bonsaiTALK Community - View Single Post

Hi Al,

You've certainly put a lot of work into this, I hope you didn't do this just to prove that there is no school in Southern California. Bonsai is very young here in the US, with relatively few practitioners (compared to other artforms), so to talk about clearly defined "schools" would be indeed forcing the issue.

I defined the term "school" just for the purpose of that discussion as the existence of a "recurring pattern". If anything, your nice photo essay proved beyond any doubt to everybody that there is a definite pattern in Harry's work: lots of deadwood, contorted trunks, sparse foliage, unfinished, unkempt appearance, Calif. juniper,... and so on, you get the picture.
So much for that.

I guess you want to hear some comments on what you've said, so I give it a shot. Mind you that these are just my personal feelings and they are not meant by any means to say that you are wrong.

(Your opinion is just as valid as anybody elses. E. H. Gombrich, one of the foremost art historians said that there is no such thing as a wrong reason for liking a work of art. There may be a wrong reason for rejecting it, such as prejudice and unwillingness to accept new ideas, but never a wrong reason for liking someting. Each one of us likes certain things for very personal reasons, I will never like a bonsai for exactly the same resons you do.)

Al said:
"I thought this may a good way to help educate why schools of bonsai are unnecessary. In my opinion. Schools, diversionary, smoke and mirrors."

Schools of bonsai are of course unnecessary to create a good bonsai. They are unnecessary to create any form or art, for that matter.

Studying schools of bonsai, on the other hand, is a matter of personal interest. It is equivalent to the already existing and very popular subject or art history. I, personally, like art history and comparative art studies, and so it gives me great pleasure to find common traits and basic differences in philosophy and practice regarding bonsai created by various group of people, in different parts of the world. If it's not something you like, nothing wrong with that.

Al said about Harry's work:
"Unfinished in my opinion."

I completely agree. Most of them look unfinished to me as well.

Al said:
"wouldn't you just love to see what Kimura could do with one of these junipers"

I am sure he would carve the heck out of them. You would be able to tell from a mile that it was Kimura.

Al said:
"I know I could improve any of Harry's trees just with the addition of wire"

Me too. Lets hope we are both right.

About the "unfinished" look of his trees:
He is the first one to admit that a lot of his trees are "unfinished". A collected tree may need a decade or more to have the finished look. I suspect though, that he does not want to give his tree a "tamed" look. That, in his opinion, would be in discordance with the air of austerity that he is trying to convey. Some of Walter's trees have that unfinished feeling, I remember Andy Ruthledge was citicising him about that on many occasions.

I respect Harry's decision to have that image. I am sure that if he wanted to make them look different, he could. It's called Wiring 101 and he could learn it from Naka's manual

You may not like it. I sometimes shake my head too.
A lot of people however, do like his work.

Al said about Harry's work:
"Average? without a doubt
Original or unique? not even close"

Not all of Harry's work is outstanding. But you have to judge an artist by his best works. That's worth repeating: the best of the best.

Looking at his best trees, I certainly wouldn't call them average. They are amazing trees. Of course, they were amazing trees when sitting in the desert a few decades ago, but Harry brought out the best of them. Their powerful presence, their character shaped by centuries of struggling for survival make me stand in awe in front of them. They are one of a kind, nothing quite like them in this world. That certaily makes them very unique.

Al said about Harry's work:
Masterpieces? hardly

Harry's best work was called "masterpiece" by John Naka and many other outstanding bonsai artists. His work is exhibited at the National Bonsai Foundation, where there is a reception area named after him.
Somehow, I don't think that my opinion would change that.

Regards,
Attila

P.S: Me critiquing the best work of Harry!? Now that's funny.

14-Oct-2004	#10
Attila Attila Soos Join Date: Jan-2002 Location: Los Angeles, California Country: USA Posts: 1,946	Hi Al, You've certainly put a lot of work into this, I hope you didn't do this just to prove that there is no school in Southern California. Bonsai is very young here in the US, with relatively few practitioners (compared to other artforms), so to talk about clearly defined "schools" would be indeed forcing the issue. I defined the term "school" just for the purpose of that discussion as the existence of a "recurring pattern". If anything, your nice photo essay proved beyond any doubt to everybody that there is a definite pattern in Harry's work: lots of deadwood, contorted trunks, sparse foliage, unfinished, unkempt appearance, Calif. juniper,... and so on, you get the picture. So much for that. I guess you want to hear some comments on what you've said, so I give it a shot. Mind you that these are just my personal feelings and they are not meant by any means to say that you are wrong. (Your opinion is just as valid as anybody elses. E. H. Gombrich, one of the foremost art historians said that there is no such thing as a wrong reason for liking a work of art. There may be a wrong reason for rejecting it, such as prejudice and unwillingness to accept new ideas, but never a wrong reason for liking someting. Each one of us likes certain things for very personal reasons, I will never like a bonsai for exactly the same resons you do.) Al said: "I thought this may a good way to help educate why schools of bonsai are unnecessary. In my opinion. Schools, diversionary, smoke and mirrors." Schools of bonsai are of course unnecessary to create a good bonsai. They are unnecessary to create any form or art, for that matter. Studying schools of bonsai, on the other hand, is a matter of personal interest. It is equivalent to the already existing and very popular subject or art history. I, personally, like art history and comparative art studies, and so it gives me great pleasure to find common traits and basic differences in philosophy and practice regarding bonsai created by various group of people, in different parts of the world. If it's not something you like, nothing wrong with that. Al said about Harry's work: "Unfinished in my opinion." I completely agree. Most of them look unfinished to me as well. Al said: "wouldn't you just love to see what Kimura could do with one of these junipers" I am sure he would carve the heck out of them. You would be able to tell from a mile that it was Kimura. Al said: "I know I could improve any of Harry's trees just with the addition of wire" Me too. Lets hope we are both right. About the "unfinished" look of his trees: He is the first one to admit that a lot of his trees are "unfinished". A collected tree may need a decade or more to have the finished look. I suspect though, that he does not want to give his tree a "tamed" look. That, in his opinion, would be in discordance with the air of austerity that he is trying to convey. Some of Walter's trees have that unfinished feeling, I remember Andy Ruthledge was citicising him about that on many occasions. I respect Harry's decision to have that image. I am sure that if he wanted to make them look different, he could. It's called Wiring 101 and he could learn it from Naka's manual You may not like it. I sometimes shake my head too. A lot of people however, do like his work. Al said about Harry's work: "Average? without a doubt Original or unique? not even close" Not all of Harry's work is outstanding. But you have to judge an artist by his best works. That's worth repeating: the best of the best. Looking at his best trees, I certainly wouldn't call them average. They are amazing trees. Of course, they were amazing trees when sitting in the desert a few decades ago, but Harry brought out the best of them. Their powerful presence, their character shaped by centuries of struggling for survival make me stand in awe in front of them. They are one of a kind, nothing quite like them in this world. That certaily makes them very unique. Al said about Harry's work: Masterpieces? hardly Harry's best work was called "masterpiece" by John Naka and many other outstanding bonsai artists. His work is exhibited at the National Bonsai Foundation, where there is a reception area named after him. Somehow, I don't think that my opinion would change that. Regards, Attila P.S: Me critiquing the best work of Harry!? Now that's funny.