K.A. Rutledge

Hi Scott and Al,

We seem to be talking 2 different subjects. I was discussing artistic quality - even recognizing bonsai as art - and you guys seem to be going off on tangents about class envy. What gives?

The points I have touched on have nothing to do with the size of one's bank account. I was referring to the unfortunate way in which bonsai is characterized in the U.S.. It is not widely considered to be art. Therefore, it is not respected by the public or recognized by the arts community as such. Conversely, in Europe (some parts more than others), bonsai IS considered to be art just as sculpture and painting and music are each considered to be art.

The disparity of quality that I spoke of has nothing to do with expense, but with attention to artistic values; the way bonsai are commonly displayed in the U.S. is not consistently (or even usually) artistic. For instance, shows in Japan and often in Europe are scheduled based on the best time to show the trees - for their physical quality. In the U.S., shows rarely happen unless there is a convention connected with it and these events are scheduled based on the whims of the planning committee. The physical condition of the trees (for seasonal concerns) is not often optimium. Few U.S. exhibitions require (or even suggest) that bonsai be displayed artistically and comparatively few "artists" think to make the display an artistic one.

As this has nothing to do with the size of one's bank account, let's get off the class envy junk at least for this topic. It may be fine for another thread, but it has no place in this one. Besides, why would one want to argue in favor of lower quality?? That's silly. We can't all have trees of the same quality, but that's life. Nothing wrong with that. Further, it has nothing to do with artistic quality. From what I've seen, having great material gets one no closer to involving bonsai with art than having poor material does.

Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas