AusBonsai

Piscineidiot wrote:
Thanks for your reply Owen. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I have some reservations. I hope you don't mind a point by point reply.

If the definition/purpose of bonsai is/was solely to express nature once upon a time, how the 'nature' is expressed, and the qualities of nature that are being expressed are entirely up to the artists themselves

.
Absolutely true. However, the expression is made to be viewed and the way that expression is viewed is entirely up the viewer. If we are to assume that the highest form of the art is a work where we are not distracted by obvious human manipulation, as I do (and obviously we need to suspend disbelief to some extent, after all we are observing a tree in a pot), some may conclude that this expression is unsuccessful. As I do when I observe the trees in question. This was and is the whole point of my post. If your definition of true bonsai art differs from mine, then we could never agree (which of course is perfectly fine).

(By the way, was this definition written before or after the introduction of the use of wire in bonsai? If it was before, then we are ALL bastardising bonsai)

Probably after but the technique should not matter, only the final result.

Traditional oriental paintings of nature are also supposed to express nature (the man who taught me to paint also painted in the traditional, oriental manner, and the language is used a LOT), but I'm yet to see a scroll painting done in ink that contains ANY photo-realistic renditions of nature.

I don't know that we are striving for photo-realism in bonsai. I will be the first to admit that what we seek to achieve is an ''idealised'' representation of the subject. (WITH the proviso that the original intention of a natural LOOKING scene (not a natural scene) is not forgotten) There are many features in most natural trees which if included in the work would be jarring or disturbing to view. So we remove what we see as is ''unnecessary'' or ''undesirable'' (realistic or not). What I seek is not realism it's convincibility.

Even though the Japanese silk screen contains more detail, the image itself feels more stylised. This is common among in MANY Japanese artforms (and arguably extends to the current iteration of bonsai in Japan). It's obviously a painting of something from nature, but it's very manicured, and sanitised, and it's apparent what the artist/client felt was more visually interesting/aesthetically pleasing, because all those things are accentuated beyond their natural state (every fibre on every feather is visible, for example). The Dutch example, while actually containing less detail, far more closely emulates the natural forms as a whole.

Agreed. And in this case I find the Japanese painting more desirable. The Dutch example is dispiriting and too dark in my eyes. Just as I would prefer an overly groomed shimpaku over some more realistic but dull bonsai. However, that doesn't mean that the shimpaku or the Hydrangea painting could not be improved. As I mentioned earlier, the viewing part is entirely up to the viewer. In other words, I don't ''have'' to like what I'm looking at.

Here's another example. Having been involved in the aquarium industry too for a very long time, I saw the rising of a concept known as "The Nature Aquarium" in Japan. These planted aquariums were grown to EXPRESS the beauty of nature with a Japanese aesthetic. Beautiful, undoubtedly, but when you REALLY looked at them, did they ever truly represent a single existing ecosystem in nature? No! They gave the IMPRESSION of nature, and emphasised the aesthetically pleasing. They represent an idealised wilderness, not the thing itself.

This is a good example! Do they represent a real piece of an aquatic eco system? Well no how could they ever do that. BUT are they convincing to the viewer? To this viewer, yes. ( I didn't look at all of them yet

Anyway, I get the feeling that the major point in contention is what is meant by "to express nature". There seem to be two definitions I have arrived upon from the reading of a few of the arguments being put forward in this thread and others (granted, there must be others).

A) A tree must closely approximate one in the nature to express nature

Not exactly. As long as the approximation is convincing to the mind. Complete realism is unnecessary and probably usually undesirable.

B) A tree expresses nature if it can evoke feelings for nature

It can, but to me this is not quite good enough. To many, many others, it may well be. To others still, the question does not even arise!

Previous to the popularity of impressionism, paintings were meant to LITERALLY convey reality i.e. the more closely a painting resembled the subject, the better the art and the artist.

For centuries, this was the case.

Then some people turned up that thought they wanted to capture the ambience, and the feeling of the subject, even if it meant compromising on time-honoured rules like solid, defined forms, lines of perspective needing to be in place, and mixing your damned paints before applying them to the canvas.

Yes, and there 's nothing wrong with capturing the ''feeling'' or the ambience in a simple or even diffuse form. What I contend is that the manicured trees fail to do that precisely because these features are forgotten in the pursuit of perfection of superficial form. I believe that achieving ''true'' naturalism in bonsai is infinitely more difficult than the extremely detailed work of today.

The fact that you feel more strongly about something doesn't mean others have to too.

Of course not.

Or that judges/competitions must necessarily share your view.

Again no, however I do feel that the judges' tastes have been corrupted by various pressures or trends unrelated to the art. (That is of course my personal feeling from this distance)

And ultimately, what would the course of action be? To create a list of bonsai derived genres? Or just go from calling things bonsai to 'trees in a pot' (which would be hilariously ironic) if they don't fit our definition?

The course of action would be to continue saying what you want to say and doing what you want to do.

Michael,Michael,Michael your not blowing in the wind are you brother?

The day we put them in the pot,they went un-natural.

We only express what we have in imagination at the time or what we are influenced by(of time in bonsai) or others that have expressed before us nothing more nothing less.

What you have put up in black and white is to me not remotely different to today's trees,you picked what suits your argument,put the modern in black and white they all look the same.

Guys like you influence my song writing Mike...I find you entertaining,annoying and a guy that genuinely wants to help others(beginners) all at the same time...mmm funny guy!

Anyway first part of the song

"The day is long,hot sun strong
Moments are fought,long time to talk
Thinking about the wrong,wrong,wrong
Forget the rot,time to move off
Forget the rot,time to move off
Cause life is good,life is good
Life is good, good,good"

Anyway keep stirring Mike...oh dear ..cheers Brother

I'm always happy to have an intellectual discussion, but I do feel this conversation has largely run its course. I will simply finish with these final points.

If we are to assume that the highest form of the art is a work where we are not distracted by obvious human manipulation, as I do (and obviously we need to suspend disbelief to some extent, after all we are observing a tree in a pot), some may conclude that this expression is unsuccessful. As I do when I observe the trees in question. This was and is the whole point of my post. If your definition of true bonsai art differs from mine, then we could never agree (which of course is perfectly fine).

You have made it quite clear that your view of what the pinnacle of bonsai is is not being reflected in international trends. I'm simply going to point out that objectively speaking, there is no pinnacle, there is only a radiation. A myriad different directions and subtly different styles moving out in all directions from any single approach. There is NO 'better' or 'worse'. There is ultimately only what you, I and others 'like'.

Again no, however I do feel that the judges' tastes have been corrupted by various pressures or trends unrelated to the art. (That is of course my personal feeling from this distance)

This, I strongly disagree with. The aesthetic of those 'modern' bonsai more closely resembles depictions of trees in Japanese artwork. Compare those trees to wood cuts, silk screens and ink paintings from the same time period as that painting with the roosters and the hydrangeas. I'd argue that the trend is towards mimicking traditional, Japanese artwork with the trees as much as is possible while still working with a living tree. No, it doesn't mimic the qualities of 'wildness' and 'nature' that you value as much as you might desire or adhere to your interpretation of the original definition of bonsai (if there is such a thing), but can you really argue that the Japanese evolution of a Japanese art is WRONG? Sure, you don't have to like it, but to say that it's not 'true' bonsai is a bit much. Anthropologically and culturally, the very opposite would be true. I mean, if we followed your line of logic, then you or someone else with similar tastes needs to go to Japan and show them the error of their ways! I wonder how everyone would react...

Would you have the gall to tell an Indigenous Aboriginal painter that your painting was more "Aboriginal" because your painting more closely adhered to what YOU thought was their traditional aesthetic?

The course of action would be to continue saying what you want to say and doing what you want to do.

Well in that case, no constructive outcome can possibly be reached. Nothing will come of us ranting over and over and over about something that we can neither control or really contribute to in any concrete way. Then, it just becomes whinging. Noise for a purpose has its place and value. Noise for the sake of noise, well, it's just pointless. We may as well just forget this discussion ever happened and go and prune our trees. Literally no difference has been made.

Anyway, I've said my piece. I will continue to enjoy the trees you grow according to your aesthetic (which are excellent) and indeed, probably attempt to emulate them to some degree, but I will also equally continue to appreciate the highly refined and stylised trees coming from elsewhere for what they are: A beautiful demonstration of how technique can be used to create beautiful, evocative imagery in partnership with a living tree.

Regards,

Owen

shibui wrote:I wonder whether WWII had anything to do with this. I understand that most bonsai were either destroyed or hidden in gardens because bonsai was seen as diverting resources away from the war effort. It would have taken quite a few years to restyle the few bonsai that were left and longer to grow and collect new specimens and get them looking manicured.

1971 was 26 years after the war ended but I'm not sure what resources were being put into bonsai during that time.
Just my thoughts on an alternative conclusion..........

I think this is very plausible Neil and like the thought you have given it.

I don't think this discussion will ever run it's course, as is clearly evident from the opinions it beings forth.

Just remember guys, having a discussion is the key. Bullying and abuse is not in the spirit of ausbonsai, nor being respectful. The mark of great wisdom is to allow us to listen, learn and develop.

I feel in time, having trees grown naturally will become commonplace. Bonsai is translated as a tree in a pot.

But for those that like artistic or representations or interpretations of a tree, they will continue to enjoy the fruits of their labour. And so they should.

I love and enjoy hearing many discussions on what we see as bonsai.
So let's keep it as discussions so we may all learn and love.

I think from the example here, although not as refined, would fit right into Kimura's Category? And they say that some of his tree's are unnatural. If we look at this example though would it not look unnatural in a pot, yet here it is.

Rory wrote:Bonsai is translated as a tree in a pot.

But you see, it's not even that specific. The original meaning of the word, and the only criteria, was that it was something planted in a pot. The Chinese characters for it are the same. It's since become more than that obviously, but it wasn't.

http://www.bonsai4me.com/AdvTech/ATBons ... ymbols.htm

There are far more reputable sites for the translation of kanji out there, but this page has both 'tree' and 'pot' and 'planting' on it.

bon = pot/tub
sai = planting

The Japanese character for tree is the same as that for wood, which is pronounced 'ki' or 'moku'.

Perhaps what's really causing confusion and conflict is the expectation that 'bonsai' as an artform has one TRUE form, or that the term represents that one true form.

In reality, the words 'bonsai' are used much the same as the words 'oil painting' might be.

Within bonsai, there are different styles and approaches. These individual styles and approaches do not in themselves constitute the whole of bonsai.

Bonsai is the medium, not the genre.

Here's a pretty well referenced wikipedia article about penzai/bonsai:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penjing

[Piscineidiot"]




You have made it quite clear that your view of what the pinnacle of bonsai is is not being reflected in international trends. I'm simply going to point out that objectively speaking, there is no pinnacle, there is only a radiation. A myriad different directions and subtly different styles moving out in all directions from any single approach. There is NO 'better' or 'worse'. There is ultimately only what you, I and others 'like'.

From ''ART'' by Clive Bell. ''Any system of aesthetics which pretends to be based on some objective truth is so palpably ridiculous as not to be worth discussing''. ''We have no other means of recognizing a work of art other than our feelings for it''.
If we are to consider the subject in a purely objective manner, how can any exchange of ideas ever me made? We would become constantly bogged down with the tedious line of ''Well others don't see it that way'' or ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''. The purpose of this discussion is to articulate the way individuals see (feel about) what they are looking at and their reasons for it.
I have attempted to explain (probably unsucessfully) my reasons for disliking a particular form and my preference for another. Some have agreed with me and others have not.
To say ''there is no better or worse'' contributes nothing to further our understanding of aesthetics. It only says to me that there is no point to this conversation due to the subjectivity inherent in it. Of course there is better and worse in art. Of course there is bad and good and right and wrong.
You brought up the subject of indigenous art. It's blatantly obvious to me that contemporary works from that community have been steered in a certain direction from the Western perspective and with commerce in mind. Beautiful though the works can be, this should be obvious to even the casual observer.
Is it ''wrong'' to be influenced by outside forces which distort the original and true aesthetic? Of course it is. In this case it lowers their (the works) innate value while increasing their monetary value.

This, I strongly disagree with. The aesthetic of those 'modern' bonsai more closely resembles depictions of trees in Japanese artwork. Compare those trees to wood cuts, silk screens and ink paintings from the same time period as that painting with the roosters and the hydrangeas. I'd argue that the trend is towards mimicking traditional, Japanese artwork with the trees as much as is possible while still working with a living tree. No, it doesn't mimic the qualities of 'wildness' and 'nature' that you value as much as you might desire or adhere to your interpretation of the original definition of bonsai (if there is such a thing), but can you really argue that the Japanese evolution of a Japanese art is WRONG? Sure, you don't have to like it, but to say that it's not 'true' bonsai is a bit much. Anthropologically and culturally, the very opposite would be true. I mean, if we followed your line of logic, then you or someone else with similar tastes needs to go to Japan and show them the error of their ways! I wonder how everyone would react...

I don't need to go to Japan to show the errors of their ways. There is just as much of this sentiment (if you care to read between the lines of the various Japanese texts) in Japan as in the West. Things like ''This tree appears unnatural'', wiring this will make it look fake'', ''this looks plastic'', ''Shimpaku are over worked these days'' etc etc are commonplace.

Well in that case, no constructive outcome can possibly be reached. Nothing will come of us ranting over and over and over about something that we can neither control or really contribute to in any concrete way. Then, it just becomes whinging. Noise for a purpose has its place and value. Noise for the sake of noise, well, it's just pointless. We may as well just forget this discussion ever happened and go and prune our trees. Literally no difference has been made.

Well that makes no sense Owen. The whole point of a bonsai forum is to talk about bonsai. The constructive outcome is the fact that folks saying what they want to say makes others think.

A final note. They say pictures help. I am looking at what is presented in front of me NOW. The question of who made it or how much experience they have or the tradition involved or the reputation of the artist or his skill or the age or the size of the tree or whether others see it differently or any other factor is meaningless. How something makes you feel is everything.

Good bonsai art. It convinces me that it is a wild plant hanging from a rocky precipice. I can ''see'' the mountain all around it. If I ponder long enough I can feel the wind and hear birds singing. Good! Superior..


Bad bonsai art. It does NOT convince me of a natural scene. It tells me nothing. It makes obvious the work of humans. Bad!...Inferior

What do we think of these ones from back in the day?

anthonyW wrote:Michael,Michael,Michael your not blowing in the wind are you brother?

The day we put them in the pot,they went un-natural.

We only express what we have in imagination at the time or what we are influenced by(of time in bonsai) or others that have expressed before us nothing more nothing less.

What you have put up in black and white is to me not remotely different to today's trees,you picked what suits your argument,put the modern in black and white they all look the same.

Guys like you influence my song writing Mike...I find you entertaining,annoying and a guy that genuinely wants to help others(beginners) all at the same time...mmm funny guy!

Anyway first part of the song

"The day is long,hot sun strong
Moments are fought,long time to talk
Thinking about the wrong,wrong,wrong
Forget the rot,time to move off
Forget the rot,time to move off
Cause life is good,life is good
Life is good, good,good"

Anyway keep stirring Mike...oh dear ..cheers Brother

Anthony Anthony, Anthony,
I don't think this thread is for you.

treeman wrote: From ''The Masters book of Bonsai'' (JBA),...... ''Bonsai is a tree or plant in a container and is therefore small in size, but yet in it's entirety expresses the beauty and volume of a tree growing in it's natural environment''
Ok, so from that and numerous other similar definitions, the purpose of bonsai is to express NATURE. In my mind as soon as a deviation from this concept becomes evident, the original purpose is diluted and the tree is rendered inferior.

Light-bulb moment!!!

Although this topic has been discussed (argued?) before, and you know which side of the fence I tend to sit, your statement above clarified everything for me.

Your interpretation: "..... The purpose of bonsai is to express NATURE."
My interpretation: " ..... The purpose of bonsai is to EXPRESS nature."

It is that simple. Seriously.
Two similar interpretations with such unnecessary dividing views.
If you accept this, then there is no right or wrong, no inferiority based on deviation from one or the other... Just mere interpretations, and just mere opinion.

"wrcmad"

Your interpretation: "..... The purpose of bonsai is to express NATURE."
My interpretation: " ..... The purpose of bonsai is to EXPRESS nature."

Ok, well you've lost me!

Webos wrote:What do we think of these ones from back in the day?

The first one I love.
The other two I also love but not like the first...if you know what I mean.

The first one has the ''N'' factor
The second does not but could very easily get it.
The last one gives away it's maker.

This is based on how they appear to me NOW.

What do others think?

N factor? Natural?

treeman wrote:

"wrcmad"

Your interpretation: "..... The purpose of bonsai is to express NATURE."
My interpretation: " ..... The purpose of bonsai is to EXPRESS nature."

Ok, well you've lost me!

Without repeating myself too much, I guess it goes along the same lines as this previous thread: viewtopic.php?f=106&t=20659#p210206

The way I interpret it is:

This is expressing NATURE: This is EXPRESSING nature: This is expressing NATURE: This is EXPRESSING nature: Same thing, different emphasis.