tinitrees

Facts are black and white. Like a good photo, bonsai is never completely black or completely white. The tension and drama exist within these poles and are realized in every possible shade of gray. The cascading opinions of generations eventually coagulate into guidelines or preconceptions that we assimilate and use in our conversations with trees. For each of us this set of assumptions is different. As we are separated by time and distance these assumptions can vary extensively. The study of bonsai is a journey in three stages:

First we learn the rules, the "facts" if you will. In this stage we overcollect, overwork and oversimplify our trees. We don the chasuble of certain masters we admire without really understanding how they came to greatness. We aspire to cubism without ever acknowledging the proportions of human anatomy.

But if we keep our eyes, and ears open, we notice someday that a true masterpeice doesn't always follow the rules. Sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, more and more we see trees that are great in spite of broken rules. And then, an epiphany! These are not random abberations; masters are breaking rules on purpose. So rules are not facts, they are not black and white. Not all trees are 6:1. The Golden Rule of Division is not simpy 3:1. The Fibonacci number series does not completely cover all aspects of bonsai design. So in this Bonsai middle ground we begin to reassess our set of assumptions. We begin to purposely break rules and stray so far from gudelines that our trees suffer in the process.

It is in the third stage that we begin to rectify the incongruities of the previous two. A bonsai creates dynamism with broken rules only within the context of expectation created by following them. Without the framework of form, bent and broken rules have no meaning, no function.

So what. Why would anyone have read this far about the opinion of an unknown with three posts? Because you have realized that the observer is an integral part of the process. Of course we care what others think about our trees, our thoughts, our passion. We don't just want interaction, we require it.

Bonsai requires three things: living material; an interpreter to manipulate it according to his preconceptions; and an observer to interact with it. We should not be both the creator and observer of our trees. Beauty is not found until the circuit is complete and our work elicits a response in another.We can give our trees a voice but we cannot control how they use it.

Nor have any of you been able to control Mr. Keppler's voice. Has he made any of us reconsider our preconceptions? Or has he galvanized the assumptions that we hold dear. Could it be a combination of both? He should not be petitioned for solutions; he should be commended for observations that cause us all to think and interact. Does his concern fly in the face of Bonsai? Certainly not. It completes the triangle and puts a smile on its face.