Carl_Bergstrom

Well, just for the sake of discussion, I'll add a dissenting opinion.

On the positive side, this is clearly a splendid piece of material with great potential. It's beautifully presented with some of the nicest photography I've seen on this board. (No surprise there; I've read a bonsai photo tip or two from the artist over the years!)

But for me, the image doesn't work...yet.

I think it comes down to two main problems. First, I just don't see the canopy and the trunk line as part of an integral whole. They don't communicate with one another, they don't exhibit a thematic or textural unity, and the don't collaborate to establish an artist form. Obviously the trunk line is not
going to be as pliable as the canopy, so I'd like to see some sort of restyling up top so that the story and message and texture and dynamicism of the trunk continues on upward into the foliage, and so that these two elements togeher compose a unified whole.

Second, I don't care for the choice of planting depth and/or angle. To me, exposing the underside of the deadwood along the base makes what could be a superbly grounded tree into something almost club-footed. And a base that could be stable like Gibralter looks instead like a molar hanging on by one root against a dentist's pliers.

I'd be interested to hear your comments, and especially any thoughts that Mike might have about why he has chosen to display the tree as he has. Perhaps I just missed the boat.

With my best regards,
Carl

__________________
In love with trees

Advertisement