Another in the "banyan style"... (or form if you prefer)

If one is able to dispense with the concept of "pigeon-holing" it makes it a bit easier.

Walter Pall's essays are an excellent reference on all this dither; especially if one ahs a keen desire to make one's head hurt! ;^)

Attached Images

grnisle7_04.JPG (52.4 KB, 26 views)

So what is the difference betwee a style and a form. Is style Japanese and everything else a form ;o)

Edited in:

Walter Paul does Naturalistic. Is that a form or a style. Naturalistic is not a Japanese style is it.

Ron,
>So what is the difference betwee a style and a form....

That's my question. I don't know, I'm serious, this is all a little confusing since everyone is using these terms so loosely. Walter does 'Naturalistic' but most of his trees are informal upright. I do understand (at least my eye sees the difference) the Naturalistic stlye, but it seems that one can create 'forms' (formal, informal, windswept, etc.) in the naturalistic stlye.

I can't think inteligently until I understand the terminology correctly.

>Is style Japanese and everything else a form

I don't think so. I think the Japanese have given bonsai a Style with lots of basic Forms to choose from. Of course the Japanese style has changed dramatically over the years so I can't really pinpoint Japanese Style since, as Attila pointed out to us, they are so varied. I think the Japanes have invented many styles over the years.

I just hope that if some American artist creates a new stlye it's called something cool like, impresionist, or wizard of oz, or Baileys on the deck, or Nick Lenz (oh yeah... Nick already did that), or anything but 'American Style.' How boring would that be.

Deacon Jim

The Gospel according to Pall says:

"Naturalistic: This is the style where trees are formed so that they look as close as possible like real trees. This means that many classical rules have to be broken. Often these trees are looked at as „weeds" or raw material by the audience who is not yet used to them. It seems to be easy to design a naturalistic tree – just let it grow. This is by no means true. A good bonsai in the naturalistic style needs just as much consideration as an abstract one. Otherwise it really is just a weed."

So "Style" is a broad umbrella that encompasses "form" A tree migh oft be categorized as XXX "Style" in YYY "form" i.e., Weeping informal upright, Driftwood windswept .

I think one could also use "Style" to describe some other non-visual aspect i.e., NEo-classical, Contemporary, etc. etc.

While "Style" is a non-essential descriptor, we seem to ever be in pursuit of new or unique forms or variants thereof.

One might consider a flat top some variant of formal upright and/or broom and perhaps not a unique "form"...

I really don't care for my purposes...

Ala Herr Pall:

1) You can spend your life in pursuit of that ideal, a pursuit which has its own virtue and profound [artistic] value. Eastern philosophies have always understood this to a great degree. If we wished to evaluate this pursuit as art, it would be conceptual art, and very validly so

2) You can create emotion and voice in your trees by carefully and creatively straying from the ideal or distorting it. We are all familar with this, but we often just say that a tree has "great personality" and leave it at that. If the personality of the tree is its only artistic value and you want it to be art, think about that personality, and it's essence, a lot!

It becomes semantics...

And then we add "personal style" which I suppose is merely those elements of "Style", either character and habit as wells a temporal, and FORM to which a given individual tends to gravitate towards and most utilize....

I just wanna make little trees in pots that look cool.

j

John,

A question posed was "Could a Japanese artist produce a better example of a flat-top bald cypress than say Vaughn Banting, Guy Guidry, or Gary Marchal?"

I think we are missing the boat here because I do not believe it is the species that makes the art or even the style the species is styled in. Instead I believe it is the artist that brings out the art inside of the species that makes a great bonsai. Who is to say that the person who lives where a species is native can create a better bonsai with it?

In order for a true American bonsai "style" to take form we must not let go of all the knowledge that we have from the Chinese, Japanese, and even European, instead we must embrace it and use it as we use the steps on ladder. Too many people think that they don't need these "steps" and think that they can create something new, reach a higher level if you will, without them. Too many people are scoffing at the "old ways" and try to reinvent the wheel.

We must embrace what has come before and truly understand it, only then will we be able to tweak, experiment, stretch the boundaries and fall into our own.

What will the American style be like? Can it possible compete with the classical styles we are all so used to? Will it simply be pop bonsai? Can we succeed with bonsai where we have failed in other fine arts? Can we take it beyond a bastard mish mash of bits and pieces. Or more importantly, can bonsai actually be improved upon or is it not improvement we are looking for but instead just something, due to vanity, to call or own?


Will Heath

Good thread.

Deacon is spot on with his interpretation of "style" against "form" - well done.

Will - great post.

Regards,

Fish.

Le me see if I can answer you.
There is no difference between style and form. Some would like you to believe there is but, there isn't.
Lots of old terms apply to bonsai. Windswept, informal upright. raft etc. Some new terms also apply to bonsai. Banyan, Flat top etc. These terms are only there as a means of communication. They help one describe a tree to another person that cannot see it first hand. It is also handy when setting categories for a show. It definitely has little to do with the art of bonsai other than as a description.
When one can see the tree none of these terms are worth a hoot. Here there are only three types. Good, Bad and Ugly.
One can go crazy reading too much into it or just do what the majority of us do. Look at the bonsai and ask yourself if it is good or bad.
Take your pick as to what group you are in.
Hope this helps ;o)

Jim, you are exactly right. The informal upright, cascade, etc. are Forms.

They are called styles in the colloquial usage, but it's totally wrong. This may have come with the original translation from the Japanese language, I don't know, but we got stuck with it. I wish some leading organization would clear this issue once and forever, since it causes so much confusion.

Lets take one single form : The informal upright. It can be done in different styles. Just to name a few:

*the style of different Chinese schools (jagged branch movements, sometimes contorted, with very sparse foliage, roots much more visible, focusing more on dramatic features and less on balance),
*or you can have it in the styles you see on Kokufu-ten exhibits (balanced branching, round canopy, subtle curves, very dense foliage - branches are down to the fourth or higher generations - , much less dramatic than the Chinese, more focus on simplicity and inner peace),
*or you can have it in the naturalistic style, the way Walter likes to define it.
*Kimura could would do an informal upright in his own style
*Robert Stevens looks to me like he's developed a brillant style of his own - very original in its subtle nuances.

Flat top is not a style, it's a form, particular to bald cypress. It could be done in different ways, using all of the above styles.

A one word answer would be YES. More words would be I has already been done.
Why do you think we have failed.

Incidentally,

I am holding in my hands two bonsai books that I've found yesterday in the Los Angeles Public Library (it's right next to my office, so I spend my lunch-break sometimes brousing there). These books are both written in chinese language not even one word in latin characters.

But based on the syles of the trees, it's clear to me that one is from China and the other is from Taiwan.

The Chinese book has a few hundred trees, beautifully photographed, all the forms you can imagine (from cascade to windswept to informal upright to literati, etc.)
Except formal upright. No formal upright in the whole book.
And not even one tree looks like the Japanese trees we are used to.

The other book, also in Chinese (I suspect that i'ts from Taiwan), has totally different-looking trees. They look like Japanese trees and have all the forms I mentioned above.

Obviously, they represent the same forms, but in different styles.