AusBonsai

Roger i have copied your last post to a word document, so as to attempt to remind myself from time to time. Of the weight and merit these words carry. Thanks.

That was very well said Kunzea,
When I enter a bonsai competition I use to think that the judges would use a similar style judging guide as the one printed in the back of Deborah R. Koreshoff book (Bonsai It's Art, Science, History and Philosophy) probably an "old school" approach but unless alternative guidelines are stated when entering a competition one is to believe Bonsai will be judged as Bonsai.
But now you have opened my eye's a little more to the other side of the coin.

Thanks again.

Hi Kunzea,
I have little issue with the judging but I find your thoughts on the rules very interesting and would really enjoy discussing them with you.

Kunzea wrote:What you say about some of these trees as not even being 'bonsai' is a view that some others also believe. Where it has been explained to me before it goes something like bonsai are those trees where the traditional, Japanese styling of tightly controlled canopies, well exposed trunks with certain characterisitics of nebari and taper as well as branch lines that don't cross etc. are all evident. Within this system there are exceptions, for example to the 'rule' of no reverse taper, those trees with strong expressions of corky bark in ridges are 'allowed' to have reverse taper. For me this revelation indicated that there was both life and practicality in this that allowed for individual characteristics of trees to be included in the 'bonsai'. This is also covered in those, Japanese masters included, who say that trees should not be forced into what they are not - so shaping a Melaleuca or casuarina to look like a black pine, isn't exactly following the rules, if you get my drift.

I almost left this paragraph out of the quote for simplicity but there are a couple of important aspects I think worth discussing. It is interesting that you group Bonsai as a traditional Japanese styling! Being a beginner I am constantly exploring the rules and it is the inclusion of the traditional Chinese penjing that I find it is better put into perspective. It seems these days that much of the penjing styles are evolving and although in some way still unique they have more in common than before. It is these aspects that they have in common that I understand makes a great bonsai.
To me exceptions are for the English language not Bonsai. To me in bonsai there is always cause and effect. It either works or it doesn't. Now I am not so black and white to think that I can always see what works and what doesn't some times it takes a while to work out what it is that works
It is interesting that you bring up the corky bark because to me a rule that states it is ok for a tree to look like it has reverse taper because it has corky bark is a bad rule. I have looked at very corky oaks and wondered what people see in the composition that gives very little impression of an ancient tree but more like a horticultural oddity. I would not say that corky bark trees should not be grown as bonsai but I think it should not be used as an exception to not look like an ancient tree that's all. I am sure there are worse things people can present as bonsai so each to their own. Some people may be surprised and others may not but I feel a little the same way about the style being used for Acacia howittii. When I go to the national collection the Acacia howittii that you and many others have a special place for gets little interest from me. Yet I know little about this species and have never tried to grow it so I listen to what people have to say about these trees and consider it.
You say that Japanese Masters don't "force a tree into what they are not" which is very true but I think the other side to this is that the natural shape of a tree does not need to be what it is shown in as bonsai. The hedging varieties are a great example of this.
Thinking this way if I was growing Acacia howittii I would be working very hard to try to find a way to make sure that the trunk and structure of the tree was able to be seen from the front. Again maybe my views on this would change in the process as I don't have the romance of what is involved in growing this tree. But today I feel if I was growing this species and I felt that I could not accomplish this then the tree would become more of a veranda tree for me. Yet I would state again that I listen and consider what other people see in this species style and although a little disappointed that one made it second in the comp I think In a small way I understand why.

KUnzea wrote:Eventually, I moved to understand that there were no 'rules' and that the guidelines were a great set of 'rules of thumb' about what generally works. However, when it comes to a specific tree, appreciation of the 'art' is not achieved by running down a checklist of 'rules' to see how closely the work fits the model. Rather it is about looking at the composition as a whole and asking oneself if it is pleasing to look at. Then, why is it so (either pleasing or not pleasing). Then one can look to see whether there are apparent technical 'faults' and whether these make any difference to the enjoyment of the composition as a whole. Sometimes one feels that correcting them would make an improvement to what one sees (not just because it would no longer 'break the rule'), but at other times one realises that it is a case of 'not good, not bad, just different'.

Sorry for the above long winded discussion I found it hard to say it in less words but this was what I really wanted to discuss with you.
“Why is it so!” This I have found as the most important thought when considering the rules and understanding how to create great bonsai. First considering “Is it pleasing to look at” (does it work) and then working out why. Although I have found good practitioners tend to have the same thoughts in the end. I have found I tend to express this differently and I find your explanation the closest yet to the way I express my understanding of the rules.
Looking at trees that seem to break the rules and asking why does it work. The other side to this for me is looking at the rules and asking why do they work.
Although it seems many have the same thoughts I find it very important to get the expressions of these thoughts correct and I don’t like the expressions, Learn the rules and then forget them or learning the rules before you break them in fact anything about breaking the rules I find misleading. Even guidelines or the such I don‘t think explains them well enough.
There is much discussion in trying to give a word to describe the rules for what they are. I believe the problem is that the English language does not have a word that aptly describes them. I recently stated that the best word I have found so far is clues but this still is lacking in explanation in my opinion.
Consider it was not just funny lines about Confucius but as hard as it seems for us to comprehend the Chinese truly believe that

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

Kunzea wrote:Some people put forward the idea that you must thoroughly know the rules before you can break them. That is true up to a point, but it is not absolute. It also demands that viewers be prepared to accept trees that clearly break the rules. What rule guides you when you see a rule broken and whether you should accept the result or not? It can be used as a means of controlling other peoples creativity; or as a way of avoiding confronting the gnarly issue of 'what is the art?' in this composition. Craft is important to good bonsai, but it is not a substitue for creativity. Many people have distinguished bonsai from other 'potted plants' on the basis that bonsai are artistically styled miniature trees. To the extent that this is true, then it leaves open a very wide door about what is art. That also means that there will be trees that will both offend and excite different poeple. When that happens, then we know that something new may be coming onto the bonsai 'art' scene. Only time will tell if the change has currency or simply vanishes as an interesting but transient creation.

Using the rules to control other peoples creativity as you say would be a very bad ideal and I have trouble with such issues in display. To say a deciduous trees can not be shown in leaf may have some merit but I see this as limiting to creativity.
Literati will always stand as a reminder to me in bonsai that it can take some time to understand a style before you can appreciate it and we must keep an open mind when considering art.
This is why although I am not a big fan of the style favoured for the Acacia howittii I do appreciate that others see something I don’t at the moment and try to keep an open mind about them. I am sure I will give the Acacia howittii at the national collection an extra look next time I visit after considering it today

I am so excited about being awarded a second place in Category 1. I didn't think I had much of a chance which just goes to show it is always worth getting in there and having a go. I am already thinking about next years entry, which I imagine will be more hotly contested with such great prizes up for grabs.
Congratluations to fellow awardees and to all those that entered.

Denise

Thank you to everyone for their comments and feedback (good and bad). This was the first Australian Native Bonsai Awards and we will refine the process and judging for the next one. If you have any constructive feedback for improvement, please let us know by sending me a PM.

Judging any form of art will always be a contentious issue and please keep in mind that trees, particularly Aussie natives, don't grow according to rigid rules. Although you may not agree with the judges decision, the process was fair, structured and the judges were varied i.e. The Curator of the National Bonsai and Penjing Collection of Australia, the founder of the Australian Plants as Bonsai Study Group and a bloke from the burbs of Sydney. As in all competitions, the judges decision is final and should be treated with respect.

There has been discussion and requests for the individual scores and/or judges notes to be made public. We have decided that we will not be releasing these publicly. Roger (Kunzea) has generously offered to provide his score sheets and notes to any contributor if requested. Please request politely by sending him a PM.

To assist everyone in understanding the judging process I would like to encourage you to have a go. Attached you will find the same score sheets that were used to judge this years trees. It is in Excel format, easy to understand and has clear instructions. I am sure you will find this to be a challenging yet worthwhile learning exercise!

Thanks and regards,
Steven

Steven,

Thanks for this insight into the judging process. This will help greatly in future entries. I am already thinking about what I can do for next year.

Glenda

Hi Steven
Thanks for that but I can't open Excel format. Not sure if that is a common problem or it is just me?

You may remember Peter Adams answer to the question put to him about when will Australia be up with the rest of the world in Bonsai (or words to that effect )
He said "When we stop making excuses for our native trees"
I guess this could be taken several ways but to me I take it that our trees must stand on their own without explanation or excuses.They should just look great. Do we really need to explain Aussie natives for them to be appreciated?

Steven
particularly Aussie natives, don't grow according to rigid rules.

I think this is a bit of a loaded statement suggesting that non-natives are only grown according to rigid rules. So lets ask can Aussie natives be grown in the normal concept of Bonsai? Has anyone ever tried to just make a great miniature tree out of natives. Are there iconic natives in this competition that search to just be great trees not great natives?

Bretts wrote:Hi Steven
Thanks for that but I can't open Excel format...

If you don't have Micro$oft Excel, Brett, you can download OpenOffice which is a totally free, no strings attached, suite of programmes compatible with Micro$oft Office.

http://www.openoffice.org/

Thanks Ron downloading now. Our microsoft word puts out in a strange WPS (I think) format that no one else can open. Maybe this will help there too?
Cheers

Bretts wrote:Thanks Ron downloading now. Our microsoft word puts out in a strange WPS (I think) format that no one else can open. Maybe this will help there too?
Cheers

Brett,

.WPS files come from Microsoft Works which is a suite of proggies which normally come free with a PC. You can Google up converters which allow you to change them to .DOC files.

I don't know if OpenOffice will read .wps files and I don't have any to test with.

OpenOffice will read all Microsoft Office files (.doc, .xls etc) but Ms Office won't open OpenOffice files although there are probably converters around.

EDIT:

How to Open WPS Files in Open Office

Ron wrote:

Bretts wrote:Thanks Ron downloading now. Our microsoft word puts out in a strange WPS (I think) format that no one else can open. Maybe this will help there too?
Cheers

Brett,

.WPS files come from Microsoft Works which is a suite of proggies which normally come free with a PC. You can Google up converters which allow you to change them to .DOC files.

I don't know if OpenOffice will read .wps files and I don't have any to test with.

OpenOffice will read all Microsoft Office files (.doc, .xls etc) but Ms Office won't open OpenOffice files although there are probably converters around.

EDIT:

How to Open WPS Files in Open Office

Word will open openOffice files, but OpenOffice can't open the newest version of Office 2007 files that have an 'x' suffix (eg docx) files, at least my version doesn't.

Glenda

Ron wrote:

Bretts wrote:Thanks Ron downloading now. Our microsoft word puts out in a strange WPS (I think) format that no one else can open. Maybe this will help there too?
Cheers

Brett,

.WPS files come from Microsoft Works which is a suite of proggies which normally come free with a PC. You can Google up converters which allow you to change them to .DOC files.

I don't know if OpenOffice will read .wps files and I don't have any to test with.

OpenOffice will read all Microsoft Office files (.doc, .xls etc) but Ms Office won't open OpenOffice files although there are probably converters around.

EDIT:

How to Open WPS Files in Open Office

Word will open openOffice files, but OpenOffice can't open the newest version of Office 2007 files that have an 'x' suffix (eg docx) files, at least my version doesn't.

Glenda

Have you got the latest OpenOffice, Glenda?

"In addition to read and write support for the Microsoft Office binary file formats (.doc; .xls, .ppt, etc.), OpenOffice.org 3.0 is now capable of opening files created with Microsoft Office 2007 or Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac OS X (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.). Thus, OpenOffice.org users can interact with users still using Microsoft Office. The various filters for the Microsoft Office file formats also make mixed environments possible, so that some users stay on Microsoft Office while others use OpenOffice.org."

http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.0/

Ron wrote:Have you got the latest OpenOffice, Glenda?

"In addition to read and write support for the Microsoft Office binary file formats (.doc; .xls, .ppt, etc.), OpenOffice.org 3.0 is now capable of opening files created with Microsoft Office 2007 or Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac OS X (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.). Thus, OpenOffice.org users can interact with users still using Microsoft Office. The various filters for the Microsoft Office file formats also make mixed environments possible, so that some users stay on Microsoft Office while others use OpenOffice.org."

http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.0/

I stand corrected.

thanks for running the comp steven
i think the thing is were in real early days of bonsai here yes we have some great exotics but our natives can struggle as bonsai if we want them as bonsai to me a bonsai is a treee with balance and a perfect specimen of a tree in the wild not just a pine but the perfect pine for eg but our natives often dont like training as the acacia that got second nice tree but is it bonsai im not sure has it had much training has it had great root work does it have balance or is it just a potted acacia from a native nursery im not to sure i havnt seen the tree or now its merits as for some other trees in the comp but i have seen shannons fig and some other trees and am gob smacked by their quality and years of training.
i guess thats the point there are all of our natives trainable and suited to "bonsai" or are they nice poted natives i didnt see any palms or cycads in the field is this for that reason some of our natives just arnt suited i often hear that some natives cand have their branches bent down to horizontal well to me it cant be bonsai this is the thing are we trying to hard to make all natives bonsai yes some are great like shannons fig grants banksias pups bekea just to name a few but where do we draw the line on species suitability,

after all to me there is only bonsai not australian bonsai or english bonsai or japenese bonsai if we give rules for each continent then its not bonsai but somthing else.