In several threads recently, many have tried to locate bonsai's uniqueness as an art in that
- a tree is always changing
- the author may change
- the object is alive!
- the object originally developed without the help of an "artist"
- and so on.
This bothers me a little. These aspects are indeed fascinating, but for the most part, the only unique thing about bonsai is that it is TREES IN POTS! (nothing wrong with that).
Here are some examples of the above in other art forums:
Art with ants - living things as art
Emphemeral Arts - art that won't last
Damien Hirst - selecting from nature as art, decaying art
Andy Goldsworthy - selecting & modifying nature as art, art that doesn't last
Marcel Duchamp (of urinal art fame) - found art, i.e. taking a prexisting object and calling it art
Art using math?
More math art
and a little more
- Why math art? - fractals are a little like plants in that plants grow a little like fractals... Also, fractals already exist in nature, we just pick one and display it. Some links are to computer-generated art that is continuously changing in accordance to human input. This is from nature, selected by people and machines. Math is nature.
Installation art (a museum of it) - installations don't last, and often contain living things
Zymoglyphic Art (VERY relevant) - okay, mostly jokes and very into whimsy, but the things here are not new practices, and some are artistic
An introductory piece on "What is Art?" - I had to post a link like this eventually right?
There's a lot out there, but that's a taste huh?
P.S. Please do not respond with "I clicked on such and such link and that stuff is dumb, that isn't art like bonsai is." All of these things are attemps at art, and all of them have potential to be art, and some of them are very famous art. I'm not endorsing any of them, just pointing them out.