In ceramics, the potters argue between functional and non-functional....(functional would be teapots that really can make tea, etc.)...wheel thrown vs. poured....high fire vs. mid range fire vs. low fire....and lastly, ART.

Always back to ART.

Traditional vs. contemporary.....

sigh.

Is old architecture better than new? It is, until you are in an earthquake and it falls on your head.

No end to this argument, no resolution, it is at the heart of being human. We create, therefore we are.

Joanie

Starting to sound like a broken record.

I've said this before, but here goes again. For all of you complaining about these sorts of discussions, I have news for you. In some ways, the internet is a lot like television.

If you don't like something you see on television, don't email the FCC, don't throw a beer bottle at your screen, don't kick your dog --- get up and change the damn channel.

-Carl

What we all seem to be missing here is that the post I made wasn't about what is or isn't art. Public perception will determine that. My point was that if one wants to ignore the artistic aspects of bonsai, it is fine, just don't expect everyone to be blind if you choose to display it publicly.

A point was brought up about "Traditional vs. contemporary.....Is old architecture better than new?" This also misses the point, where is the new bonsai art? There are very few examples and none are from amateur's in their backyard.

It would seem that many would like to condemn what they think is said here instead of intelligently debating what is actually being said. I listed quite a few reasons for the way I feel and put forth a few personal ideas. I would welcome a good old fashioned, fact exchanging, debate with the single goal of exchanging ideas for better understanding of the whole.

Again, good point Carl.


Will

But don't let this temper your enthusiasm. With dedication and and a strong creative flair.....who knows

I agree, and I don't see a contradiction here either. I agree to entire article, I have said the same things here and in other places for years. Sometimes I get the impression that people simply do not understand just how old the practice of putting trees in pots and training them for purpose really is, try 2500 BC. In essence what we today call bonsai predates every civilization now existing in the world.

It predates modern Europe, The UK and her offspring. It predates ancient Rome, Greece and most of the Asian cultures past and present. So what's the point? We think our selves a bit presumptious to boast of changing something as time tested as bonsai without considering the artistic merits of such an endeavour. The real underlying truth is something undefinable, something that you just can't seem to put your finger on or find words to define it. The fact is, bonsai has a quality of life beyond any other art form, in that there is something that draws people into it and compels them to want one or make one of their own. It is almost like possessing something from some dream world of a better place and a quiter time.

The Japanese have a word for this quality called Kami. Loosely defined meaning Spirit. In music we would call it Soul, in politics we would call it Charisma. To create bonsai without considering this quality is to create bonsai without its most important element. To determine what this is one has to find it for themselves. Again another appeal of bonsai, the almost mystic esoteric quality that takes on an identity greater than a simple tree in a pot.

Wow. So potted trees without an eye to art is soulless? Thought provoking, Vance.

Maybe it's the difference between making love and seeking relief (to put it nicely).

Thats twice I've spat my coffee out in one day!!

Being soooo new here I don't feel like I shouldn't comment but sometimes my curiosity gets the better of me.

I guess the only thing I see in his Conspiracy post is the fear that someone people who don't practice the art to the same level will "Undermine" the artistic integrity of the artform, luckily art has the luxury of being flexible.

I seriously doubt you would say that John Coltrane undermined the "art" of music by freely improvising over chord changes, but you will find people who believe that the way he practiced his art was not at the "same level" as say Bach of Paganini.

Just becasue some of Van Gogh's paintings aren't rendered as skillfully as Rembrandt does not make them inferior. Art is art, it evolves, changes but at the same time remains the same, I'm sure there have been thousands, even millions of people who practice Bonsai over the centuries who didn't raise it to the ART level, but here we are still pinching and pruning. So don't worry just becasue someone has 200 poorly styled rustic hobby trees in their back yard doesn't mean that you are wasting your time wiring every little twig. I thought we did this for ourselves and not to impress other people with ART?

Ethiopia,

Your statements are correct. The problems arise when these people try and validate their work by renaming what they are doing or getting upset when they show their "non-art" and do not receive the praise they were expecting or when they defend the sub-standard. I can not yet create quality art in bonsai, but I am not claiming that it is not important or claiming that I do not need the traditional ways in order to advance. Nor am I validating my attempts or justifying them, I am learning and I by no means, attempt to get people to agree that my bonsai are just fine as is on the sole basis that I enjoy working with them.

John Coltrane had years of music behind him before he struck out from the norm, he did not skip the basics or not learn traditional notes and chords and claim that he did not need to because he just enjoyed making noise. He learned the basics first and once he mastered them, then he had the foundation needed to stray.

Imagine a doctor who claims that he has invented a new way to do heart surgery and claims it is just as valid as any other surgery. Then you find out that he has never preformed any kind of operation before....kind of takes the credibility away doesn't it? But what if he then tells you of other doctors who invented techniques who never had medical training at all? Makes no difference to me, give me the doctor who has held a few scalpels in his life, please.

Thanks for the thoughts,


Will