AusBonsai

The rules of Bonsai are often stated in very simple terms. There is much debate that they can restrict bonsai design and once a beginner learns them he must forget them to create imaginative bonsai. I think this is misleading. Comprehensive understanding of the rules will allow the most imaginative trees to be developed. If you take the rules at face value without understanding them it seems many great compositions bend or break them. I believe if we look at these trees we find that the rules are not broken or even bent but only utilised at their best.

I would like to discuss the rules in depth to explore this further.
This is a massive subject so I think it best to tackle them one at a time.
First off lets look at the 6:1 height to thickness ratio. This should be the first rule we apply to a composition it dictates the presence of the composition. My understanding is that 6:1 is very balanced and anything from 7:1 to 12:1 becomes more feminine and anything from 5:1 to 3:1 has a more masculine impression. I have found an article from Bonsai Solutions website that explains this as near and far view. It also takes the ratio up to 15:1
See here
http://www.bonsaisolutions.com.au/advan ... onsai.html
I think a combination of the near and far and masculine feminine give a thorough understanding of this rule. Apart from having a ratio that gives a perspective that is believable another important factor of this rule is that everything must be true and continue to reflect this perspective. There are styles that exceed these ratios such as sumo and a very dainty style that is being explored by a masters daughter but I think that only the most accomplished can take it to these limits.
It is very intresting to get the tape measure out on your own trees and also trees in books and the internet.

It's an interesting one the 6:1 rule and it's a little baffling as it's far from the norm in the wild for most trees, yet a bonsai seems to look best when it approximately adheres to the rule. I still break it regularly though.

I see the rules as not copying a tree directly but a set of techniques that go together to create the illusion of a large tree in a small tree. We will find many instances when the rules do not follow a trees natural growth. I have a couple of pictures of great trees that I snapped on a recent trip that I have been looking for an excuse to post so lets take a look at these to see how close they are to the ratio? I have not measured the ratio on these yet but at a glance I think you are correct that they do not replicate the ratio rule. I'll get the ruler out in a minute I would be interested to hear how you break this rule?

Hmmm

Great post Brett, very interesting thoughts.

From my calculations...

Big Fig is 4.2:1 (taken at widest point above the surface roots)
Big tree is 5.5:1 (taken at ground level)

Interesting!

Steven

It's closer to the truth in nature with species like those you've shown but try it with a gum or a melaleuca, it's WAY off.

The rules weren't formulated with a gum or a melaleuca in mind.... also, very few trees in nature are good role models for bonsai.

The rules weren't formulated with a gum or a melaleuca in mind....

So do you think we should stick to the rules with natives or throw them out the window?

Thats what I got too Steven. It can often be suprising what you get when you actually measure.

By Teejay
It's closer to the truth in nature with species like those you've shown but try it with a gum or a melaleuca, it's WAY off.

It was pretty well spot on, I would class the big fig as a robust tree wich is very much in tune with a 4.2:1 and the other tree as a very mid range stature with a 5.5:1
Yet as I stated it would not have concerned me if this did not match as some rules are not representive of an actual tree in this way but more about using perspective to create illision. As it seems it is representitive makes it very intresting.
So my understanding of this rule has now grown and it seems that the ratio rule is representative of an actual tree. This makes looking at the gum trees tall slender growth very intresting.
Here are a few examples.
14:1 A very tipical gum of some age. 11:1 A large gum with unhinderd growth 5:1 A large old weatherd gum Applying this rule to the gums wich I have never done before opens new thought on how we can copy the natural growth of gums in our bonsai.

So do you think we should stick to the rules with natives or throw them out the window?

No I think we should study them harder

As has been mentioned, the rules (I prefer guidelines) were not compiled for the Australian flora. Some of our Australian plants may well fit the guidelines, but in most cases an Australian indigenous bonsai created by using northern hemishere design principles will not end up looking like an Australian plant! Some enthusiasts may well get a great deal of pleasure in crafting a Meleleuca to look like a northern hemisphere conifer, and indeed it could be a very nice tree, but for me, if I can create, or see someone's bonsaid Melaleuca that reminds me of Melaleucas in the wild, then that for me is truly wonderful!

It is good to have guidelines, because with them in mind you can achieve a pleasant result. (In time we will have guidelines to help style Eucalypts for example). However bonsai is 50% art (thereabouts) and art is there to stretch the imagination. How many of us bonsai enthusiasts were instantly fond of literati when we first picked up a bonsai book? I certainly wasn't, but now I find it most intruiging, and especially now I've seen wild plants looking most literati'ish!

Most of the Australian flora I am familiar with, (generally SE Aust and drier areas) has a lightness, indeed a litheness of form, and foliage much more open than most nothern hemisphere bonsai. I am certainly keen to capture these essences, in my quest to develop 'Australian' looking bonsai. Some of the northern hemishere guidelines I find quite useful, but usually I work with the tree, and if it's of a size that already has developed some character, its very pleasant to follow where it takes you.

Tassie Will

but in most cases an Australian indigenous bonsai created by using northern hemishere design principles will not end up looking like an Australian plant!

Are suggesting that the ratio rule will not apply to Aussie natives? If so can you give an example of how this will not apply.

Message Deleted

The 6:1 rule has a lot to do with fashion! I have read in a number of books that this rule came into vogue in the 1970's-1980's and continued to get chunkier by the decade so that we now commonly see 3:1. Before the 70's the ratios were more like 10:1 or greater. I wonder if this was influenced by the "let's get a six pack" gym fad that took off around the same time? Personally I find that the rules are there for guidance as opposed to slavish obedience. Beginners tend to follow the rules in a regimented style whilst bonsai masters (e.g. Colin Lewis, Peter Chan, Ray Nesci, Walter Pall etc.) also use the rules however they are not limited by them. These guys apply creative flair to the rules and create the wow factor that we strive to achieve.
EdwardH

EdwardH wrote:The 6:1 rule has a lot to do with fashion! I have read in a number of books that this rule came into vogue in the 1970's-1980's and continued to get chunkier by the decade so that we now commonly see 3:1. Before the 70's the ratios were more like 10:1 or greater. I wonder if this was influenced by the "let's get a six pack" gym fad that took off around the same time? Personally I find that the rules are there for guidance as opposed to slavish obedience. Beginners tend to follow the rules in a regimented style whilst bonsai masters (e.g. Colin Lewis, Peter Chan, Ray Nesci, Walter Pall etc.) also use the rules however they are not limited by them. These guys apply creative flair to the rules and create the wow factor that we strive to achieve.
EdwardH

Do these masters really follow the rules or do they just do whatever fits the tree and in a lot of cases that may happen to be a ratio that coincides with a rule?