Thoughts on carving in general

[DavidWilloughby]

Mr Bowie,

I have a question that I think is in tune with the Black Cat/White Cat thread.

What are yours or anyone elses thoughts on carving in general ?

The reason I ask this is it often comes up in conversations with good friends, I myself at times think it is only done for immediate results and often at the expense of the tree without taking into consideration the long term aspirations of the tree.

Be great to hear what are your thoughts and again, I do hope that it is still keeping the theme of the thread.

Cheers

David

[Grant Bowie]

Mr Bowie,

I have a question that I think is in tune with the Black Cat/White Cat thread.

What are yours or anyone elses thoughts on carving in general ?

The reason I ask this is it often comes up in conversations with good friends, I myself at times think it is only done for immediate results and often at the expense of the tree without taking into consideration the long term aspirations of the tree.

Be great to hear what are your thoughts and again, I do hope that it is still keeping the theme of the thread.

Cheers

David

To clarify what we are talking about; are we talking about only major trunk carving or are you including all jin, shari and sabamiki?

Happy to talk about this subject and canvas other peoples views.

Grant

[DavidWilloughby]

Mr Bowie,

Thank you for responding, I think it is more Major trunk carving and Sabamiki in general. Are we carving too often instead of taking the long road to create trees these days, without giving thought to the tree in 30 or 40 years down the track ?

I hope this isn't too ambiguous a question or topic as I have left it fairly broad strokes.

Regards

David

[Grant Bowie]

Mr Bowie,

Thank you for responding, I think it is more Major trunk carving and Sabamiki in general. Are we carving too often instead of taking the long road to create trees these days, without giving thought to the tree in 30 or 40 years down the track ?

I hope this isn't too ambiguous a question or topic as I have left it fairly broad strokes.

Regards

David

OK, good topic and I feel we should start a new thread for those interested specifically. In my opinion the answer is yes and no; so lets explore.

Re jin, I learnt that pines don't have jin etc because the wood is too soft and won't last in nature.
Bristlecone pine is the longest living tree in the world and would be 99% dead wood. Do we have to follow slavishly what the Japanese, or Italians or americans do; No. Do we ignore all advice; no.

Lets explore.

Grant

[Scott Roxburgh]

I think I'm on the same page David. It seems many times carving is used because it is fun to do.

With my carving ability (low), I like the idea of doing it in stages each year to get a bit of growth and add character to the carving.

[jezz_39]

As very much a beginner in bonsai, I see many merits in carving but a line has to be drawn.
As I see it, in a well developed tree, with mature bark, detailed carving can be a great feature and create interest; especially if the trunk isnt particularly interesting. However, I believe it should really come down to species, and to an extent, how they grow in the wild. With fast healing species like Ficus I don't really see any point to carving (although I have seen some great mature specimens in the wild with hollowed trunks and deadwood)
When it comes down to jins and shari's, Junipers are at the top of the list. But it seems to annoy me when I see very obviously young plants with these features. When I see a jinned apex or side branch that is the same thickness of a young trunk, it just doesnt seem natural. I'm not saying that it shouldnt be done, as obviously bonsai come in all sizes and is a replicaion of an old, mature tree in miniature. But the proportions are obviously wrong.
Like I said, beginner here trying to get my head around this great art.

[kcpoole]

I like to see believable carving on trees. Whether conifer or deciduous, both can look good to cover a fault or scar., or to add interest to boring tree

Ken

[Damian79]

I think that any carving, be it trunk hollowing, jining or whatever other carving is done, should be done with the best interest of the tree in mind.
If you have a tree with no interesting aspects about it, chances are that you will eventually neglect that tree which will ultimately result in the demise of that tree. If carving the trunk out and giving that tree an interesting characteristic means you are more likely to ensure the survival of that tree, isn't that a better option? Is it detrimental to the tree? if done for the wrong reason, yes. but, as I said , you would probably ensure that the tree stays alive.
Im new to Bonsai and I can see both sides to an unwinable argument. If looking at small trees didnt bring us a sense of pleasure, we wouldnt do it in the first place.
Just my
Damian

[Biofusion]

In my experience it can go either way.

For instance, my first example being my large bougainvillea, it has several nasty cut cut marks, some 20cmx20cm in size, and several issues that can only possibly be rectified by carving. In order to improve the tree,

However, if these were not present, and I had a relatively good branch placement and no reverse taper or movement issues that needed rectifying on large branches, I would probably leave it alone for the most part.

My second example is a privet, it has a large horizontal cut right at the top of the trunk, at this point a branch issues to the side and the leader, which soon after develops into the apex also comes from, the lack of taper is, for lack of a better word, abusive to the eye, and for the tree to move forward some minor carving I'll need to be done to remove the problem and turn it into a feature.

Both of these circumstances and my opinion in general is rendered moot when you look at the trees graham potter creates, have a look at the video of the English yew he does, that is a large stick in a pot with the only redeeming feature being the nebari. And look at what he does with that, and what he did with a similar tree 10 years ago which is now part of his personal collection.

In rendering my view moot, this example of graham potter and his ability to carve trees brings about the crux of I think of what I'm trying to get at.

That the ability of carving to be used as a tool to create visually appealing bonsai is directly proportional to not only the experience that the artist has with carving, but also his or her knowledge to say what needs to be done, when to stop and not overdo the carving to point where it isn't visually appealing, and their skill with power tools.

All too often I see people who have "carved" trees, where it has gotten to the point where it looks unnatural, and they may have got carried away.

[Bougy Fan]

I have only done a limited amount of carving and class myself as a beginner. I find myself using carving to cover up scars, fix taper and to make an interesting feature in an otherwise boring trunk. Perhaps in the future I will be able to get partially close to the level of Graham Potter or Kevin Wilson. I see nothing wrong with emulating what mother nature does to trees with storms, animals and insects.

[Ces]

I like to see believable carving on trees. Whether conifer or deciduous, both can look good to cover a fault or scar., or to add interest to boring tree

Ken

pretty much exactly my view. But I do like the current Italian and Spanish iterations of trees with deadwood too. for some people maybe its beyond good taste but I like the sense of fantasy that these trees can sometimes create.

Cheers,

Ces.

[GavinG]

I'm with Ken - it has to be believable. When a trunk is thick, smooth, dead straight, and heavily carved to disguise an obvious chop, it doesn't work for me. If the trunk is gnarly or twisted, it fits better. The same with dead wood on junipers - if the trunk is already thin, to take the bark off half of it, and bleach it just makes it look even thinner. It's interesting about pines and deadwood - Dan Robinson says that deadwood makes a tree, it's that important. But his trees are all very "eventful" - nothing smooth or even.

Just my thoughts.

Gavin

[Grant Bowie]

Well, big subject.

Carving on many dug up trees with big stumps would seem inevitable; Olive, Hawthorn, Pyracantha for instance.
But of course there are many poorly executed which will never look very good unless someone gets the tree that knows what to do.

The carving of course should be believable and done carefully with thoughts of long term survival of the tree.

Skinny trees with carving can look interesting but usually only in a Bunjin/literati style.

Very skinny jin may be there to allow the tree to dry out gradually and allow it to heal properly when later removed.

I enjoy growing trees from seed and seedling and of course rarely ever do carving on these trees as they gain taper and character over time without resorting to carving for effect.

Grant.

[Andrew Legg]

My pet hate is people who carve their trees with a 6 or 8 mm round bit and then leave it with a bunch of convex stripes all over the show! Aaaaaaaargh. People, carving needs rough structural work, it then needs refinement and ageing before it can possibly look convincing! We need to understand that carving needs time, patience and A LOT OF ATTENTION TO DETAIL!!! Otherwise, you're just messing up a tree by making it look stupid!

Sorry

[Neli]

Jerry Maeslic says that any tree that is curved develops rot in the trunk, and in the long run, (many years) the trunk can rot completely.