Zuishi,
I would completely agree that there is a human element to bonsai. I would agree with Emperor Fish on when the art begins. I also agree that aesthetic appreciation of bonsai many times fits into a pattern or set of rules. Aren't the aesthetic values for trees already with us from early on in life? A person can be more appreciative of painters by learning more about painting. Do we need a set of bonsai rules to be more appreciative of the structure of a tree? For some, trees styled in accordance with Bonsai rules are the most appealing. To others, trees that look to be following more natural rules are more appealing. I guess how a person looks at it could be at least partially evident in the person's reason for getting into bonsai. Because a person really likes trees or because they really like bonsai trees.
BTW, I've enjoyed our discussion very much, and I hope I have not come across as argumentative to you or anyone else, as this is not my intention at all. Thanks

Weirdowl,

I never resent being questioned for the sake of a good discussion, or even a good arguement. The only people who bother me are those who practice willfull ignorance by refusing to participate in a discussion on a give and take level. This deliberate limiting of personal growth baffles and annoys me. Worry not.

I would imagine that you may have hit on something with your note that the reason for a persons interest in the subject could impact their particular enjoyment of it.

Though we are given natural forms for trees from early on, I would hesitate to say that they are the only instrument utilized to judge the visual effect of trees on a viewer. I enjoy tree forms that I have never seen, or even species that have habits I have never been fortunate enough to observe. I a natural looking tree was the highest level of bonsai art, it would have long since given way to the planting of trees in the yard and letting them achieve their own semblenss of treeness.

Bonsai, by its size, age and other limitations, will never b an exact reproduction of a natural tree. Tree artists (or craftsmen) try to discover what the most important or defining charachteristics of that tree might be and through the use of this distilled knowledge create an image of this essential treeness in their plant.

The bonsai conventions that we see are undoubtably the product of the culture in which they were defined. A japanese search for absolute minimalizm, a long history of refinement, and a high value on formality have all place their indelible mark on the art. For some this distillation and simplification goes so far that it loses some of teh character of what a tree is, for others, a tree can be defined in a single line. Bonsai is just a single interpritation of treeness and not the only paradigm that is possible in the art of tree miniturization.

Often, in the art world, when a style or regional art form reaches a point that it is excluding the practice of other effective and appreciated methods or styles a succession is seen. A "we'll go take our toys and play by our rules." I would not be surprised if alterntive forms of bonsai regulation are developed in the near future. If only in local judgeing criteria. The art could only benefit from being challenged regularily to define itself.

Even teh natural tree informed bonsai of a collector will have some set of charachteristics that could be used to define it. They may be favorite forms, or reflections of the strengths of teh designer, but they will be a set of "rules" that could be seen as a way to define the sucess of a bonsai in the eyes of its designer.

D.S.