Rules or Not? (Example 2)

Joanie

Actually, it's hard to see if the lowest branch is indeed on the tallest tree. There may be a back branch on the smaller trunk that blends with the lowest branch we are looking at. Or, if they couldn't get a branch to grow on the smaller trunk, that may be why they violated the rule about inside branches... to bring it over and disguise the fact that the smaller trunk didn't have a branch there.

As to the smaller trunk being thicker, it may not be in person. If we are determining thickness from only one angle, the twists and turns are possibly fooling our eyes. That lower twist on the smaller trunk may be flatter and wider but not actually thicker.

The bar branches, again, are a bit of a problem. But are they actually bar branches? It looks to me like one or both of the larger diameter areas are actually jin. Certainly the one on the left gives the appearance of a jin with a much smaller diameter branch growing above it. This smaller diameter branch would not be a bar branch. There is also an upper/lower type bar branch toward the top third of the smaller trunk but it may be a back branch trained in two directions. So hard to tell.

Interesting study. Now you can all come on and tell me I'm nuts.

Joanie

__________________

Advertisement

bwaynef

I'm only doing what was asked. I'm not questioning whether this tree works as a whole. If you want my opinion on the rules then read the other thread. I'm just doing what I thought was the whole point of the thread.

I think work needs to be done on the branching; it wouldn't take away anything to straighten out the bar- and cross-branching.


I disagree here but its only the first reverse-taper that bothers me. Particularly the bulbous formation in the lower right side distracts to my eye. I think that the tree would be even MORE impressive without this reverse taper (or the appearance thereof). A bit of ground layering to produce roots or visual trickery would go a long way.

On the same note, the appearance of reverse taper further up the trunk doesn't seem to distract nearly as much and is more easily explained (in this photo) as being a result of the twists. This is justified in my eye by the sense of age that is created here. The gnarly formations bring to mind ages of growing and twisting and reacting to years of stimuli as a necessity to stay alive.

This is not a tree critique however. More a critique/expose on this tree's rule-mindedness. Is the taper justified. Why? What styling decisions/trade-offs were made? Why is the branching like it is. Should it be that way?

__________________
----------------------------------
© 2004 - present bwaynef

HB Smith

Rules have fluid priorities with different species of trees. Reverse taper is not as critical on an OLD flowering tree. If we try to correct the 'flaw', we more often then not result in a contrived looking base on an old trunk. We could try to find a better specimen, but it would probably would run several thousand more dollars. Or we could recognize that as far as flowering apricots go, this is a pretty cool trunk whose age and movement "rule' far exceeds the importance of the reverse taper 'rule'.

The same argument can be applied to the branches. Sometimes bar branches, pocket branches, or in this case crossing over branches are not removed because the tree looks better with them. The tree would be awfully bare without the crossover branch in the middle of the second trunk. The additional flowers also make for a more impressive display.

I am not dismissing rules nor do I believe that this tree breaks 'the rules', just rule priorities are being met appropriate to the species. The same could not be said of a Japanese Black Pine for example.

__________________
Sincerely,
Howard

www.BonsaiSmiths.net

Vance Wood

I think with this tree one has to consider two major points. First of all this species of tree is only shown when it is in full flower. If you have ever seen a Prunus Mume in leaf it is a rather ugly and uninteresting tree usually relegated to the back shelves of the owners display for the rest of the season. Secondly I have said it time after time if the tree is beautiful then the rules don't count. However; if it were determined that this tree just did not measure up, and had something lacking then an examination by the rules would be in order to determine where the problem resides.

The truth of the matter can be summed up this way in my opinion: The more formal and conservative the style of the tree the more influential classical rules are going to be in defining it. With a tree like this Plum where the importance of display is in the aged bark and the flowers, the old and the new, branch placement is not as important because this will change year after year as the tree is induced to produce more flower producing wood.

There are trees in the Japanese tradition that have rules of their own. This is one of them, the Wisteria would be another and most of the extreme "collected trees"/ yamadori, are judged on their own merits as heritage trees. Of course in the end as much as is possible the triangle shape is sought after and a careful management of growth for effect. It has been shown with some of the comments on these posts that even if the tree is one of the extreme forms there is a certain amount of adherence to rules of style, balance, and harmony even though the more often discussed concepts of branch placement are moot points.

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

rockm

Howard and Vance make some excellent, yet very subtle points on "rules" and trees. Some trees can transcend rules. Some trees have "rules" all their own.

The example here is a very old trunk. It is not artificial age. It is REAL age. That, like old powerful people, commands respect and a different way of looking at the tree and the "rules" applied to it. There is more leeway for "faults" and quirks in old trees.

The point about some species having a separate set of "rules" is an important one. Apples aren't black pines, black pines aren't azaleas and wisteria is basically a mess ;-) Apples don't look like maples and maples don't look like hornbeam (although they can share some similar traits). This makes applying rules more than simple application of formula... It's up to the person designing the tree to interpret the set of visual techniques (Rules) to each tree.

Attila

That's a really good point. It often happens that if we want to follow a certain rule, the result will violate another rule. You have to decide which one of the two is more important for the overall composition.

Will_Heath

This bonsai presents challenges to the rules as many have pointed out but let's weigh it against the rules as we have done with the other two examples I selected. Is it like the others standing on a solid foundation of tradition rules? Here are some rules that it indeed follows....

Trunk and Nebari Rules:

1. Height should be six times the caliper of the trunk.

2. Trunk should lean slightly toward the viewer.

3. Trunk should flare at base to visually anchor the plant. (Taking the whole trunk base into consideration)

5. No eye-poking roots (directly at viewer).

6. Apex should lean toward viewer.

7. Trunk should taper as it ascends. No reverse taper. (On one trunk this is true but not on the other, yet when taking both into consideration....)

9. Curves in trunk should not result in 'pigeon breast' (roundness toward viewer).

10. Apex should finish in the direction set by the base. 'Flow' should be maintained.

11. Trunk line should not move 'back on itself'. This is one of my rules and difficult to explain. It relates to the flow of the tree. A trunk line that moves back on itself creates a 'C' curve.

12. For formal and informal upright, the apex should be over the base.

14. As a tree ascends the curves should be closer together (related to branch placement).

15. A tree should have only one apex.

16. Twin tree trunks should divide at the base, not higher up.


Branches:
1. No crossing branches, or branches that cross the trunk.

2. No eye-poking branches (pointed directly at viewer).

3. First branch should be placed approximately one third the height of the tree.

4. Succeeding branches placed at one third the remaining distance to the top of the tree.

6. Branch caliper should be in proportion to the trunk. Branches that are thicker than one third the trunk caliper will be too thick.

9. Branches should diminish in size and caliper as they ascend.

10. There should be space between the branches to 'Let the birds fly through'.

14. Branches should create an outline of a scalene triangle with the apex representing God, the middle corner man and the lower corner earth.

16. To create the illusion of an old tree, wire the branches down. Young trees have ascending branches. The branches near and in the apex can be horizontal or ascend since this is the young part of the tree.

18. In twin trees, there should not be branches between the trees which would cross the trunks. The outside branches of both trees creates the triangle of foliage.


Once again we can see that as with the other two examples, even though this is an unconventional bonsai, it still has a good, strong, solid base of traditional rules to support it.

In all three examples I posted, I purposely picked trees that were outside of the norm, more non-traditional, if you will. Still we found that they did indeed follow many of the rules that some dismiss so easily. Try as I might, I could not find one single example of a quality bonsai that did not follow any of the rules, in fact even these examples that I did pick followed a huge number of them.


Will

bwaynef

Will, it seems you're a bit determined to fit this tree to the rules, when it doesn't exactly follow those rules.


It seems theres a following that wants to see that this tree DOES follow rules when in fact it doesn't. If one trunk doesn't taper then you can't say that as a whole it tapers. Saying it doesn't have bar branches or cross branching because some of them don't cross or "bar" is a bit revisionist. Why not explain why those branches are there and why it works like it is?



It can still be artistically merited that it does not taper, or that for having the branching be the way it is when you consider that it is necessary to have a plethora of branching on which to allow the flowers to form, or that the removal of the reverse taper would take away more than it provides.

This tree DOES break rules. The reasons it does so is for the sake of the design though.


It seems followers of this thread and others want to suggest that the tree doesn't break rules. Theres no shame in having a tree not follow rules, only in having a tree that doesn't work. Why not a discussion of why this tree WORKS in spite of the rules that it breaks rather than a staunch view that it doesn't break any?

WF

ps. I guess I see more value in showing why a rule was broken than showing an atypically styled tree that conforms to some of the rules

__________________
----------------------------------
© 2004 - present bwaynef

Joanie

Wayne, that is what I was trying to do earlier in the thread. To try to discern why some of the rules were broken, or why the tree works in spite of them.

No one came back to discuss my idea that the crossing branch was there as a substitute for a lower branch on the shorter trunk. Nor the feeling that at least one of the bar branches may only look like a bar branch, and the other being actually a jin below a smaller diameter branch that isn't a bar at all. Take away any of these elements and the tree is lessened in its impact.


Joanie

__________________