RonMartin(deceased)

I am always amazed that bonsai is compared to the "fine arts" (ie. painting, sculpture, music, etc.)
As far as I can tell most "art" critics have taken, at least, some courses in the arts . Be it art history, art appreciation or what ever. They might not be able to paint or sing but at least they understand the concept. Well maybe anyway ;o).
Most of them have at least a BS in fine arts. (those that are listened to anyway)
Never heard of a course in bonsai appreciation. Never seen other than the most fragmented of classes on the "art of bonsai" Heaven forbid finding more than two people that agree on what good bonsai is.
So barring the lack of a "proper education" just what makes for a valid bonsai critic. How do they know what they know. What validates them.
It might sound like I am putting out a trick question. I am not.
We can define what an artist is. We do that all the time.
It is done by how many books the person writes. How many awards they have won. How many times they have been the major speaker at a convention. Like it or not that is the way it is.
No slam intended on what are called the current artists or masters. From what I have seen most of them do deserve the title.
I guess the big question is just who should be able to say it is bad bonsai. What , if anything , validates the critic.
And by what criteria should they judge. What is the standard.
Can the old "I know what I like" work as a guideline.
Like I said I am not trying to ask a trick question. I just want to get a few things straight in my own mind. It is for me,at least, an important question.


PS. I know that I said that my New Years resolution was not to respond to anymore of these "art" questions BUT in the case I did not respond, I asked the question ;o)

Advertisement