bonsaiTALK Community - View Single Post

I like no. 1 the most.

I do agree with these others that your trees don't look like oaks in nature. But, your trees have trunks unlike any a natural oak, so it wouldn't make sense to take the material you have and not train it in what you see is the best interpretation of the material because of the species.

I think this might be a case of reverse naturalism. The styling set forth by Karl are probably the best visions for these trees, but just because of the species, the vision is seen as unfitting? To me this is the same as trying to make a myogi Zelkova from a chopped stump. I think you should determine styling based on the individual tree, not on the species.

29-Jan-2006	#10
soonami bonsaiTALK Master Chief Join Date: Oct-2005 Location: Philadelphia Country: USA USDA Zone: 7 AHS Heat Zone: 6 Posts: 1,043	I like no. 1 the most. I do agree with these others that your trees don't look like oaks in nature. But, your trees have trunks unlike any a natural oak, so it wouldn't make sense to take the material you have and not train it in what you see is the best interpretation of the material because of the species. I think this might be a case of reverse naturalism. The styling set forth by Karl are probably the best visions for these trees, but just because of the species, the vision is seen as unfitting? To me this is the same as trying to make a myogi Zelkova from a chopped stump. I think you should determine styling based on the individual tree, not on the species.