ratios.
I did not make the convetion, but this discussion is interesting to say the least
This has been an educational post, not only on bonsai but fashion, politics and personal crusades :lol

Absolutely Gold! While I may be relatively new to the art of bonsai, you spoke VOLUMES.
Hey Brett. I can see what you are saying about the maple. Thats really cool. food for thought in that.
I have really been enjoying reading the to's & fro's of this thread, however one thing keeps coming up that IRKS me...

As you can see from the above comments many members have got alot out of this.
Yet I do feel your heat ache!
I have found that when a conversation is going around in circles it is because some one in the conversation is avoiding filling the hole of unanswered questions.

As far as gibberish goes look through the thread and see where the Gibberish is most prevalent. Funny thing is this is where the big hole of unanswered questions are.