Walter,

I couldn't agree with you more. I think you're right on the ball there. Even though the US has been doing Bonsai longer that European nations, it is artistically still in its infancy. We are struggling to define what our approach to bonsai will be, and we are striving to make it a truly American pursuit, to make it our own, to assimilate it into our culture and our thinking. Some may come to believe, once this has been accomplished, that bonsai has been perverted or cheapened as a result (the world still can't accept that the US can field a world-class football team because we've done the same thing to that game-sullied it by making it our own), but that seems to be the way things work with us.

I think that European artists such as yourself were able to assimilate bonsai into your sense of culture more easily and completely, and have more fully joined the established bonsai community as a result. Americans feel the need to own a discipline they adopt, and until we can do that, our art will still be in its infancy.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these wildly debatable things I've suggested...

Salix, you beat me to it. Bravo and well said.

Regards,

TB

Andy,

I think it's rather glib of you to say that saying someone is ignorant is not insulting. One could almost say that it's ignorant, in that the root of the word ignorance is ignore, to know something, but to disregard it. You know very well that to characterize someone (or their statements) as ignorant is insulting in the extreme, whether they are in fact ignorant or not. It's rude, I tells ya, and by describing someone in that way, you were trying to quash their personal views on art (Art is not majority rule) because they were in conflict with your own. You gave Earl's statement rather short shrift, I thought, and you presented very little to correct or contradict what he had to say. You relied on words like "wrong," "stupid," and the old standby for sloppy argument on forums, "ignorant," rather than on the merit of Earl's ideas. In fact, Earl was touching on the central question of this thread in a real way, and his ideas were more debatable than they were "wrong."

I invite you to take the time to really examine the ideas of others. If your views really are right, they will easily survive the assaults of the unwashed masses.

At the risk of being incredibly pedantic:

Both words come from the same Latin root:

L. ignorare; pref. in- not + the root of gnarus knowing

But ignorance means a lack of education or exposure and ignore is a willful turning away from knowledge.

I actually think the difference is germane to our discussion.

Literally, it is impossible to ignore what you are ignorant of.

So, maybe an artist is one who may ignore the rules, but is not ignorant of them?

Doug

Doug,

LOL! An excellent formulation!

It almost works out, but I think that a true artist does not in any way ignore the rules of his craft. When the rules are broken, they are simultaneously acknowledged. Any omission or deviation from a convention is recognizable as a conscious decision, a statement about the art form, or sometimes about perception itself. The concept of negative space is echoed in the conventions of art. A painting is about what is shown, but it is also about what is left out.

For example, Escher was in many ways a very conventional graphic designer, but by injecting statements about how we perceive three dimensions in two-dimensional art, his works became more than exacting, skilled illustrations, they became immortal works of art.

Andy, I am a great fan of yours and think that the things you say just about always are right on the mark. I've learned alot by paying attention to what you have to say. BUT, I'd have to say their is some justice in the remarks of your critics. As the saying goes, you attract alot more flies with honey than with vinegar.

There is an art to being able to disagree without being disagreeable. I wish, myself, that I were better at it. I, too, get VERY irritated at some no-nothing proclaiming views with great vehemence that are just completely wrong. More than once, I have gotten myself into a lot of trouble by setting such individuals straight in no uncertain terms. And, just about the same number of times, I failed to convince anybody of the error of their ways and succeeded only in having people turn on ME!

Your views and understandings are excellent. They need a clever and sympathetic spokesperson to get the full credit they deserve.

Best regards, Fred

Thank you Fred. I hope one day I can become clever.

I hope that I can one day learn to appreciate that there is no distinction between citing inaccuracies and spewing thougtless criticism.

I hope that I can one day I can understand that false statements presented as fact are merely opinion.

I hope that I can one day understand that it is not harmful to present "facts" that are baseless and inaccurate.

I hope that I can one day understand that it is not important that anyone actually help shed light on concepts, but rather that it is more important that we all have our say and agree that what we say, all of it, is happy and true and good.

I hope that I can one day learn that if I care about something enought to correct misstatments and inaccuracies, that I am not being helpful, but rather I'm being haughty and sanctimonious and that we'd all be better off if we just consumed the baseless, false facts (oops, I mean "opinions") of anyone who happens to drop in and type up a post.

This I so hope.

Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas

Andy,

Once you're done painting yourself as a martyr, maybe you could actually get around to discussing the factual basis of your arguments. I raised several points that you summarily rejected as wrong in the hopes that you would get over yourself and actually get down to the heart of the discussion, but apparently you found that first step off of your soapbox too daunting. I will attentively await the time when you choose to take this discussion seriously enough to listen to other points of view.

Back on topic,

In the meantime, for anyone who would actually like to discuss the ideas at hand, 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? If that person styled a tree and put it into a pot, and the tree lived, would it be bonsai? If it was bonsai, would it be art? If it is bonsai and if it is art, then what implications does that have for bonsai as a traditional art form?


-Dan.

Re: Dan's question above:

Of course. This is because the "rules" of art are not arbitrary dogma that a comittee in a smoke filled back room set to paper one day. Rather, they are simply the useful conventions that allow someone using a certain medium to convey meaning.

Many people intuitively understand these conventions as the elements that make up good composition. Formal education (studying these conventions as described by someone else) is always beneficial, but not always necessary for a fundamental grasp of these principles. One does not need to be conscious that what seems natural is also advisable according to the useful convnentions of artistry. There are cases throughout history of individuals who simply "got it." However, they did not necessarily fly in the face of "the rules," rather their work natually embodied these principles.

The "rules" of artistry are beholden to human perception. There is never a case where art is beholden to arbitrary rules. This is a distinction that some have trouble with, I think.

Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas

Dan Said

Andy replied

I think we are getting to the crux of the matter, here. Good phrasing of the question, and a succinct answer.

Please allow me to blow my own trumpet for a moment (someone's got to ) and relate a little story...

About a year ago I became very interested in what are known as Stirling Engines. I had no idea how they worked. I have had only high school physics training. Using my engineering knowledge, I was able to build an engine from scratch that actually worked. After I finished, I got hold of a book on the subject, and to my surprise all the physics and geometry I had worked out had all been done before, and I had arrived at the same format for the engine that a physics professor had done before me.

There, trumpet blown. There are two points to this tale.

1. Someone with little training in a discipline can sometimes just 'get it'.

more probably though, is

2. The professor and I both arrived at the same design because there is only really one design that works effectively. Convergent evolution. Same as with bonsai.

Regards,

TB