AusBonsai

I think this one is pretty straight forward.The trunk line views well the first branch on the right slightly overlaps the trunk which gives a great suggestion of depth to the composition.
There is an interesting feature about half way up the tree where the trunk moves forward quite drastically and also the outside curve of a fairly drastic bend. The rules (design principles) would suggest this could be an opportune position for a branch. Yet this is over ridden by the possibility of this upsetting the balance as this trunk protrudes so far out. I feel a branch there would upset the balance of the tree and the artist has done a great job in balancing the tree with foliage behind this area instead.
Now a procedure I think will be beneficial to understand how the design principles have been used on all these trees. Turn the tree 90 degrees 3 times in your mind. It becomes evident that the artist has had the branch placement design principle as the tree was designed.

Grant Bowie wrote:By the way Grants tree is 6:1

Purely by accident, not with forethought or malus.[/quote]

You mean the apple is to blame again Pup

soltan wrote:

P1030625.JPG

I think this one is pretty straight forward.The trunk line views well the first branch on the right slightly overlaps the trunk which gives a great suggestion of depth to the composition.
There is an interesting feature about half way up the tree where the trunk moves forward quite drastically and also the outside curve of a fairly drastic bend. The rules (design principles) would suggest this could be an opportune position for a branch. Yet this is over ridden by the possibility of this upsetting the balance as this trunk protrudes so far out. I feel a branch there would upset the balance of the tree and the artist has done a great job in balancing the tree with foliage behind this area instead.
Now a procedure I think will be beneficial to understand how the design principles have been used on all these trees. Turn the tree 90 degrees 3 times in your mind. It becomes evident that the artist has had the branch placement design principle as the tree was designed.

The big thing about this tree it has ignored the ( design principle ) of no branch on the inside of a curve. take it away in your mind's eye. It is still a nice tree, But with it a better one JMO.Pup

Grant Bowie wrote:
By the way Grants tree is 6:1

Purely by accident, not with forethought or malus.

You mean the apple is to blame again Pup
Pup
Knowledgeable rogue
[/quote]

I would say this is not about consciencely thinking about the rules. I am just thinking along the lines that we don't need to ignore them to be imaginative. I am not saying you need to get your tape measure to design a tree every time. After a while you get a fair idea of what stature the tree will give without actually measuring. This is different to purposely forgetting the rules to be creative.

I found Grants comments about the back branch very interesting. That branch definitely makes a perfect sacrifice branch at the least. After hearing Grants comments I may even go as far as to say that the tree could be very pleasing with this branch here (and taste can enter here). I would not see this concession as a defeat of the claim we can not break rules and have a pleasing effect. I will wait to explain that further when I attempt to explain this with the most back branch bonsai picture Pup has posted. But first I think It appropriate to address a different one first and also answer Pups welcome comment

Pup
I meant guts of my post to address this branch in the curve you point out although from a different angle.

There is an interesting feature about half way up the tree where the trunk moves forward quite drastically and also the outside curve of a fairly drastic bend. The rules (design principles) would suggest this could be an opportune position for a branch. Yet this is over ridden by the possibility of this upsetting the balance as this trunk protrudes so far out. I feel a branch there would upset the balance of the tree and the artist has done a great job in balancing the tree with foliage behind this area instead.

I was addressing that from why was that branch not on the outside curve up further or even one at both points. I can see I have not mentioned that though. I would say that the artist has tilted the trunk to a degree that reduces the problem. Also as I stated that a branch up further would unbalance the tree as the curve is so far out. I would be thinking there could have possibly been another solution if you wanted a branch on that outside curve. That would be to lean the tree back and to the right more. I think the artist has taken the best solution. To me these are points of where the artist has used his understanding of the rules to balance the tree not forgotten them.

Asus said
Some time people forget bonsai is both horticulture AND art.
Follow the hort rules and keep the plant alive, and then treat the plant as a blank canvas.

Even if you strip all the branches there is always a starting base that can't be called a blank canvas. I guess it is more like a squiggle for Miss Jane and Mr Squigles .
"Upside down! Upside down! Miss Jane"

The next tree is again an amazing tree. I love how somehow it looks perellis and majestic at the same time. I think that the first two branches or pads in this case as outlined are in line with the basics of the branch design principle. They again slightly intersect with the trunk wich helps to show they are in front of the trunk and create depth.
Again if we turn this tree to either side it shows that the artist has balanced the trunk with side branches.
I am unsure of any other points on this one that should be raised about branch placement ? Except that they do a great job of enveloping that pigeon chest

Again I see no trouble with this one with the first two branches towards the front but to each side with a change in height. The Joining of the two can be down to personal taste. Some may say there is enough trunk showing and others may disagree. I think it could be cured easily by some pruning if you liked unless there was a flaw that this was hiding?

Looking closely the two first trunks are exiting slightly rear of the trunk. This front was probably chosen to show a better trunk base. I can imagine the other side may look a little crowded with the long angle of the branches. You may believe this is forgetting the rules but I see this as understanding the essence of the branch rule. The artist has balanced the tree with the branches and the branch-lets are arranged to show that they are towards the front of the tree with the help of a small front branch. It is showing a great trunk line.
I can not say for sure with the back but if the tree was viewed from almost any other angle one branch would be further to the back. The artist has used the Branch placement design principle to choose the front. Again I don't think the artist has disregarded the rule.

Next I pick the one with the most prominent back branch as first branch like Grants.

soltan wrote:

P1030627.JPG

Again I see no trouble with this one with the first two branches towards the front but to each side with a change in height. The Joining of the two can be down to personal taste. Some may say there is enough trunk showing and others may disagree. I think it could be cured easily by some pruning if you liked unless there was a flaw that this was hiding?

This one again bends the design principles note where the first branch is and also the size of it.
Remembering the rule of one third to the first branch!!!

soltan wrote:

P1030630.JPG

Looking closely the two first trunks are exiting slightly rear of the trunk. This front was probably chosen to show a better trunk base. I can imagine the other side may look a little crowded with the long angle of the branches. You may believe this is forgetting the rules but I see this as understanding the essence of the branch rule. The artist has balanced the tree with the branches and the branch-lets are arranged to show that they are towards the front of the tree with the help of a small front branch. It is showing a great trunk line.
I can not say for sure with the back but if the tree was viewed from almost any other angle one branch would be further to the back. The artist has used the Branch placement design principle to choose the front. Again I don't think the artist has disregarded the rule.

Next I pick the one with the most prominent back branch as first branch like Grants.

P1030624.JPG

The artist has applied what he sees as the way a tree grows. The rules do not allow for branches to cross the trunk!!

Pup wrote:

soltan wrote:

P1030630.JPG

Looking closely the two first trunks are exiting slightly rear of the trunk. This front was probably chosen to show a better trunk base. I can imagine the other side may look a little crowded with the long angle of the branches. You may believe this is forgetting the rules but I see this as understanding the essence of the branch rule. The artist has balanced the tree with the branches and the branch-lets are arranged to show that they are towards the front of the tree with the help of a small front branch. It is showing a great trunk line.
I can not say for sure with the back but if the tree was viewed from almost any other angle one branch would be further to the back. The artist has used the Branch placement design principle to choose the front. Again I don't think the artist has disregarded the rule.

Next I pick the one with the most prominent back branch as first branch like Grants.

P1030624.JPG

The artist has applied what he sees as the way a tree grows. The rules do not allow for branches to cross the trunk!!

The beauty of Bunjingii is that you see a tree. no rules just beauty.

soltan wrote:

P1030626.JPG

The next tree is again an amazing tree. I love how somehow it looks perellis and majestic at the same time. I think that the first two branches or pads in this case as outlined are in line with the basics of the branch design principle. They again slightly intersect with the trunk wich helps to show they are in front of the trunk and create depth.
Again if we turn this tree to either side it shows that the artist has balanced the trunk with side branches.
I am unsure of any other points on this one that should be raised about branch placement ? Except that they do a great job of enveloping that pigeon chest

Both of the foliage pads of what appears to be the first, branches in fact, come from a branch at the rear of the tree.
A great use of design principles. The tree is the important thing.

Pup wrote:

soltan wrote:

P1030627.JPG

Again I see no trouble with this one with the first two branches towards the front but to each side with a change in height. The Joining of the two can be down to personal taste. Some may say there is enough trunk showing and others may disagree. I think it could be cured easily by some pruning if you liked unless there was a flaw that this was hiding?

This one again bends the design principles note where the first branch is and also the size of it.
Remembering the rule of one third to the first branch!!!

I see what you mean about the height but unsure about any issue with the size or what rule this relates to? I believe the height principle of the first branch is much like the 6:1 ratio. It is a good starting point and going either side of this is fine when you understand what the effect to perspective will be(which I would think I have some to learn). I think it comes down to personal choice sometimes with trees that have a lot of the trunk covered for a very lush look such as a bowl haircut maple.
I can not stress enough that I believe we are saying much the same thing. Just in different ways. When I look at a tree that does not follow the one liner rules I see with less experience what you do. yet instead of thinking of this as breaking the rules. I see how the artist has used the design principles to correct a fault. Instead of seeing this as ignoring or breaking the rules I see the artist making a conscious decision to show of features and hide faults (this can develop as far as making a fault a feature) by their understanding of the "rules" Maybe you would say that forgetting the rules allows imagination. This I would disagree with. I believe the rules allows us to express our imagination.

When I study this tree I see the bulk of the right branch as being slightly higher than 1/3 the height of the tree(as per pic). I have not got out a ruler but I believe even if you find the centre of the whole branch it is still not that much lower than 1/3 the height. Yet it is there. I figure the artist has extended the outer part of this pad to excentuate a change in height from the second branch. This gives the tree the basic triangle shape that is pleasing in this style and by keeping this lower part of the pad away from the trunk it also shows thought to showing trunk movement. I see all this as an artist using their understanding of the design principles to find a balance between bar branching and height of the first pad. Instead of bending the rules I see this as using the rules.

The beauty of Bunjingii is that you see a tree. no rules just beauty.

They are said to be the hardest style to master. The people who have the best understanding of the rules will have the best chance to mater the style. IMHO

Brett the first branch on the right breaks all the guidelines. It is a lot thinner that all the branches above it.
It comes out of the trunk less than one third the height. About 25mm not having a slide rule, is definitely not one third.

Which is, as is put a RULE branches start at one third and the lowest be thickest.

I just pointed out a nice tree breaking these applied rules. Not mine, I do not profess to be one of our top growers.

What I have observed is a lot of time is applied to these so called rules. Do not ever ignore them, but they will form part of your subconscious.
That is when you will understand them.

Understanding Bunjingi, is as the top Sensei, say is understanding Bonsai.
JMHO Pup