Walter_Pall

Here are some thoughts for general discussion.

When doing a critique with a tree one has to consider several circumstances. One cannot just go ahead and do a 'professional critique' and then see what happens.

The circumstances to consider are:

Who is the audience? Will they understand the technical jargon? Will they understand that being professional is being honest, calling a spade a spade, are they American or European, want to hear positive things rolled in honey or rather mostly or the straightforward truth etc.

What is the level of the audience? If it is mainly people form the street the critique could be a general overview of what bonsai is all about, taking a particular tree as example. If it is beginners and more experienced one can go into serious critique, but not too deep or one might loose the audience. When the audience is very advanced one can and should speak about subtle differences mainly and expect that most general things are known anyway.

What is the general taste of the audience? When speaking to people who are mainly exposed to neoclassical bonsai school, like in California and Florida one has to consider this. People will take many things for granted which they are not at all in other bonsai philosophies. While I believe in not hiding my general taste one has to respect the right of the audience to have an entirely other taste. A Republican might hold a different speech whether he is in front of a Republican or Democratic audience, but still gets his points through.

Who is (probably ) the one who wants this tree to be critiqued. While one would say that a good critique does NOT take the owner into account, I do not believe this. Just from the appearance of the tree, the choice of pot etc. I can pretty well see whether the person is a beginner or a rather progressed bonsai enthusiast. With a beginner I have to carefully choose my words and NOT say the 'truth' as I would love to really say it. I have to adjust my jargon so that I am understood. I have to be more encouraging than truthful. With an advanced person I can more clearly say what I mean and also be a bit harsh, but constructive. With a peer or even a godlike master I have to be extremely careful what I say. Even if I know exactly where the faults are and what I would do to improve the tree it may well appear arrogant and egotistical. So I say as little as possible. The same applies to renowned masterpieces, national treasures. One does not critique them easily. It could well be true, but bad taste to say it.

Has somebody asked me to do a critique? If not, I better shut up or say nice things only.

Is the critique more for the owner of the tree or for the listening audience? Often I prefer the owner not to be present at a critique. A certain tree is taken as a general example to prove a few points maybe. Sometimes I know that the owner will not or does not want to understand what I am driving at and still go ahead and educate the audience.

What species of tree is it? There are certain standards for certain species which cannot easily be met by another species. An azalea e.g. and also a trident maple can have the very best of nebaris. Lack of a good nebari with these speicies is a major fault. A juniper can be a world renowned masterpice and have a lousy nebari. A juniper which has excellent nebari cannot be admired enough then. These are just examples, there is a lot more to this.

What is the condition and time of year of the exhibit? A deciduous tree can look good with foliage, but outstanding without. At least that's the way it normally should be. Sometimes it is the other way around. But if I see only foliage it is not necessarily a fault, because the tree could be excellent underneath it. An azalea in flowers as well as other flowering trees can make one totally ignore major flaws of the rest of the tree.

Why critique anyway? Is it to help someone? It usually should be. But often the person just does not want to be helped and cannot stand the truth. Then one helps the others more than the owner. Or is a critique about raising the one who does it. Is it really vanity?


The list probably goes on.

Advertisement