|
Guest
|
Hi Roboku,
The first "painting" (masquerading as a sketch) may be a realistic representation of what the artist saw out in the countryside, the various elements may be painted very well, but the composition of the piece is not really artistic. One thing to keep in mind is that artists do not record, rather, they interpret. The first painting is not an interpretation, it is a recording of what the artist looked at.
In the second painting, the artists used the same elements, but arranged them so that they "worked" on the canvas better. The arrangement was the artist's interpretation of the elements he saw, but arranged to be consistent with his endeavor - to create art. He arranged these elements on the canvas so that the viewer's eye would flow into and around the canvas, taking in the work, but also providing focus for the viewer.
If this were an actual painting, the artist would have likely added a focal element to the work, near the point where the trees, road and mountain meet. You can see how the angles in these elements interact and lead the eye to that point. Perhaps the focal point would be a house or farm or a person walking along the road, etc...
The same can be done with bonsai. The branches and flow of the composition can be arranged to lead the eye to a focal point or to convey a certain feeling or idea or ideal, etc... The flow of the trunk, the flow of the branches, the texture of the small shoots and foliage, the character of the base..., in artistically formed bonsai, all of these elements work together as a cohesive whole to lead the viewer's eye into and around the composition and work to convey a consistent meaning.
In the above example, the same tree with the same elements, but arranged differently so as not to work together for a consistent message would be less appealing to the viewer and there would not be a cohesive "message" conveyed. This is part of what I'm talking about.
Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas
|