When Artistry Interferes with Objectivity

bonsaial1

When Artistry Interferes with Objectivity
Al Keppler

I have decided to start a new thread about the slanted tree. I feel that there are many issues that have not been touched on, and understanding of this complex issue can be continued here. I feel that the original statement I made concerning the slanting Ume was bruised a little. Let us read the whole caption;

Qoated by Al Keppler


A counterbalance is simply a tool to offset inertia from one direction or the other. The counter balance in this case being needed for the weight of gravity pushing down on the plant. While the plant is growing in nature, we have no idea on what caused the directional change in the trunk. It could have been snow, or wind, or just a need for light being blocked by a mountain or boulder, or the shade of another tree.

The physical forces on the tree would probably dictate how much counterbalancing root growth would be needed to anchor the tree.

In this photo, I have shown a very simple wine holder. When I first seen this holder some twenty years ago in a dept. store that my wife worked in, I thought wow! I have to have one of those. When looking at it, you get the idea that the wine bottle should just fall over. However, simple physics will dictate that this is indeed stronger than it looks. One can push very hard down on the wine bottle and except for fear of breaking the wine bottle’s neck, I could probably not push hard enough to topple this arrangement. Through simple engineering, the load has been transferred through the wine bottle, down the holder to the platform of the holder. The weight of the bottle is directly over the platform of the holder thereby making this very stable, while looking very precarious. This is the same configuration that Ume has in the picture. Now, in that remark I made about the roots of this tree, I never said that the tree needed only roots on one side. What I have shown is that roots on one side look out of place on a tree that is not in a slanting style. For me, I feel that if a slanting tree is going to have roots on one side, they better be either on the lean side or the away side. Not to the side or something like that. Also notice how if I were to let go of the other photo, the artistic one, that without a guy wire it would indeed fall over. So which roots would offer the most stabibility? Now do we want roots on one side? NO of course not, and neither do I. That was not the crux of my message when I posted the picture. If you have roots on one side, they better be on a slanting tree.

In looking thru books, I found no references to roots only on the away side of leaning trunks. I have over 45 hard cover books, 27 Japanese hard cover books all of bonsai today, several complete years of Kindai and Kinbon Japanese magazines, and 9 complete years of Bonsai in Europe. In all of that, I could not find much more than the usual roots should be on the compression side and on the tensile side of the slanting composition. None of then referred to one-sided roots, and none of them said that either would be most appropriate.

Objectivity?

Quote from Will Heath:



I might like to offer my opinion on these one at a time.

1.Nature made this particular rule, you can "poo poo" it to your hearts desire, but it doesn't change the basics behind it. This one rule is repeated in almost every single book that mentions the slanting style. The nebari should be on the side away from the direction of lean.

Nature does not make rules. Man makes rules. Nature breaks rules all the time. It is called Chaos. Chaos is what makes a drop of water run the same drip after drip, till suddenly it takes a different path. There are countless scientists out there that come up with theoretical probability charts about chaos on a boundless array of subjects from horse racing to Skydiving. Nothing in the Universe is bound in stone. To make an absolute statement like that is losing objectivity.

2. Think about putting a guy wire on a newly planted slanting tree, you would put the guy wire on the side away from the lean. "Poo Poo" this basic rule and the tree falls over. It is basic physics.

A slanting tree with roots on the inside of the slant would have no need for a guy wire. The plant is self supporting when the root mass is centered over the mass being pressed on it.

3. Comparing a root system to a crane is an exercise in futility as they are not even close to being the same. The roots on a leaning tree that grow on the side away from the lean go deep into the earth, anchoring the tree against the gravitation forces of the lean, far better and more efficiently than the most advanced crane ever could. Man's inventions still can not beat natures for pure genius.

Nature is not genius. Genius is a human trait, not one found in nature. It has no soul nor a nervous system. It does not feel nor does it have a conscious. Trees in nature simply survive by doing whatever necessary to remain alive. If that meant growing a root on the side of the plant to compensate for winds out of that direction for a certain part of the year, it would do it. Plants do not grow in nature with the same artistry we try to hold our bonsai accountable to.

4. The nebari on the side away from the lean also acts as a visual balance, which is needed on most slanting styled trees.

With this statement I agree. This is by far the only thing that goes without dispute. This agrees with the ideals of artistry. This alone is something which would separate good from average slanting bonsai. The tree above is average, because it has roots on one side. It is not bad because you feel the roots are on the wrong side. Just on the wrong side for the sake of artistry. Don’t get confused with the artistry aspect so much that you lose objectivity. Objectivity is what allows us to keep working with the plants we have and not just giving up. This would be far easier.

5. Who made this rule? Nature, God, The Great Spirit, evolution? Take your choice; it exists because in nature without this balance, the tree simply falls over.

This is just an ignorant statement, and I am not sure what is trying to be said here. Somehow this message seems to forget that trees in nature that do not follow the rules of artistry are some how not made by nature. I have never figured out how someone could say that nature dictates the right way, or artistic way, when there are countless specimens that do not fit the criteria of artistry. The tree above exhists, was created by nature, and I am sure it would not have toppled over. Nor would the many specimens I intend to show from some rather noteworthy artists at that.

6. Of course, there are those who would argue that we are not bound by nature and it's designs, that we could in fact style a bonsai in cube shapes, ball shapes and other such topiary. I however am not one of them; I still believe that a bonsai should represent a perfect idea of a tree.

Once again here I am confused by this statement. Just what about that tree makes you think that it does not look like a tree? This tree was created by your own words of the deities of your choice. It may not fit an artistic image, but artistry in bonsai as we know it is a man thing not a nature thing. Removing any tree from the ground and placing it in a pot is the exact natural image of a tree grown by nature. The thing was taken from the ground, how could it be anything other than that.

7. Comparing a root system to a crane is an exercise in futility as they are not even close to being the same, the crane sets on top of the ground, the trees roots reach deep into it, the support needs to be on the stress side or the tree will be ripped out of the ground.

Once again this is an absurd statement. Comparing a slanting tree with buttressed roots on the inside of the slant is the exact same thing as the cherry picker of the wine holder I have shown above. In fact if the tree could live without the soil and had the right platform of roots, it could live out its life exactly on those inside roots. Those mechanical contrivances are exactly the same thing. While not exactly the same as a crane, it would be if you added the balancing roots on the back of the slanting tree. The back roots would act as the counterbalance, while the inside roots or compression roots would hold the load.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the difference in the footing or foundation of a suspension bridge and a Howe Truss bridge. The tensile, or suspension bridge requires roughly three times the foundation of the same span Howe Truss bridge. Simple mechanics.

Attached Images

	DSCF0078.JPG (62.3 KB, 97 views)
	DSCF0079.JPG (35.9 KB, 110 views)
	DSCF0123.JPG (18.8 KB, 108 views)
	DSCF0124.JPG (18.4 KB, 65 views)

__________________
It's about time that the proper respect be given to the fine art of balloon animals...

Advertisement

bonsaial1

These are some photographs and a drawing of some slanting and windblown trees. The first is of a drawing by Deborah Koreschoff from the book Bonsai, its art, science, history and philosophy. This a drawing mind you. Deborah could have drawn this sketch in many ways. She could have drawn this with the most beautiful smooth tensile roots in the world. She has not. She has elected to show this tree in the way that nature would most likely grow it, with compression roots.

Remember I am not disputing Will's claim of which is more artistic, just not losing my objectivity that trees grow this way in nature, and sometimes we have to except what nature dishes out when looking at life objectivily.

Attached Images

sketch.jpg (24.5 KB, 87 views)

__________________
It's about time that the proper respect be given to the fine art of balloon animals...

bonsaial1

The first tree by Walter Pall. This tree exhibits the exact same roots as shown in the sketch above. Wherever this tree was growing, it may have been very shy on soil. Tensile roots require above average soil and lots of it to hold back the equal forces of wind and snow. I am sure that these heavily buttressed compression roots carried their fair share of snow.

Just try holding a 5lb sack of sugar at arms length for a few minutes. Try doing it for a few centuries!

Attached Images

walter.jpg (21.9 KB, 113 views)

__________________
It's about time that the proper respect be given to the fine art of balloon animals...

bonsaial1

The remaining images are but a few photos of bonsai that I have found with very one sided roots of the kind found on the very first photo of this thread. The slanting pine is a photo I took at a CBS show many years ago in LA. The tree belongs to John Naka.

I have spent a few hours going over many books and many photographs in the hopes of helping those that wish to see each side of the debate. I hope there are those that can offer a counter debate with as much thought. Thanks, AJKeppler

Attached Images

	CBS.jpg (28.5 KB, 61 views)
	johnnaka.jpg (27.6 KB, 85 views)
	roots.jpg (36.7 KB, 55 views)
	slant.jpg (18.2 KB, 87 views)

__________________
It's about time that the proper respect be given to the fine art of balloon animals...

JLDoggett

Al, I have to agree with you. The human eye looks for the fulcrum point for any precarious object, and most of the pictures you used to illustrate your post show excellent examples of the ideal. The roots add the needed mass where the eye says they should be. I would disagree with the postulation that the roots should continue a line from the slant of the trunk. This would lead the eye away from the foliage and away from the tree. In your examples the eye make an ovate route no matter where the line starts. This draws the person into the tree, in the hopes if further exploration.

Picture 18704 offers an image which looks off balance, that tree appears to be ready to collapse. the large lower left branch appear to be the sustaining mass to counterbalance the apex. The curve of the trunk appears to be a struggle by the tree to right itself before it must succumb to the forces of gravity.

Will_Heath

That sure was a lot of words to say the same things that have already been said. I could post a dozen pictures here that have the roots on the side away from the lean also Al In fact, we could post pics until one of us finally ran out, but to what end?

I would love to continue in this debate with you Al but I find your insulting and condensending statements (quoted below) to be a deterrant to rational thought and or debate.






So when someone disagrees with you, you respond with insults? Please let me know if you would like to continue in a rational manner, who knows, one of us might just learn something.



For the record and for a sense of justice, I think your last quote was the most fitting of all.


Will Heath

RonMartin(deceased)

FWIW I agree with Al's comments. That doesn't happen too often but it was bound to happen sooner or later ;o)

bnsaijim

As much as I hate to get into this somewhat assinine debate... while there is credibility to both sides, comparing apples pickers to orange engine lifts is still not bonsai..

Being one that likes to see the money, I did a little bit of research myself...

I'd like to offer this up from Will "Bonsai Guru" Heath's own Gallery.

Must be like I tell my kids- do as I say, not as I do.

Attached Images

1908ficus_stand.jpg (36.5 KB, 128 views)

__________________
Jim Stone
Seki Bonsai Studio
sekibonsai.com
Santa Fe, TX

Will_Heath

Your somewhat insulting choice of "fighting words" are incorrect, I am not on the attack, in fact if anything I am being attacked for presenting another side to a debate. But thanks anyway for adding nothing to the debate. If I accomplished anything here, let it be said that I brought Ron and Al into agreement for the very first time.


Jim,

This debate centers on slanting / cascading bonsai and not on informal uprights. Although on the informal upright bonsai that you showed, the rootage is in fact on the side away from the lean. I am curious as to why you would feel that this debate is asinine, is there not something tobe learned here?


Will