AusBonsai

I agree with you Mike. There is nothing attractive about this tree's presentation at all. The trunk looks like it would be interesting but is lost behind the clipped topiary style foliage. I don't care that the artist is famous or that it may have been done under a clients request. Don't like it. It may well have required great skill and many hours work but it completely lacks imagination and respect for the material

I came across some other trees recently that although not manicured to the point of Mike's example, just didn't sit right with me. I don't think its about natural styling or manicured styling, its about consistency of image. Trees with wild twisted trunks should express that in there branches too. Here's one example that although not overly manicured I feel has had its foliage just follow accepted styling rather than any art.
And this one has an obviously wind, possibly salt laden wind, affect the trunk and a great lowest branch that is in sympathy with it. Then the second branch starts losing the plot and the apex belongs on a different tree.
I really like this one which steps away from any style but evokes beauty and nature.
When I was reading through another website I scrolled down and stopped and only saw part of the lowest image. Although I knew it was a bonsai I stopped and appreciated the beauty of a well formed tree against the sky. Still large amounts of skill and many hours work, but an image that speaks of nature, the tree itself and something not man made.

How I first saw it
And with a pot

dansai wrote:I agree with you Mike. There is nothing attractive about this tree's presentation at all. The trunk looks like it would be interesting but is lost behind the clipped topiary style foliage. I don't care that the artist is famous or that it may have been done under a clients request. Don't like it. It may well have required great skill and many hours work but it completely lacks imagination and respect for the material

I came across some other trees recently that although not manicured to the point of Mike's example, just didn't sit right with me. I don't think its about natural styling or manicured styling, its about consistency of image. Trees with wild twisted trunks should express that in there branches too. Here's one example that although not overly manicured I feel has had its foliage just follow accepted styling rather than any art.

Twisted.jpg

And this one has an obviously wind, possibly salt laden wind, affect the trunk and a great lowest branch that is in sympathy with it. Then the second branch starts losing the plot and the apex belongs on a different tree.

Winswept trunk.jpg

Well thank you Dansai. I agree completely with all you say here.
Just a few comments on some of the other replys...If I may.

Rory, I know where you stand brother..

Gerard, non bonsai people don't matter. They can go watch Home and Away....again.

Pup,

You can pull me to pieces

I thought it (this thread) should have died long ago

Any thing this contrived has to be questioned

Adam.
#1, This is not art, it has nothing to do with art, and it does not require an artist to make it. It requires a technician.
#2, I'm not setting out to be rude or personal. I am however commenting on this particular work in a strong way because I feel strongly about it.
These works - more often than not - are held by the bonsai general community to be the state of the ''art''. It is not the only one of course, there are countless others but this one happens to be one of the more grotesque examples I've seen.

They are worked on by apprentices yes, but they are overseen by professionals. If this styling was requested by the owner of the tree, I do hope that some effort was made by the professional to convince him that this was not a desirable outcome. If not, that was the first mistake. The second mistake was to allow it to be proudly displayed on the internet which will only lead to the damming criticism it deserves. It is only a matter of time that this kind of thing will be seen by the majority of the bonsai community to be just plain awful and - as dansai has already said - disrespectful to this rare material.

If you would like me to clarify why I dislike it.....
Well, firstly (apart from what has been said already), Let's have another look - if you can bare to.
Are bonsai supposed to look like trees? Yes (unless I'm wrong). Does it look like a tree? No. I have seen more realistic images of trees in the Bugs Bunny show. There are no trees on this earth that could come close to it. Even if there were, they would not make good models. You may say that the intention was never to make a realistic image of a tree. Ok, so then you make an abstract or avant garde. ''Experimental'', ''Modern Art''. Even though I don't believe that ever was the intention, It falls short here as well. The very form of it is not pleasing to me. It is too tall, too straight, too even, too heavy and the top is in complete conflict with the base. When looking at it for long enough, my impression is that of a green mass which is descending. Moving down and spreading out rather that moving upward. And with more to flow down from above. Like someone tipping a giant can of green paint over some triangular object. (create your own image...)

Does it look like a bonsai? Not really. From a distance, even the most basic of bonsai give the impression of a tree of some sort. My first impression is a green hill. But not even a natural hill, a man made one.
When we observe good bonsai, we should not look for technique. In fact, ideally there should be no evidence of it. When I look at this thing, I see nothing but evidence of the process. The PROCESS not the result! It's almost like the intention was to demonstrate skill in technique rather than to create an image. Like I said I cannot say enough negative things about it!
I am not interested in it's history, who owns it, who made it, or their reasons, how long it took or anything else other than the image. I'm interested in the image in front of me and how it makes me feel. And so should any viewer. There should be no need for explanations or qualifications.
To place any work in the public eye, you should expect and even encourage comment. Positive or negative.

treeman wrote:Well have a look at this.. Words defy me. I simply cannot say enough bad things about this and all it's implications.
This tree is my case. It cannot by ANY definition be anything but a MASSIVE mistake! (by everyone who did it and everyone who let it happen)

http://postimg.org/image/luiyu1akh/

The styling that is presented here is not a final styling as far as I'm aware. Bjorn has commented himself that his styling is not natural. When the wire is removed however, the branches will start to float up and look a lot more natural - i.e. this is not the final image of the tree (or it shouldn't be).

With regards to the previous comment (how do I insert a second quote in this here post?), I did say what I thought would express what I meant. But yes, the technique seems to be the goal rather than the finished image these days. I think part of the problem with this is we have seen a lot of exposure of the styling of folk such as Bjorn or Mauro, and not enough of Shinji Suzuki - an absolute legend of natural styling.

Without a doubt, we agree that Bonsai is not following the path laid out for it by the definition of it. Walter Pall once told of a man who said to him "Bonsai has nothing to do with real trees", and Walter laughed in his face and responded with "What a joke".

I think the only thing is that when I see a tree manicured like the one you provided the link to - I appreciate the technique but ultimately hope that the tree will eventually be unwired and allowed to grow into the more natural state that is often promised by the artist doing this level of manicured wiring and trimming.

Having said that, I've never seen a follow up on one of Bjorns styling sessions to see whether it has been allowed to grow a bit and attain that level of command that old natural trees often do. And the tree's he receives are often very neglected, overgrown and unruly - so this extreme manicure could be argued as necessary to start the tree off as a more presentable bonsai in the future.

To further compound this issue, exhibitions are exhibiting the more manicured tree's and these are often the ones winning the prizes! HOWEVER, there was a video of Shinji Suzuki where he was considering which of his trees to enter into a particular competition. His companion said to him "If you want to win, enter this tree" pointing to a highly manicured looking tree. Shinji ignored him and entered a much more naturally styled bonsai and, from memory still placed in the top 3 - that was a while ago though.

So yeah, I agree that the exhibitions have lost sight of what the end goal of a Bonsai actually is.

(PS - let's also differentiate between fine examples of naturally styled trees and those who simply let their tree's grow out, poorly maintained, and use the "naturalistic approach" as an excuse for their own inadequate skill - the natural styling of a tree requires as much skill and a hundred times the vision as the manicured style does).

Lots of interesting reading over a lengthy period with certainly different and challenging views of it - but in the end .... it's in the eyes of the beholder (through very, very dark glasses) in my humble opinion .... and what would I know of bonsai and it's creation?
I fully agree with Mike and Dansai as well as Pup! To me (and I can say it they way I SEE IT!!!) it looks so artificial that it hurts - it might as well be spray painted in red to make a STANDOUT STATEMENT
Someone ones said "make your Bonsai look like a Tree ......"

But what would he know?!

Cheers,
JRJ

G'day Mike,
I agree with you.
Topiary at best! Manicured like a golf green.
For those who say there are no rules... Look up Topiary on google, can you/would you put any of these trees into a Bonsai pot and call it Bonsai? Too extreme you say? Is the tree that Mike put up styled by Bjorn Bjorholm any more extreme? For those who admire the technique, there is technique in Topiary too. Some of the Topiary you can find have a left, back, right, front  branches, good trunks too. In all sorts of "Bonsai Style". The question is does good Topiary/Manicure belong on a good bonsai? At what point is it too extreme? When you look at it and it reminds you of Topiary, or when you look at it and think its plastic? 
fashion and trends belong on the cat walks of Paris, not on Bonsai trees.

As Bonsai "Artists" from the newb to the experienced, I believe we all started by looking at trees in nature first. This is what draws us... what we start and strive to achieve.  Lets never loose sight of that.

Cheers
Kirky

Too obtuse?

"MoGanic"

(PS - let's also differentiate between fine examples of naturally styled trees and those who simply let their tree's grow out, poorly maintained, and use the "naturalistic approach" as an excuse for their own inadequate skill - the natural styling of a tree requires as much skill and a hundred times the vision as the manicured style does).

Agreed. And in light of that let's see some! They took a matter of minutes to find. They do not betray the process, they are all about the image.









BTW, for those who believe this thread should stop, I say, the design of bonsai and appreciation of bonsai is the most important subject to discuss on a forum about bonsai. Maybe you think we should discuss the finer points of pizza?

treeman wrote:

"MoGanic"

(PS - let's also differentiate between fine examples of naturally styled trees and those who simply let their tree's grow out, poorly maintained, and use the "naturalistic approach" as an excuse for their own inadequate skill - the natural styling of a tree requires as much skill and a hundred times the vision as the manicured style does).

Agreed. And in light of that let's see some! They took a matter of minutes to find. They do not betray the process, they are all about the image.









BTW, for those who believe this thread should stop, I say, the design of bonsai and appreciation of bonsai is the most important subject to discuss on a forum about bonsai. Maybe you think we should discuss the finer points of pizza?

Some good examples there, very, very nice.

treeman wrote:Maybe you think we should discuss the finer points of pizza?

Though, I could get into a discussion about pizza for sure. MMMMM delicioso.

treeman wrote:

wrcmad wrote: I love it.

If you love that, you'll buy this watch...

treeman wrote:Why doesn't someone have the guts to back me up. Are you all blind? Do you not see?

treeman wrote:#1, This is not art, it has nothing to do with art, and it does not require an artist to make it. It requires a technician.

Sincerest apologies.
I must have missed the post affirming you as the authoritative voice on what is bonsai, what is not, what we should like, what we shouldn't, what is art & what is not.
While I respect and really much appreciate your extensive knowledge on the horticultural aspects, and your generosity in sharing this knowledge, ... the aesthetic side of bonsai is merely personal opinion. Believe it or not, some really do appreciate the "technical" approach. Maybe it is the engineer in me? I also love these:




It's like comparing A Rembrandt with a Picasso... who's is better? Or do they just have different styles of the same thing?

MoGanic wrote:... let's also differentiate between fine examples of naturally styled trees and those who simply let their tree's grow out, poorly maintained, and use the "naturalistic approach" as an excuse for their own inadequate skill ...

MoGanic, uncannily you hit on my exact line of thinking. Maybe a bit of tall poppy syndrome creeping in?

First one doesn't do it for me, but strangley enough I kinda like something in the second one. Although I can't help wondering what it would be like styled completely differently, with branches and foliage in keeping with that amazing trunk. Maybe it would even be a masterpiece.

"wrcmad"

Sincerest apologies.
I must have missed the post affirming you as the authoritative voice on what is bonsai, what is not, what we should like, what we shouldn't, what is art & what is not.

Now we take refuge in the feeble world of sarcasm. The most pathetic and inconsequential real of them all. Try to do better.

Believe it or not, some really do appreciate the "technical" approach

When or were did I ever say that people do not appreciate the ''technical'' side or put more importance into the actual method rather than the result. The whole point I've been making all along. But obviously you missed that. Try to keep up.

Maybe it is the engineer in me? I also love these:

That's ok. I will simply point out that I think they are hideous. Is that ok with you?

It's like comparing A Rembrandt with a Picasso... who's is better? Or do they just have different styles of the same thing?

It's not like that at all! Both were artists. Maybe try comparing a song from Britney Spears with a duet from John McLaughlin and Paco de lucia.

MoGanic, uncannily you hit on my exact line of thinking. Maybe a bit of tall poppy syndrome creeping in?

That is not what he meant at all nincompoop. He was referring to the fact that some people use the naturalistic style as a way to disguise there own short comings and that he believe they should be separated from the good naturalistic works.
I presume you are referring to me. I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone accuse me of wanting to cut down tall poppies! Here we have yet more garbage. I completely revere many many more works by much taller poppies. (In bonsai, in music, in film and in the visual arts) If you are just looking for a way to attack, please come up with something substantial.
If you like them so much, it's not good enough to just say it. Convince me WHY they are good. Or at the very least tell me how they make you feel.

treeman wrote:Now we take refuge in the feeble world of sarcasm. The most pathetic and inconsequential real of them all. Try to do better.
....
..That is not what he meant at all nincompoop.....

Name calling - an insult of last resort for insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident.
In comparison to this childishness, I don't need to do better.

treeman wrote:That's ok. I will simply point out that I think they are hideous. Is that ok with you?

That's fine with me.
Everyone has an opinion for valid reasons, and everyone deserves an opinion.
Opinions, differences thereof, and discussions regarding such, are what makes a forum interesting and useful.
The element of arrogance in telling other's their opinion is wrong or stupid wears thin very quickly.

treeman wrote:

wrcmad wrote:It's like comparing A Rembrandt with a Picasso... who's is better? Or do they just have different styles of the same thing?

It's not like that at all! Both were artists. Maybe try comparing a song from Britney Spears with a duet from John McLaughlin and Paco de lucia.

Oh, OK. Your implication that these manicured trees don't fall into the category of art is merely your opinion.
If you are saying the technical approach to the art is not art, then I guess my first statement wasn't sarcastic after all.

treeman wrote:That is not what he meant at all nincompoop. He was referring to the fact that some people use the naturalistic style as a way to disguise there own short comings and that he believe they should be separated from the good naturalistic works.

Yes, I know what he meant.

treeman wrote:If you like them so much, it's not good enough to just say it. Convince me WHY they are good. Or at the very least tell me how they make you feel.

I don't need to convince you, nor do I really feel I should have to. In fact, I don't even want to convince you.
That is what you don't get... it is mere opinion.
I am fine with you not liking this type of work. I can also understand why it doesn't appeal to some.
But to tell me that I shouldn't like it, that it's not good enough to just like it, and that it is not art, will just continue to garner the same retaliatory responses from me.

To answer the only sensible statement in your previous post...
This type of tree makes me FEEL like near perfection has been achieved in the pursuit of this activity. Anyone who has developed a tree through to fine ramification knows, to get a branch structure so coherently perfect on all branches from the start of the branches to the tips, with homogenous branching and taper on all branches simultaneously, is no easy feat. I know this isn't the exactly case for these conifers pictured, but the image suggests it is about as close as one could get. To compare it to topiary, in my opinion, is a little (conveniently) misleading. Topiary does not consider branch detail like ramification and direction of growth an order - only concerning itself with the silhouette. These types of bonsai trees don't disregard the branch structure/arrangement/direction like topiary.
Oh, I also like the contrast with the natural lines of the trunk too.

I can see the merit in both sides of the 'discussion' but ultimately I think this is counter productive.... And becoming boring. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everyone's aesthetic will vary. I assume we practice the art of bonsai because we obtain personal enjoyment from it.... Do what pleases you.... And respect what others do.

matlea wrote:I can see the merit in both sides of the 'discussion' but ultimately I think this is counter productive.... And becoming boring. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everyone's aesthetic will vary. I assume we practice the art of bonsai because we obtain personal enjoyment from it.... Do what pleases you.... And respect what others do.

Couldn't agree more.

For me, the best technique is work that doesn't draw attention to itself. The particularly formal trees have a disjunction between the rough wild trunk and the ultra-plastic over-groomed foliage that jars badly. And yes, these issues are essential to discuss. Without sarcasm and abuse.

Gavin