AusBonsai

Formal upright trees are conspicuously absent from Ant's gallery of examples. Are they on the way out?

anttal63 wrote:

bodhidharma wrote:

Pup wrote:Just found one I have to get rid of!!. I could call it penjing though and keep it, but would I be happy?!

P1090954.JPG

you are cracking me up Pup. But if you feel that strongly that it breaks the ratio rules and, after careful consideration, you cannot possibly keep it, can i have it. I dont mind being a "lil ol rulebreaker"

hey Bodhi, No rules here or anywhere else. Just what floats my boat. And you all have a right to float ya own boats.

Yeah, i know Ant, i'm just keeping it light. I have always been a firm believer that when you see a tree you like it moves you inside and you want to go home and emulate it and do more work on your tree's. I also know we all see things differently and what i like is maybe not what everybody else likes. Otherwise we would all be married to Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley lookalikes Sorry, showing my age now Anyway i think that when a person try's to convey the perfect tree from image into words something get's lost in translation as real beauty is very, very difficult to describe. So we make guidelines to follow, some people confuse it and call them rules and that start's the confusion ball rolling, as we all describe things on the verbal plane very differently. Accepting another person's point of view is one of the most gracious acts of humankind, making them understand yours is an art form all of its own.

Hey Bhodi you said that well. With much fewer words and more elequantly than i would have.

We all should enjoy the freedom that pure art enables us. Follow your vision with old mother nature as your guide as it guides the masters. Accept the knowledge that aligns with your vision as you should consider that which challenges it.

"Although it is fashionable to believe that 'size matters' in the case of bonsai, 'art matters' is a better maxim."

Dave Joyce; 'The Art of Natural Bonsai

formal uprights are few and far between in the masters gardens yes they do have some but i myself find them to be a little to perfect i prefer a bit wilder chunky little trees like ant and salvatore i find them to have much more appeal with the exception of literati i have some trees that are allmost 1 :2 ratio and i wouldnt consider it a sumo just a big stump with a droped canopy this is somthing i have noticed of late we in australia are scared to really bend and drop our branches to get the low canopy just my taste i guess but dosnt mean its any better than what others are into but i have noticed this is the main difference to the likes of the japanese and the europeans

I can remember seeing a number of Chunky formal uprights here is one from Bonsai Journal again

http://bonsaijournal.com/worlds-2-white-pines.php

All this talk about ratio, thickness of trunk to height of tree, what a load of rubish. If all bonsai were the same species of tree, same style and every bonsai artist had the same image in mind than you could apply this sort of ratio. Just take one species JBP. the 1st artist want a tree which is full thick and lush as a tree growing in the open, protected from wind, the 2nd artist wants a tree which is tall and slender with minimal branches and foilage as a pine growing in a forest and the 3rd artist wants a tree which is short and strong such as a pine growing in a harsh climate of a mountain side. these 3 examples are all JBP's, could be all the same style (upright) but all would need different trunk to height ratio to suit the final image.

Having a set trunk to height ratio is a rediculious idea. Have you ever been to a nursery and seen a whole shelf of 1 species, all the same age. the same height ,the same style, not very interesting. this is what would happen if every one adopted, what was suggested 1:2-4. I don't think so! The rule says the trunk should show a gradule taper, I think I will stick with that.

MelaQuin wrote:"Although it is fashionable to believe that 'size matters' in the case of bonsai, 'art matters' is a better maxim."

Dave Joyce; 'The Art of Natural Bonsai

I like your perspective on this Mela. Off course most of us know that it can be difficult to get beginners to chop their trees down lower and on a whole Australians are beginners in bonsai, so it is not surprising there are alot of trees that should have been trained at a lower ratio. I can see at least some that I think are too tall at the exhibition and in the past from Australians so I can Agree with Salvatore that many are still to learn the ratio design principle or at least show the results of understanding it ! . Yet I have trouble understanding how anyone can suggest that there are not excellent masterpieces over 1:4.

Bonsai at its highest level is a fine art. But fine art begins with great craft. Westerners aspiring toward bonsai art excellence would do well to follow the craftsmanship found in excellent bonsai examples.

by Andy Rutledge

http://wiki.bonsaitalk.com/index.php/Andy_Rutledge

Many of us know that there are different styling issues to create a great composition in the various styles. Jamie tells us shohin is difficult as there is no where to hide faults. Chunky trees can give a great impression at first but it can be easy to think that is enough and they have no depth of character or naturalness. Elegant trees can be hard to make stand out but when they do the character depth is exceptional. (otherwise they would not stand out )

Even if it is not to your liking can anyone say that any of the trees here over 1:4 are not excellent bonsai.

Wasn't the last "I have seen the light" movement when Robert Stevens came to town. How many of his trees are over 1:4

Find trees that you are inspired by. Analyze and even measure them like a craftsman to work out how they have created the feeling you get when looking at them.


Edit : Hi Chris
I can agree with you that having just one style is kinda ridiculous. As I said earlier I hope to have at least one of each Nothing wrong with understanding what the ratio of Bonsai is and what they mean though.

I'm trying for "old" --"ancient" is for sometime down the track.

It is also important to remember what perspective you are aiming for. A tree towering over you, or a tree on a hillside in the distance. A very important difference.

Thats True Jarrod. This was a new one to me last year I think as I had always only thought of it as a stage of maturity.

Here is Harry's article on it here that explains there is alot more to this than just ratios !

http://www.bonsaisolutions.com.au/advan ... onsai.html

Jarrod wrote:It is also important to remember what perspective you are aiming for. A tree towering over you, or a tree on a hillside in the distance. A very important difference.

This is one sentiment in this very interesting discussion I have to agree with. Perspective is one of the most important aspects of Bonsai, but the most forgotten.

If you wish it to look old and powerful without it, I do not think you will succeed.

JMHO though.
Cheers Pup

I'm inclined to agree with Chris, so much depends on the style and species of the tree. Sometimes you see tall elegant bunjin trees with no taper at all the feature of the tree is the bark texture and curved trunk. Then there are the palmatums with a massive root base and a very long slow taper, on some of these trees the taper is really expressed in the transition from the trunk into the fine twigs. I remember seeing a picea group in the Oguchi collection which was about 1.5m tall and grown in an incredibly shallow bowl the trees have absolutely no taper but are magnificent. In Bonsai its very hard to generalize. I would agree however that lots of Australian trees are not cut down low enough, There are plenty of them in my collection.
Craig

I can agree with you that having just one style is kinda ridiculous. As I said earlier I hope to have at least one of each Nothing wrong with understanding what the ratio of Bonsai is and what they mean though

Instead of talking about ratio, trunk to height. The talk should be about balance, compesition, proportion, does this trunk give a appearence of strength or support to the tree. Does this trunk give this tree an aged appearence. Does this trunk suit the style of the tree. As it was pointed out 10 yrs ago the ratio was 6:1, now in Europe they are subsribing to 1:2-4. 10 yrs from now what will it be, it's only a fad and fads come and go.
Stick to the basic which says, The trunk should have a gradule taper from the base to the apex. this is the rule, nothing about thickness of base or height of tree. If you like short squat trees than create short squat trees. If you like tall elegant trees create tall elegant trees. If you like inbetween trees, that's what you should create. Just remember, balance, composition, proportion, and wait for the next fad to come along.

Stick to the basic which says, The trunk should have a gradule taper from the base to the apex. this is the rule, nothing about thickness of base or height of tree.

Whether you measure the ratio with your eye or a ruler it does not matter but it is an integral part of bonsai design. No more or less important than all the other aspects that go into bonsai design and analysis.
Like I said I am not into fads either just good bonsai