AusBonsai

Ok I'm trying to understand what you mean, but

What's the difference between EXPRESS and express?

To express means to: communicate, convey, indicate, demonstrate etc. Whether it is emphasized or not....doesn't it?
I mean you are either expressing something or you aren't......or am I wrong?

I believe he is saying they both "express nature" as a whole treeman.

My understanding was that the first picture is more about nature and expressing it, leaving the emphasis on nature - more natural look (photo's 1 & 3).

The second emphasizes the expression aspect more, as it is (for lack of a better word) more man made art. It shows the artists expression foremost, then the nature - more manicured look (photo's 2 & 4).

If only nebari's like that last picture came naturally

Cheers,
Pearcy.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Pearcy001 wrote:I believe he is saying they both "express nature" as a whole treeman.

My understanding was that the first picture is more about nature and expressing it, leaving the emphasis on nature - more natural look (photo's 1 & 3).

The second emphasizes the expression aspect more, as it is (for lack of a better word) more man made art. It shows the artists expression foremost, then the nature - more manicured look (photo's 2 & 4).

If only nebari's like that last picture came naturally

Cheers,
Pearcy.

That is also how i interpreted it Pearcy.Fairly clear analogy.

It's a nice conclusion to the discussion I reckon.

No it's not Jarad... This discussion should continue for eternity.

It goes like this:

Person 1: "what colour is the sky"
Person 2: "the sky is blue"
Person 1: "no it's not, the sky is black"
Person 3: "no it's not, the sky is white"
Person 4: " no, it's all of the above"
Persons 1,2,3 and 4: youre all wrong because I'm right.

Webos wrote:No it's not Jarad... This discussion should continue for eternity.

It goes like this:

Person 1: "what colour is the sky"
Person 2: "the sky is blue"
Person 1: "no it's not, the sky is black"
Person 3: "no it's not, the sky is white"
Person 4: " no, it's all of the above"
Persons 1,2,3 and 4: youre all wrong because I'm right.

Jarad: I believe all of you.

Pearcy001 wrote:I believe he is saying they both "express nature" as a whole treeman.

My understanding was that the first picture is more about nature and expressing it, leaving the emphasis on nature - more natural look (photo's 1 & 3).

The second emphasizes the expression aspect more, as it is (for lack of a better word) more man made art. It shows the artists expression foremost, then the nature - more manicured look (photo's 2 & 4).

If only nebari's like that last picture came naturally

Cheers,
Pearcy.

Got it one!
Thanks Pearcy, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

Pearcy001 wrote:I believe he is saying they both "express nature" as a whole treeman.

My understanding was that the first picture is more about nature and expressing it, leaving the emphasis on nature - more natural look (photo's 1 & 3).

The second emphasizes the expression aspect more, as it is (for lack of a better word) more man made art. It shows the artists expression foremost, then the nature - more manicured look (photo's 2 & 4).

If only nebari's like that last picture came naturally

Cheers,
Pearcy.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I'm sorry but this does not make sense.
It's fine to say you put more emphasis on expression but you have to express ''something''. You can't express ''expression''. You are expressing nature in this case. In fact in both cases. Expression is means to an end not the end itself.

Here's another nice little passage (from Jusun Kamamoto)
''The aim of a bonsai is to take a single tree and from it construct a majestic landscape where there was nothing. A landscape not confined by photographic paper or sketchbook, but extending to infinity. A bonsai that presents such an image is a superior bonsai indeed''.
So if the aim is to produce a superior bonsai, then it follows that there are right and wrong ways and good and bad ways to achieve that aim. Whether superiority in art is recognized or not, this does not preclude it's existence!

Ok I'm done.

treeman wrote:

Pearcy001 wrote:I believe he is saying they both "express nature" as a whole treeman.

My understanding was that the first picture is more about nature and expressing it, leaving the emphasis on nature - more natural look (photo's 1 & 3).

The second emphasizes the expression aspect more, as it is (for lack of a better word) more man made art. It shows the artists expression foremost, then the nature - more manicured look (photo's 2 & 4).

If only nebari's like that last picture came naturally

Cheers,
Pearcy.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I'm sorry but this does not make sense.
It's fine to say you put more emphasis on expression but you have to express ''something''. You can't express ''expression''. You are expressing nature in this case. In fact in both cases. Expression is means to an end not the end itself.

I reckon he meant a. priority is given to the expression of the natural as opposed to b. priority is given to the expression of the art/artistic form.

Honestly, I don't mind either.

Fact is after a couple hundred years, seeing every tree styled naturally probably just got boring and so they changed it up and the world somewhat copied. Saying that their direction is wrong... well that's just wrong They can follow their own trends all they want (what would the world look like if we all still dressed the same as we did in the 50's? Apparently the ultimate goal of clothing was to cover us up, but hey that's gone down the drain to an extent hasn't it?.. not that anyone's complaining my point being that artistic expression overtook the main point of clothing in the first place. In the same way that artistic expression is slowing taking over the main point of Bonsai - being to create a tree that gives the impression and feel of a much older/larger tree in nature.)

If you want to style your trees more naturally go for it, but don't rag on folk that don't either mate.

There is a right and wrong as far as horticulture goes in Bonsai - keeping the tree healthy is priority no. 1. But you cant call Bonsai an art form in the traditional sense if there's going to be rules and regulations - in that case it would be much closer to a Martial Art than a traditional art (painting, drawing, photography, etc...).

Hope that made sense.

I have been looking for a video I watched recently, I cannot remember the artist. A Japanese master who late in his life was free to do as he wished and style his own trees the way he wanted and no longer concerned with styling trees for customers the way the customer wanted.
I accidentally found this video featuring the same tree as Mike showed as one of his favourites yesterday. No longer in black and white but seems to be the same tree in the same pot on the same stand. I believe the video is from 2009 and I am sure nobody will suggest that it has been 'over manicured' https://youtu.be/e5wnKUCi8lM

"MoGanic"

Looks like I'm not done


First this:

I reckon he meant a. priority is given to the expression of the natural as opposed to b. priority is given to the expression of the art/artistic form.

You can't express art/artistic form. You use art/artistic form to express.



Now to this:

If you want to style your trees more naturally go for it, but don't rag on folk that don't either mate.

I am NOT ''ragging'' on folk that don't wish to style trees in a natural way. I AM saying that I believe there are good and bad examples and right and wrong examples of bonsai art IF!!!! the intention is as has been defined here:

''The aim of a bonsai is to take a single tree and from it construct a majestic landscape where there was nothing. A landscape not confined by photographic paper or sketchbook, but extending to infinity. A bonsai that presents such an image is a superior bonsai indeed''.
To further my explanation, I consider 0% of my own trees qualify!

But you cant call Bonsai an art form in the traditional sense if there's going to be rules and regulations

True, UNLESS your definition of bonsai art is:''

''The aim of a bonsai is to take a single tree and from it construct a majestic landscape where there was nothing. A landscape not confined by photographic paper or sketchbook, but extending to infinity. A bonsai that presents such an image is a superior bonsai indeed''.

To make it perfectly clear for the last time! THIS IS MY DEFINITION!..... It does NOT have to be yours!!!!!! If it is not yours, I disagree with you (believe you are wrong). I have the right to say what I believe and I that you have the right to disagree with me!!!! You cannot have art without criticism. I am putting forward my case. You can do likewise. The result is discussion. No one speaks, the result is ....... nothing.
I started this thread to express what I feel is/was the true and original definition AND if you agree with this definition, it is necessary to follow certain techniques to succeed. I also feel that MOST people actually DO hold this as the definition and perhaps in some cases don't even realise it.

treeman wrote:

"MoGanic"

Looks like I'm not done


First this:

I reckon he meant a. priority is given to the expression of the natural as opposed to b. priority is given to the expression of the art/artistic form.

You can't express art/artistic form. You use art/artistic form to express.



Now to this:

If you want to style your trees more naturally go for it, but don't rag on folk that don't either mate.

I am NOT ''ragging'' on folk that don't wish to style trees in a natural way. I AM saying that I believe there are good and bad examples and right and wrong examples of bonsai art IF!!!! the intention is as has been defined here:

''The aim of a bonsai is to take a single tree and from it construct a majestic landscape where there was nothing. A landscape not confined by photographic paper or sketchbook, but extending to infinity. A bonsai that presents such an image is a superior bonsai indeed''.
To further my explanation, I consider 0% of my own trees qualify!

But you cant call Bonsai an art form in the traditional sense if there's going to be rules and regulations

True, UNLESS your definition of bonsai art is:''

''The aim of a bonsai is to take a single tree and from it construct a majestic landscape where there was nothing. A landscape not confined by photographic paper or sketchbook, but extending to infinity. A bonsai that presents such an image is a superior bonsai indeed''.

To make it perfectly clear for the last time! THIS IS MY DEFINITION!..... It does NOT have to be yours!!!!!! If it is not yours, I disagree with you (believe you are wrong). I have the right to say what I believe and I that you have the right to disagree with me!!!! You cannot have art without criticism. I am putting forward my case. You can do likewise. The result is discussion. No one speaks, the result is ....... nothing.
I started this thread to express what I feel is/was the true and original definition AND if you agree with this definition, it is necessary to follow certain techniques to succeed. I also feel that MOST people actually DO hold this as the definition and perhaps in some cases don't even realise it.

By art/artistic form I meant the technique/skill/manicuring etc... not the art form itself.

As for my comment about ragging on folk - I took your comments on inferior tree's to be ragging, didn't catch so much of the big "IF!!!" but I get it now. My bad.

treeman wrote:

Pearcy001 wrote:I believe he is saying they both "express nature" as a whole treeman.

My understanding was that the first picture is more about nature and expressing it, leaving the emphasis on nature - more natural look (photo's 1 & 3).

The second emphasizes the expression aspect more, as it is (for lack of a better word) more man made art. It shows the artists expression foremost, then the nature - more manicured look (photo's 2 & 4).

If only nebari's like that last picture came naturally

Cheers,
Pearcy.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I'm sorry but this does not make sense.
It's fine to say you put more emphasis on expression but you have to express ''something''. You can't express ''expression''. You are expressing nature in this case. In fact in both cases. Expression is means to an end not the end itself.

I'm out.
Not getting into a debate about semantics.
We could argue all day about how one should express an opinion, or we could accept that while we all have the same goal, we all favour subtly different elements of essentially the same thing.
If that makes my trees "inferior", then that is only in someone else's OPINION.
But should we really care? As you once said here:

treeman wrote: I believe your primary goal should be to achieve what you set out to achieve for yourself not for others.

Gerard wrote:I have been looking for a video I watched recently, I cannot remember the artist. A Japanese master who late in his life was free to do as he wished and style his own trees the way he wanted and no longer concerned with styling trees for customers the way the customer wanted.

It was Kobayashi: