What is a tree critique all about?

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

bwaynef

I'll agree that a critique has a lot of nuances that make each peculiar to itself. I think in the last paragraph you gave an interesting question. Why critique? Is it to help the owner/maintainer/presenter? I'll agree with your assertion that it should be. Your saying that it could be about "raising the one who does it," ie: the critiquer, makes me think the opposite; that sometimes critiques of some individuals trees are reviewed a little more favorably just because of past successes. Granted with those individuals, some of the faults that are glaring and not mentioned in the critique are accepted to be understood and corrected as time/health of the tree permits.

Will_Heath

Well said.

Attila

Very wise points on the subject, I can't help but admire Walter's experience.

I like to look at a critique as providing a service to the owner and to the audience. The same way as an expert consultant is hired to provide a service to a client. The success of the critique depends on how the client (who may be an audience or just the owner, or both) perceives it. It is not a self-serving exercise to please the master himself.

Before the critique takes place, the rules of the game need to be addressed. If the client has conditions and expectations, he needs to put them on the table. The master also needs to tell the client his own conditions and things that the client should expect. After both parties come to a common agreement, the critique can take place.

The same should apply to a critique on internet forums. In Walter's case, he has his own page where we submit our trees, and he sets his own conditions. When we put our tree there, we implicitly accept his conditions. So both sides have agreed on the terms.

When someone posts a tree for the members to critique, he should tell us what he expects from our critique. He coud say, "shoot away, I will take hard punches", but I think it is implied that the rules of common courtesy are used and we wouldn't try to publicly ridicule him.

A good critique is when both the owner/audience and the master leave with a sense of accomplishment. If any of them is unhappy at the end, the critique failed. It's not about who is right. It has to be a win/win.

IsomJ1

My personal opinion is that a critique should be made in such a way that, if followed, results in a better tree. I don't think statements that are simply critical with no recommended course of action do anyone any good. If you are judging, fine...deduct "points" for flaws. If you are critiquing - tell me how to improve it. Don't just tell me it is not good. That being said, I think Walter's first post on the Bougy was excellent. He gave his perspective on how to improve - should the owner decide to go traditional OR natural. Everyone knows his preference, but he still took into account the different perspectives and gave his advice accordingly. However, further down in the thread it kindof devolved from critique to a "if you do it that way you will totally ruin it" stance. I am learning, quite quickly, that Bonsai folks tend to be a pretty prickly group. A lot of stuff tends to be taken very personally and in the worst possible way. Oh well, at least it's entertaining - if not always beneficial!

__________________
Jeff Isom
Cleveland, OH / Sunset Zone 39