When Artistry Interferes with Objectivity

Will_Heath

It's "Quod erat demonstrandum" which means "Which was to be demonstrated"

and I'm still waiting....


Will

Advertisement

Will_Heath

Good points John!

Here's a question I'll put forth:

I think we can all agree that on a cascade the roots must be on the opposite side of the lean (couldn't see the lean side roots anyhow) and appear to be grasping the earth as if the tree was holding on for dear life.

At which point between a cascade and an upright should the roots reverse to the side of the lean?


Will

Carl_Bergstrom

Great post, John.

Now we're getting somewhere! Roots on the leaning side express one thing, roots on the away side express another - the job of the artist is in part to make the entire image visually and expressively consistent.

-Carl

__________________
In love with trees

John Dixon

Here's a question I'll put forth:

I think we can all agree that on a cascade the roots must be on the opposite side of the lean (couldn't see the lean side roots anyhow) and appear to be grasping the earth as if the tree was holding on for dear life.

At which point between a cascade and an upright should the roots reverse to the side of the lean?


Will[/QUOTE]

Will,

Not that I'm any type of expert, but my own decision of root placement is based on visual balance. The cascade is a perfect example of the OUTSIDE roots clinging on for survival. Very dramatic and naturally realistic. When dealing with upright styles, it's on a case-by-case basis for me. One somewhat hard and fast rule for me is the pot positioning. If I have a nice tree with strong (for illustrative purposes) movement to the right, then I would want to off-set the tree to the left in the pot. Now if a very strong root is located on the LEFT (away from the movement) and interferes with the tree being placed far enough left to "balance" the design, the root is faulty. A decision would have to be made whether to base the design on movement (likely) or rootage (less likely). A compromise MAY produce a good result, but it has to be addressed by the specific case. In the case of a slant, I feel it is just a lesser-affected version of a semi-cascade.
With informal or formal, I personally think a radiating nebari is much more desirable than just a dominant root. Just no root coming DIRECTLY at the viewer. My KISS method is: If it doesn't "look" right, it ain't right".

Most all of that I'm sure you have read, just as I have. My only difference with most written guides is that I find the visual impact of the POWER root varies with material in slanting style. I have sympathy for those who are trying to give information in written form about a very visual attribute. It just can't be done in academia "book" study. It is definitely "hands on" and personal exposure to the real specimens that will teach that dog to hunt.

Take care,

John

__________________
John Dixon

Si vis pacem parabellum

Stay off the trails of others, that's where the booby-traps are.

heymikey(deceased)

Comments?

Attached Images

	johnnaka-A.JPG (32.5 KB, 36 views)
	johnnaka-B.JPG (32.4 KB, 27 views)
	johnnaka-C.JPG (32.5 KB, 31 views)
	Dscn6179v1-A.JPG (42.7 KB, 28 views)
	Dscn6179v1-B.JPG (41.7 KB, 27 views)
	Dscn6179v1-C.JPG (42.3 KB, 27 views)

John Dixon

heymikey,

I like the third pic of both trees the best. The positioning is best. Although the first one has the "inside" root in a good position, it looks overpowering.

The second tree is in a literati style pot and it does not require the offset balance that a pot with different lengths/widths does.

Reparte?

Warmest regards,

John

__________________
John Dixon

Si vis pacem parabellum

Stay off the trails of others, that's where the booby-traps are.

Will_Heath

John,

I have to say that to my eye, the first picture in both series is the best. The leaning tree clutching the earth with roots behind seems more pleasing to me and seems more natural.

Will

Attached Images

example.JPG (13.7 KB, 12 views)

Vance Wood

I just picked up on this post and probably should not coment but since when have I ever been known not to jump on this subject.

I have held a position for a very long time but have had difficulties getting people to actually think about it., and it is this: The rules are there as a guidline and a teaching tool, but the artist is free to express him/her self any way they want. However in understanding that, the artist must also be aware that not everyone is going to agree with them, some may even disagree violently. For me it is an issue of a visual impact that is pleasing to the eye, even to a point where if there are "rule violations'" the beauty and artistry of the tree are such that these rule violations go un-noticed. If the discussion about the tree starts to orbit around those violations then maybe there is something else wrong that goes beyond fundamentals, especially if the over all effect of the tree arouses negetive feed back.

bnsaijim

The feeling I get from each of the first three pictures is one of instability. The tree is going to plop over. In all cases I prefer the third, barring other issues, as John mentioned.

Noone can make you feel this. It's a sense of balance you have or don't; one develops it with training, I guess, since I know I didn't always react this way.

Hence the probable futility of this discussion...

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