Glider

Yeah, sorry ‘bout that I’m actually trying to build some display benches, but it won’t stop raining


I think this is one of the problems that language throws up. By definition, all bonsai look like bonsai. However, not all bonsai look like trees.

On the one hand we have the bonsai as an artful representation of a tree in the wild. The rules and techniques have been applied to create the illusion of a venerable tree and its surroundings. On the other hand we have bonsai as an assemblage of the stereotypical features of other bonsai which is a result of falling into the ‘bonsai schema’ trap.

Let me illustrate by way of (hypothetical) thought processes involved in the creation of each:

On the one hand:

I have a tree in training. I look at it and imagine its surroundings. I think this one is growing in pasture in East Anglia (very flat, but rich growing land). There is plenty of rain and the soil is rich. There is a constant (but not severe) prevailing wind because the land is so flat.

So, the tree will appear healthy and lush. The trunk will have a gentle movement that comes from age, but will generally tend to move gently away from the wind. The branches will be slightly longer on the lee side than the windward side. The lower branches will slope down gently under their weight because the tree is so ‘old’, but the longer branches on the lee side will slope slightly more so because they have ‘always’ been heavier.

Another example. I have a tree in training, again I look at it and imagine its surroundings. This one is growing in dry mountain gravel high on a slope. It has poor soil, not much rain and high, grit-laden winds coming up the slope.

So, the tree will be stunted. It won’t have much foliage because it can’t support much. The trunk and branches will be twisted away from the wind but the branches won't slope gently down because the foliage was never heavy enough to pull them down. Over time, the wind and grit will have blasted the bark from the trunk and branches on the windward side. What little foliage it can support is growing in the lee side, gaining some shelter from the shade of its own trunk.

Each of these trees tells a story of the life of the tree. In each case, the story is coherent and makes sense. There is nothing there to jar a viewer awake from the illusion.

On the other hand:

I have a tree in training. I look at it and invoke my schema of a ‘bonsai’. What features do I need to include in order to make this tree look like a ‘bonsai’? Ok, well, it needs a bendy trunk (bonsai have bendy trunks). It also needs the first branch to be the biggest and coming from one side. I’ll add a jin (I know bonsai have jin, I’ve seen them). I have a dremmel, so I’ll make some sharimiki so I can carve the trunk (I’ve seen that in bonsai too). It should have small foliage pads and branches that bend down and so-on.

The end result may possibly be visually pleasing, but the story it tells is incoherent and full of visual non sequiturs. Why does the trunk move like that? What bent it? Why is the shari on the same side as the longer branches? Surely the side subject to the harshest conditions should have the shortest branches? Why are the branches bending so much under the weight of so little foliage? Why does the apex move toward the shari if that’s where the wind is coming from? Why is the jin right above the biggest most healthy branch on the tree and on the opposite side to the shari?

What we have is the ‘stereotype’ of a bonsai; a tree that contains all the stereotypical features of a bonsai but in a combination that makes no sense and raises too many questions to allow a viewer to slide easily into the illusion.

All these examples will ‘look like ‘bonsai’, but some will make sense and others won’t. This is what I think John Naka meant when he said “try to make your bonsai look like a tree, don’t try to make your tree look like a bonsai”. I believe he was arguing for the former approach (above) and I think it’s one of the most profound statements I’ve ever heard in bonsai, because of its implications for bonsai design.

No bonsai exists in isolation as ‘just’ a tree. Each tree carries with it the story of its life and thus, the suggestion of its surroundings and environment. If the story it tells makes no sense, the illusion is shattered to the detriment of the tree itself.

The upshot is that we need to understand the forces that create the most rewarding characteristics of trees in the wild, in order to be able to combine the representations of these characteristics in a way that makes sense, i.e. tell a coherent story.

For example, why don’t we create shari on deciduous trees like maple? Well, because deciduous trees rarely grow in situations where the necessary forces for natural shari exist (high, drought ridden rocky slopes with strong, grit laden winds). We never see such examples in nature. The ‘story’ told by the shari would be incongruous with the nature of the tree. The only time we see shari on deciduous trees is in the presence of disease and as Andy says, nobody want to copy those. They are not rewarding to look at.

Yes it does make a lot of sense.

A lot of it comes down to the individual and amount of exposure an individual has had to trees in the wild (I mean actually noticing and paying attention to them) and also to bonsai. In some cases, people (particularly city dwellers) will have little exposure to real trees, and when they go out to the country, will not really notice trees in the wild, beyond the ‘oh, there are some trees’ experience. Many people I know can’t tell what species a tree is, or even one tree from another. They’re all just ‘trees’ (big, brown and green lollipop shaped things growing in the ground). In such cases, the schema for 'tree' will be very narrow and fixed (you can actually see it if you get such a person to draw a tree).

Likewise, in some cases, the only exposure to bonsai will have been to stereotypical examples (cf ‘Karate Kid’), in which case, they will have a relatively narrow and ‘fixed’ schema for ‘bonsai’ that is likely to be incongruous with their equally narrow and fixed schema for ‘tree’.

In such cases it’s highly likely that many excellent bonsai will not match their schema of ‘real trees’. However, it’s also likely that many excellent bonsai won’t match their schema for ‘real bonsai’ either.

But as I say, that’s down to exposure (learning). I don’t think it’s catastrophic if our bonsai does not evoke in a viewer the schema of a tree if that other has little experience of trees and no experience of bonsai. It’s enough if they consider them nice to look at. We can only expect a bonsai to evoke a tree schema in a person if that person has comparatively broad range of tree schemata to begin with and that only comes from exposure (conscous experience of different types and shapes of tree).

Even expensive wine tastes awful to me; like vinegar that hasn’t quite made it. It’s not the fault of the vintner. It’s down to my lack of exposure to wine (preferring, as I do, to suck down lots of tequila). My lack of appreciation says absolutely nothing about the quality of the wine or the vintner. However, if I was a vintner and wine tasted awful to me, I would have a real problem. The primary viewers of our bonsai are ourselves. If a bonsai (and the story it suggests) makes sense to us, it’s likely to do so to others with similar experience and exposure. The more we learn, the more likely this becomes.

I think anybody who has looked at real trees and paid attention to them and the differences between them will have a tree schema evoked by viewing a bonsai.

That’s very true, but as a professional Psychological Scientist I would like to make the differentiation between the global and more poetic concept of beauty as an inherent feature of life itself, and the less global concept of beauty as ‘visually appealing’ and ‘attractive’ (in the Psychobiological sense, i.e. that engages a positive affective state and its concomitant behavioural ‘approach’ motivation).

__________________
Experience is knowledge gained immediately after it was needed.