K.A. Rutledge

There is a false premise that colors this entire discussion, so before someone else argues for or against "Japanese" styling, let me bring up the fact that there is nothing Japanese about bonsai styling.

The species involved may be Japanese, the materials used in a display may be Japanese or depict an image (like on a scroll) that is culturally referential to Japan, but nothing about styling bonsai is Japanese. This silly preoccupation with departing from Japanese styling or differentiating one's work from the "Japanese style" of bonsai is just plain ridiculous.

The top quality bonsai that are made by top Japanese artists are not "Japanese" in their flavor or design, they're merely good. They are merely examples of artistry utilized in design. Dispensing with the artistic elements in the design does not make your tree unJapanese or Western in design. It just makes it less effective, less aesthetically pleasing.

What Walter is doing with his naturalistic stylings is not unJapanese, but instead is just a different stylistic track within the realm of artistry. The Japanese were doing it long before he was doing it. In fact they were doing it long before he was born - something that in no way diminishes the significance of what he's doing now. However, he risks much in the way that he purposfully removes certain specific artistic affectations from his work in an effort to create a literal image of nature instead of a metaphoric one.

Again, this is not unJapanese, it's just more literal and less metaphoric. By the same token, if you believe that bonsai that are created using effective, artistic, aesthetic elements in the design are just copies of the Japanese "style," you are wrong. Arguments based on this error lead nowhere productive.

What you have to come to grips with is the fact that we here in the West rarely if ever get to see the poor examples of bonsai from Japan. Instead, we see the top level work, the work that effecively utilizes artistry to the extent that it has a high level of appeal. If you saw the poor bonsai made by enthusiasts in Japan - just like we often see the poor efforts of American or European enthusiasts - perhaps you'd realize the difference between "Japanese bonsai" and "successful artistry." The images we see coming from Japan are not "Japanese," they're simply "quality." We can do the same and that does not make us copycats.

The top Japanese artists understand how to use artistic fundamentals in their work. Good bonsai display is very basic in its form, and as such is quite powerful. Simple is powerful in most every case. However, the Japanese did not invent these artistic fundamentals and there is nothing Japanese about how they are used in bonsai. The good examples of bonsai embody these fundamentals and poor examples do not. This does not make the poor examples unJapanese; just bad.

When Japanese artists have a hard time swallowing the stylings or ideals put forth by a Westerner, it is not culture clash. Rather it is artists having a hard time swallowing methods that circumvent art.

So, if you're going to argue the relative merits and faults of bonsai styles, argue relvant issues rather than invented, misunderstood, misapplied ones. There is nothing cultural about effective design. There is nothing cultural about neatness or messiness. There is nothing cultural about bonsai beyond the species or the elements or images used in display. So argue artistry and argue effectiveness and argue metaphor, but when you start arguing Japanese and American, you're beating up a straw man.

Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas