Anti-3d Article

rockm

I was reading a bit on Dan Robinson's page and ran across this article. I remember reading it a while back, but read it again with the idea of "3-D Bonsai" in mind. I don't think the two ideas are opposing, but rather show that there is more than one alternative to the "Classic" Japanese style...

http://www.elandangardens.com/museum/redefined.htm

Advertisement

hansvanmeer

Thaks rockm,
great link to a very nice article! What he says there makes all good sense to me, only the clam" All trees deserve to have deadwood" is a bid to simple for me. Bud having said that, a very good explanation about what it is all about!
Hans.

Victrinia_Ensor

All I have to say about that article is...





AMEN!



Thanks for posting that Mark... simply outstanding. I had read it previously, but at the time lacked any experiance to understand what I was reading. In the light of all this 3-D business it hits home in all kinds of new ways.


Kindest Regards,

__________________
Ms. Vic

Le belle cose prendono tempo...

www.elandangardens.com

Vance Wood

I agree with you and this article. I like the point of a focal point, but I also like the idea that a tree should be viewable all the way around. This is something most Americans have not or will not do. They work on one designated front to the expense of the rest of the tree. I know Will got a lot of heat proposing this idea, of designing 360, but there you go.

__________________
The only finished bonsai is a dead one; me 1992 MABA Des Moines Iowa

Vonsgardens

3-dimensional bonsai does not imply being viewable from 360 degrees. This is the fallacy of will's argument. All bonsai are viewed in 3-D- in person. Requiring that a tree be viewable from all sides with equal weigh,t is well, an interesting concept. Will certainly l
ead to a reduction in the number of trees shown and presented.... That is what we need- fewer trees.

__________________
"Wiring is simple; However, it is not easy to do it right" Boon

Vance Wood

I think you are reading more into Wills argument than was intended. You suggest that his approach would mean that only trees viewable from all sides as a requirement for a displayed bonsai. I don't think that was said or even implied. From what I remember the article was dealing with styling a tree from all angles, which I happen to agree with. When one develops a front at the expense of every thing else even the front, or focal point is going to suffer. I have seen and have had trees that were butt ugly from various points except the front. Most of the Ugly, was imbalance and glaring open spaces that had been scraficed or produced by attempting to make a front more appealing.

__________________
The only finished bonsai is a dead one; me 1992 MABA Des Moines Iowa

zen

Hi guys thought I might chime in, ya know I read, fairly early on, in my bonsai interest, that trees should have a "best side" and then three other views that would be equally as "aesthetically pleasing" as each other but not the "best" veiw, or what we humans (being the linear creatures, that we are) call, so lovingly, "Tha Furuunt".
Hey we have a front so why shouldn't everything else in existance ?

Really, as visual artist, I feel greatly the need for a single "best" veiwing angle, as it makes my work, in the facillity of optical illusionist, (to suggest scale, and age, as well as other things) a whole lot easier. This what is refered to as "forced perspective".

When dealing with how to best communicate a more precise and specific message to any number of veiwers, undoubtedly from any number of backgrounds, with their own histories to shape their veiw of the world, and their emotions and oppinions, then shaped by that veiw, one must be careful in choosing the "visual cues" (based on the line,form, texture, shape, color,space/negative space relationship formula familiar to almost all classical visual artforms, as well as world and regional archetypes based on a time immemorial to us now, when we saw in 2-D, where our ancient "aesthetic eye" is very well evolved from) that best communicate one's intended meaning.

Through the use of walls and corridors in museums to the tall bits of fence or wall on a Japanese home, that block certain parts of a garden to force perspective, to one area in the garden, which is best veiwed from this angle, to the small slit shaped windows that are often present in the exterior fence, that show a veiw from a certain spot in garden, of a snipet of the landscape beyond the wall.
This would in turn tie the veiwer to the outside world directly, in such a way that might remind one, that we all have an inner-most being(the person in the garden), and then a conscious mind, where we work out what our emotions and oppinions would have us do(the garden) and then the exterior onto which we project our "image of self"(the extrior wall or fence) and the world beyond that, which we effect through our very existance, especially artists,writers,etc. who leave some imprint of that primative, emotional, ancient being within us all, in order to let us not forget our aesthetic eye, and our humble, 2-D-sighted beginings.
Jeremy M.C.

__________________
"Although profoundly "inconsequential," the Zen experience has consequences in the sense that it may be applied in any direction, to any conceivable human activity, and that wherever it is so applied it lends an unmistakable quality to the work."

~ Alan Watts (1915-1973)

Alasdair

That article is a good read. I don't know if i agree with the whole "every tree deserves..." bits. If evry tree had deadwood or hollow tunks, they would all end up looking the same and people would think a clean trunk with a domed canopy was nicer.

As to the whole 3D debate, i think tree's do have a front for display but this does not mean the tree has to be flat. The branches to the 'back' of a tree are still visible from the front, through the gaps, which provides depth to a piece. And unless you can guarantee that everyone will view the tree from the same angle evry time, it has to be 3D. This allows you to interact using your eyes. By moving my head a little to the right i may discover something new behind a leaf that i couldn't see before. Moving right a little more a surface root comes into view. eventually i have been around the whole tree and apreciated countless pictures, rather than just the very front.

regards,
Al

__________________
I can feel another "I wish that was my tree" moment coming on...
Currently studying BSc Plant Biology at the Universty of Wales, Aberystwyth

PatArizona

Rockm...

Thank you for pointing us to Dan Robinson's Focal Point Bonsai Design paper. Very nicely done, and I fully agree with your statement that "...there is more than one alternative to the 'Classic' Japanese style...".

But, however "nicely done", FPBD is certainly not for everyone. Case in point...we are in the process of moving to a lovely manufactured home (formerly mobile home, formerly trailer) park. Obviously, much less space...house, storage and yard. The available "usable" yard space in now less than 10% of what I am leaving behind. I will likely be restricted to less than 1% (as in ONE percent) of the grinding that FPBD would require for my meager collection...which is probably less than 1% of what Dan's is.

Wife and health requirements are more important.

Back to Focal Point...

Dan states that "...shaping the foliage and branches to surround and frame the area of greatest visual value..." in a manner that comes across to me as a startling, new approach. For what ever it's worth, I have heard, and read, from a number of teachers, something along this theme: "...find the most interesting/outstanding feature of your subject, and design your bonsai to show off that area...". Focal Point? This O'l Sage thinks so.


It's just that no one has ever (well, never to my knowledge) tagged a name on to this approach. Dan has. Furthermore, a very good job has he done.


A statement from Dan's paper that I particularly like, regarding the "one, two, three, triangle" design is: “…that every author has reiterated it as the way to go is baffling. Something is confused here…”.

Here's a couple of comments on previous posts to this thread...

JohnVon said: "...requiring that a tree be viewable from all sides with equal weight is well, an interesting concept...". Probably unatainable. Maybe "almost equal" would be more realistic. Even with Mike Hagedorn's Bonsai in the Round, "almost equal" likely applies.


Vance said: "...styling a tree from all angles, which I happen to agree with...". I too happen to agree with, although, "almost equal" would apply here as well.


Zen said: "...I feel greatly the need for a single "best" veiwing angle...", and Alasdair said: "...I think tree's do have a front for display but...". The overwhelming majority of bonsai do have a front because that's the way we design them...even forests and groups. But, where's the front when you are in the middle of a forest? Think about it. Haven't you ever encountered a subjet that presented you with two "competing Fronts?". I'll bet you made a "management decision" and developed a single front.


Finally, a comment from Mike Hagedorn's Bonsai in the Round: "...it would be prudent to avoid forcing a naturally fronted tree to be anything else...".


Well, having said all this...enjoy your Focal Point, 3D, Bonsai in the Round, Traditional, Flat, NoName...whatever...bonsai design.

Pat

__________________
BONSAI isn't about surviving in a storm, rather, how to dance in the rain.
THE ONLY WAY: Always remember, and don't ever forget, that whatever you read here is not cast in concrete... the intent of any advice is to help. In no way should you feel that I’m saying that my way is the only way…heaven forbid! I've seen far too much of the "my way or the highway" attitude in bonsai as well as in other areas of life.