...the good times keep on rollin'

this "thread" is becoming the industrial/commercial type of spool

I understand the asking for a signature - but I also agree with the statement about someone easily being able to give any name they want to give. I mean...if I let everyone know that I'm really not new to bonsai, and am truly one of the great bonsai masters/artists/crafters, then they might feel too intimidated to reply to any of these threads. But then again...I might be a pathological liar...or not.

[/QUOTE]I submit that the central question in this thread is whether or not the 'rules,' or conventions of bonsai are central to it as an art form, or whether artistically valid bonsai might be created in ignorance of those rules. In other words, is it possible that an artist could intuitively understand the form of trees and the intent of bonsai without being expressly instructed in its traditions and institutions?[/QUOTE]


I think so, but when I look at bonsai trees I don't check them for "rule violations" before I decide if they are "good" to me. I've seen some trees that I didn't like that much, that I later realized were in compliance with a lot of the "rules." You know what I really think? I think that the Japanese bonsai artists finally got frustrated enough with impatient people asking "how do you do that?" and expecting an easy answer. So, they figured up some rules that the impatient people could follow almost word for word and most likely end up with a decent tree. I don't think the rules were meant to define good art, or necessarily to encourage it. But rather, answer a question they were tired of being asked. For me, the trees that look like trees I might see in the wild are the most appealing. There are a lot of trees in the wild that I see that do not follow the bonsai rules. For example, the only type of pine tree I've ever seen in person has usually been very tall, skinny and with minimal looking foliage. A lot of the pine bonsai trees I've seen have given a much shorter, much wider impression. These I am not as fond of. I can't picture them in a wild setting. It's kind of like this. I would rather have a painter paint a picture of my house rather than of a famous landscape or something. I guess maybe some people would rather have the painting of the famous landscape than their house.
Also, wouldn't a person going on good bonsai horticultural principles, and only trees in the wild to look at, also be following a set of nature laws? And in doing so, not only most likely create a more convincing tree in a pot but also have a better feeling of being "close to nature." Whatch y'all think, huh?

I think that an important consideration in this discussion is the difference between an "art" and "the art." The miniaturization of trees in pots can be an "art." When we are being more spacific we usually call this "the art" of Bonsai. Far from petty manipulation of language, this charachterizes a critical difference. I submit that I could paint a beautifull perspective of an elegently dressed couple going to a ball. (Please assume this is quality with no question as to its artistic merit.) Now, I try to suggest that my picture is Preraphealite. Or likewise, I make a beautifull unfired pot and call it art. Now I try to call it Raku. Niether of these would fly, and for good reason. Both are art, but neither fit the established bounderies of "the art" they claim to be. Raku is, by definition, fired, and preraphealites used only techniques created before the renaissance; hence no perpectives.

D.S.

edited for atrocious spelling and grammer (apologies)

Originaly posted by Bonsaial:






I went back to the original post and re-read it. I re-read it 5, yes 5 times. I think after the re-read, I answered most of the questions within the questions. I was probably on the right track to begin with.

Any comments?...

Al Keppler, aka Bonsai-al

Zuishi,
I'm speaking specifically about bonsai art, and whether manmade rules for bonsai are actually needed. Painting is a completely manmade art form, so we have to make up our own rules for painting. Trees are nature's art form and we in a sense are trying to mimic it. Right? The more effectively this is done the better the artist. So why the need for the rules? We all know nice trees when we see them out in the wild. Right? What do you think?

My point exactly weirdowl

i think its back on page 6


GEE how long do you think this post will go



ROBOKU

I’m beginning to think that for bonsai, just mimicking nature isn’t enough. What I am finding is that mimicking nature is only a part of what we do. If mimicking nature is the goal, in which way are w doing that? Is it when a tree is growing in optimal conditions, such as in the middle of a field, or in a stressed environment, such as being perched on the edge of a cliff in a prevailing wind? One is optimal, the other not, but nature produces trees in both situations.

The same species can grow differently depending on where it is. In Maine, I found that Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus) will grow very differently depending on where it is. At a church camp near where I lived I saw examples very close to one another. There were trees growing in stands, and in that situation they were very tall, often with three or four main trunks, and a base as much as three or four feet in diameter. Standing next to such a tree was almost a spiritual experience. It’s no wonder that Native Americans felt that such trees have spirits.

In the same area, there were open fields with pine trees, same species, and in such a situation the tree would not be so much tall as it was wide. In that situation you would have a spreading tree, with pads of foliage neatly arranged on the trunk. These resemble, to an extent, the Japanese pines that are more broad and wide, although they don’t have as much of a triangular shape. Much more rounded. Such a tree is also a wonderful sight, standing majestically on its own in the field, commanding all it surveys.

Which would I emulate in bonsai? I suppose both, depending on my mood.

I’ve been thinking that what I’m after is the idealized tree. Each of us probably has an archetypal tree from our childhood in mind. For me it is an old apple tree in our backyard. It had spreading branches, and under it we would play for hours. It was steady, secure, and we knew it would always be there. For me, the kind of bonsai I find most evocative is such a tree, with broad, spreading limbs, a relatively short, thick trunk, and a great root base. It doesn’t mean that I don’t like other styles of trees, because I do. It just means that this is sort of the mental picture of a tree that I personally find evocative. One of the most interesting discoveries I have made thus far in doing bonsai is that when I am working with my deciduous trees, this is the style I am looking for, of course in the trees that will lend themselves to it.

Where'st the art in this? Not just trying to mimic nature, but to try to turn a tree 2-3 feet high into a realization of this mental picture I have. I don't know if my old tree is still standing anymore, so the only model I have to work with is the one in my mind.

Craig Cowing
Blooming Grove NY
Zone 5b/6a

With all of its bickering and personal comments, this thread has been pretty useful to me in helping me to define and express my own, personal Bonsai Philosophy.

I am coming to believe that, for me, "craftsmanship" far better expresses what I love and admire in good bonsai than "artistry".

Craftsmanship has a sort of honest, down to Earth quality that contrasts markedly with the pretentious, self-indulgent quality that seems charactaristic of art and artistry. Craftsmen are "regular guys and gals" who consider themselves to have learned a skill which anyone can learn with the application of some effort and determination; they talk with you. Artists feel they are special beings with talents of a different level than you or I; they talk to you. Craftsmen create items that can rise to the level of art. Artists save their worst epithats for other artists whose work represents "mere craftsmanship".

Most important, craftsmen are willing to have the value of their work judged by the marketplace, artists feel the only fair judge of the value of their work is their own over-inflated egos.

Yes, I love bonsai the way I love a beautiful, well designed piece of household furniture or a well- engineered automobile. They doesn't need to be unique or special to be in my collection; I do like them to be well-crafted and have the sort of visual impact that I associate with bonsai. The whole artistry thing I will leave to others.

Best regards, Fred

After reading this long and interesting thread a thought has come to me. There seems to be an underlying resistance to the concept of rules in general and that if you use them you will somehow not be doing your own thing. So what if we can change the mental concept of rules to tools. If you have all of the tools that you need but do not know or understand them it is dificult to build something of great beauty and perfection. Just because you have all of the tools that you need does not mean that you can use them to hide or correct all the imporfections in your work.

When it is said that you need a good understanding of the rules "tools" of creating bonsai to be able to have good bonsai. This is not offensive, it just says that if you know and understand your tools you will be able to do better work.

As to seeing a tree in nature and recreating it. You will still need good horticultral tools and good creative tools and good technical tools to be able to take a piece of young material and make it look like a much older and larger tree in minature.

Weather we like it or not bonsai is much more than just a tree in a pot. Think back to when you saw your first bonsai and how it grabbed you inside. It affected you enough to keep you in the artform for all of this time, spending your money, trying to recapture some aspect of the artform. A simple tree in a pot would not affect you like this.

My advice is to aquire all of the tools "rules" that you can and then learn how to best use them to achieve your vision of what is good Bonsai.

Glenn

Wierdowl,

It is not enough to merely copy nature with bonsai. There is a human element to the art form. That is the easthetic judgement of man. Far from accidental, this aesthetic appreciation follows certain patterns and rules. They may not all be static and easy to identify, but they do effect how poeple appreciate beauty. Programmed into poeple is an appreciation for certain proportions, etc. Since bonsai is made for human enjoyment, it can greatly benefit from teh application of conventions that bring it into alignment with human ideals. Some of these ideals are related to genetic programming designed to encourage reproduction, or discourage injury, but others are developed by society. Either way they are often pervasive and compelling to a viewer without his knowledge.

For example in the Tang dynasty in China (about 500 ad) art began to show women of a more portly nature to be teh desired and attractive norm. Likewise Renaissance art shows an apprestiation for the plump human figure. In the western case this easthetic appreciation may have come about as a reaction to the well fed and obviously healthy nature of a large person in a healthy society. An instinct based reaction. The Chinese example came about more due to symbolic power. The emporer favored a concubine of these proportions and she ammassed a great deal of power at court. Women began to emylate and the popular easthetic appreciation shifted. Either way, we are not talking about the emulation of the natural human form, but teh cultivation of the easthetic human form. Something that benefits from being based on an understanding of the easthetic values of poeple.

Another important feature to the appreciation of bonsai is teh human love of symbols. This exhibits itself in our language and art strongly. We have a drive to devide and define that can be seen easily through any study of philosophy, human thought, and art history. An exact reproduction is not symbolic, but an artistic creation usually is. Bonsai are symbolic of not just a tree, but the tree or the species, or a specific growth habit of a species. They are usually a representation of the artists idea of treeness.

A few thoughts

D.S.