While going thru some old photo's and getting my huge assortment of old bonsai photo's organized. I came to a realization. There are lots of people that grow bonsai in the naturalistic form, but have no artistic ability.

What do I mean by this.
well... With resident expert Walter Pall in our midst, I am sure he will give us much to think about, but if I may be so bold, I will make some comments.

I feel that the natuarlistic is probaly the most difficult style to do, both techniquely and artisticly. Who could argue the fact that taking a 1 gallon maple in a bonsai pot could be confused by some as an "artistictly done naturalistic bonsai".

The plant was growing naturaly in the container, and I put it in the approriate pot, so why isn't it a masterpiece?

Looking at the work of Walter Pall, we assume that the tree was growing this way in nature, right. Wrongo! It takes more of an artist to make a tree snatched from nature, styled to look like the image of a tree, yet still be artistic. This is not freeform bonsai!

I think alot of the classical, pine tree styled maples and elms and such, are done like this beacause it is actually easier to get a presentable tree not only faster, but easier. That mental model that Fred likes to talk about sees the classical styled pine tree type tree far easier. I may be wrong here, but I think neo-classical is much more difficult to pull off then classical.

This also makes the neo-classical style much easier to do poorly. There is nothing worse than a bonsai done by someone that says they love the "wild look" yet have no idea what a neo-classical styled bonsai should look like. Again this is not freeform! The rules of bonsai fit into naturally styled trees also.

Best regards, Bonsai-al

Er...Al...when you say "classical", don't you mean "neo-classical", and when you say "neo-classical", don't you mean naturalistic?

Confused,
OMC

Hell, now I'm confused.

I think it goes like this. If not Walter will straighten this out.

Classical- Pine tree like, fits traditional Japanese styles

Neo-classical- Natuarally styled tree. Does not fit the Japanese styles exactly. More rounded in shape with natural looking canopys.

Help?

Classical: This is the style which is commonly associated with "good“ bonsai. These are trees which stick to the well known Japanese rules. They are usually slightly expressionistic and abstract. This means, the designer does not try to give the impression of a real tree but rather he has an inner felling for the ideal tree which he expresses. This always applies to conifers. Deciduous trees are often naturalistic and less expressionistic. A good classical artist is seen as one who uses (copies) the classical forms and conforms to the classical rules as far as possible.

Yuji Yoshimura has given an excellent historical overview of the development of the art of bonsai. According to him the development of classical bonsai started around 1600 with an early period which lasted until 1800. The middle classical period from 1800 to 1950 brought considerable refinement. The late classical period lasts from 1950 to today. In this period the refinement has reached new heights. Yoshimura sees most bonsai which were not styled or maintained in Japan outside of the classical group, either in the neo-classical or contemporary style.

There is the early-classical bonsai style, which can only be in the forms which were accepted before the 19th century: formal upright, informal upright, slanting, cascade, single trunk multitrunk, group, and on rock. In the 19th century the literati form was introduced in Japan. In the 20th century the formal broom form was developed.

Yoshimura sees most bonsai which were done in some sort of classical fashion outside of Japan as done in the neo-classical style. These are “bonsai that have been created based on the Japanese aesthetic sensibilities and the fundamentals of classical bonsai but which go beyond the framework of the classical bonsai of the past and were created through the subjectivity of the individual”.

The classical style is being repeated in the West since a couple of decades over and over again. Nothing was really added to it. The forms often became a cliché, stereotyped. The classical rules, which should really just be guidelines were far too often followed rigidly and even misunderstood. It became common practice to style deciduous trees as if they were conifers. This is so widespread by now that a naturalistic deciduous tree looks awkward to most western bonsai enthusiasts. They have gotten so used to the high level of abstraction of the classical trees that a natural looking bonsai seems strange. Many western bonsai enthusiasts are not aware that a great percentage of deciduous bonsai in Japan are not styled like a conifer, but rather in a naturalistic style. The “specimen” trees that are exported are, however usually styled in a stereotype way. This is because they are cheaper to develop that way and the western public expects them to look that way. Also conifers are often styled with conical apexes in the West, which sometimes is appropriate, but more often is a common misunderstanding of classical rules. Most good classical bonsai in Japan have rounded apexes.

Thus the term neo-classical is often used in a derogative way, meaning a bonsai which is styled as a cliché, which is a copy of a copy of a copy. And the quality is deteriorating with every copying. The bonsai somehow look all the same, as if they were cut out with a cookie-cutter – “cookie-cutter bonsai”.

There is a tendency in Japan recently to heavily underpot deciduous trees. Especially enormous trident maples are seen in incredibly shallow pots. A similar phenomenon is the exaggeration of a powerful nebari. There are some tridents with a nebari that has crossed the borderline to grotesque These are developments to the extreme. A shallower pot and a stronger nebari make the bonsai more powerful. So this is what is done. But there is an optimum and beyond that it is getting worse again. It is typical for an art style to go to extremes in a later period. The debate is open whether these grotesque tridents are neo-classical or just very late classical

Classic is a period in art history in which a zenith of artistic development was reached. A period of just repeating something what was developed in a classic period without adding new aspects is called classicism in art history or neo-classical. In a way one could go with Yoshimura and see what the majority of westerners by and large are practicing as bonsai art as neo-classical. This is a somehow derogative term, which, however expresses well the feeling of some artists who are becoming more and more allergic against classical appearance. Some even are starting to see classical bonsai as old-fashioned. This is normal during a time of change. This state of mind is necessary to start questioning traditions and to dare doing completely new things. It does not at all mean that classical bonsai are really outdated. Classical in the sense of proven value through time honored and developed traditions and a heritage to look up to will always mean this to the wise avant-garde artist.

One would have to note here that the Chinese trees don't usually fall into what is normally called classic category, as this is specifically a Japanese classic. Penjings have their own classical appearance, which now more and more reappears in contemporary western bonsai. The classical penjings are much more naturalistic, impressionistic and often are transcendental. It is interesting to observe that the modern, contemporary bonsai in China and other Asian countries seem to be created more according to the classical Japanese style. This is certainly true of bonsai in Taiwan, where e.g. one can see extraordinary ficus bonsai which look like an enormous pine – they are neo-classical.

Classic and classical are not the same! Webster's dictionary: classic: of the first or highest quality, class or rank: a classic piece of work. classical: of or pertaining to a style of literature and art characterized by conformity to established treatments, taste, or critical standards, and by attention to form with the general effect of regularity, simplicity, balance, proportion, and controlled emotion. So it is no contradiction to say that a truly outstanding bonsai can be a classic example of the contemporary style.

Contemporary: The term “contemporary bonsai” was first used by Yuji Yoshimura. He called everything that was not included under the classical and neo-classical style since the latter half of the 19th century as contemporary. There is not just one contemporary style, but there are several, not yet defined really, but definitely existing and different. It is important to note here that the classical, neo-classical and contemporary styles coexist already since quite a while. One cannot say that one period, like the classical ended and the next, like the neo-classical or contemporary followed.

The style which is used by the most progressive artists at the moment could also be called modern style. A typical artist is Kimura. Ernie Kuo insists that Kimura is working in a classical manner, but only with modern techniques. Luis Fontanills makes it clear that Kimura himself has announced to be a contemporary artist with an avant-garde statement:
"But in the future, the bonsai art must be expressed in a new way, with a more expanded concept. We young bonsai artists must not be afraid to break with tradition, for the objectives are the same. If not, bonsai will evolve as a mere curiosity, but not an art. .... Because we are breaking with the tradition of many centuries, our bonsai may not even seem very attractive. Perhaps the critics do not realize that the break goes only to the form, but not the substance, since our spirit in cultivating bonsai continues to be the same: goodness, beauty and peace."

Some call Kimura the crown of classical bonsai, they say that he has created classic trees. Kimura has designed many classical bonsai in the seventies and eighties but can hardly be called a classical artist anymore. Many of his contemporary pieces are landmarks for the major part of contemporary bonsai that he has coined. These trees can be called classic (note: not classical), as they will be the leading pieces for this present period.

Luis Fontanills says:
"What attracted me most to Kimura's work …was his most exploratory sculptural work (he also works within the classical genre). I felt a connection to his living sculpture, and did not see it as strange; then again I have grown up with modern art since I was a child. He has pushed the limits of bonsai and has created an expressionistic/abstract style that has become popular (much deadwood and movement) because it is dynamic and powerful. He is part of the avant-garde movement in bonsai. This type of expression/style is here to stay. It does not mean that the traditional/classical style will disappear, but it will be enriched by it, as the avant-garde is enriched by the past.”

A good contemporary artist is seen as one who is creative and dares to break new grounds, who uses old rules only if he sees fit. The deliberate breaking of classical rules is getting widespread among many artists in Europe and also some in America, it is regarded as a matter of course. The trees are much more expressionistic or more impressionistic than they used to be, they have a tendency to become extreme according to old standards.

Contemporary does not mean one uniform style. History will tell which one of the many present trends will become a style by itself. The “Kimura Style” is best known: very powerful conifers, with enormous thick trunks compared to the height of the tree. A proportion of 1:3 (trunk width vs. height of the tree) has become normal, which used to be considered grotesque. These trees can be called “sumo bonsai” because of their forceful and somehow exaggerated appearance. The use of deadwood is dominating. Many trees seem to exist of 90 % deadwood. The forms are fantastic, unreal, although often naturally grown deadwood is used. The crowns are quite small, emphasizing the power of the trunk and the deadwood. The whole crown is stepping back in importance. It often seems to be there just to show that the tree is alive. The crown decorates the powerful trunk and the overwhelming deadwood and not the other way rond. In the classical style the crown was the most important part which was held by an impressive trunk and often decorated by deadwood. The crown is often styled according to silhouette. It is not so important anymore where the branches are exactly. If there is no branch where one should be, a branch is bent down, sometimes in awkward contortions which are covered by foliage. The number one branch becomes less important. It is more important that the foliage is in the right position. The crown often is shaped like a canopy in a mushroom-like form with layers being just suggested.

When slim trunks are used they have a strong tendency towards the driftwood form. The trunk forms go to extremely contorted and twisted shapes which used to be called grotesque before.
The usage of pots is going in new directions. All sorts of "weird" pots and plantings are being tried out. Traditionally trees planted on rocks are not even classified as bonsai. Now trees planted on rocks, on rusty iron constructions (Farrand Bloch) and even on statues and skulls (Nick Lenz) are considered bonsai. The trend is going away from display in tokonoma, and new ways are being found. Salvatore Liporace displayed an enormous larch sitting on a rusty oil drum. The classical accent objects are more and more often being replaced by other things.

Conifers are usually styled in the abstract and expressionistic contemporary style. Deciduous trees are often styled in a naturalistic and impressionistic manner similar to the classical Japanese style or also in a style which looks very much like penjing. Now this is becoming a trend in the West too with new species and forms not seen before. One could call it either contemporary or neo-classical.

It is clear that the new liberal spirit opens the door to all sort of nonsense. This new freedom can be used by a genius or a fool to declare anything as bonsai art now. But it opens the door, and new creations will evolve which will pass the test of art history. It will tell us eventually whether something we have not liked at all at first sight was just a mistake or a breakthrough into a new era. Such a breakthrough can be clearly visible to everyone or just be a subtle detail. It helps a lot to not have to care about a traditionalist sensei doing his critique in a traditionalist manner afterwards. Therefore it is not by coincidence that the new creations mostly come from quarters where the Japanese influence is minimal. Some even are proud to not have had Japenese teachers and feel that they are not “corrupted “ by oldfashioned design patterns. At the same time a lot of “good tries” or simply rubbish can be the result.

If one speaks of contemporary bonsai art, often examples are presented of trees, pots or exhibits which seem to be contemporary, but are quite old. This is supposed to prove that there is no such thing as contemporary bonsai. Yes, It is always possible to find a tree that was done in the contemporary style, but only much earlier. There are many examples of trees which could pass as modern avant-garde bonsai. It is usually overseen that contemporary bonsai started already at the end of the 19th century in Japan and continued to coexist with the classical style until today. Also pots can be found which are quite old and still as extreme as some are nowadays. This is very interesting, but does not change the concept.

In art there are always creative people who try something. In countries with so many bonsai practitioners like Japan or China virtually everything must have been tried before. But the test is whether this from then on became a trend or a movement. Usually this was not the case. Maybe the artist was not known well enough, maybe the piece just was not good enough anyway, or often it just was not the time yet. If a new style becomes a trend, then one must consider the very early examples as important landmarks. If a trend did not evolve from this, it is just for the records. History of art is full of such examples which do not prove at all that a new style is not new. Sometimes it may happen that a style which was started and finished in a dead end some time ago, becomes rediscovered and then really takes off.

Let's take Impressionism as an example. The term impressionism, or impressionistic painting, describes a kind of painting which is flecked and somewhat formless, as opposed to that which is linear and clearly silhouetted. It applies to many epochs. The term Impressionism, however applies to a particular late nineteenth-century style… There were already Roman wall paintings which are clearly impressionistic. This shows that styles somehow are always present, but sometimes are becoming dominant for a while. Why should this not be true for the bonsai art?

For an artist to work in a specific style means more than just a decision to do so. It means a total change of mind, of a way of thinking about bonsai and doing bonsai, turning away from traditions radically. It is understandable that those who (still?) hold up traditions have great problems accepting this and are usually fierce enemies of change. History has shown that the young revolutionaries get old and then fiercely defend their revolution against new ones.

While we all know how to judge classical bonsai most enthusiasts have a problem with evaluating more contemporary creations. It only seems that these are outside the bounds of established standards; they are only out of the bounds of established rules for classical design. As Lynn Boyd points out, there are always standards, long-lasting and universal standards to judge by – even the avant-garde. A judge can move from the list of conventions (rules) onto the very long-established area of proportions, balance, texture, relationship of objects, conceptual arrangement, as what might be termed compositional elements. And Brett Johnson adds that there are well defined rules to judge abstract sculpture dealing with geometric shapes, according to which bonsai as a form of sculpture can be judged. Even if there are no rules it is always the artist who must have some standard with which to create. He may not be able to verbalize that standard, but it is still there.

This requires much from the judges, as they must be flexible and have a broader knowledge base from which to draw. Because of this, bonsai in the category of avant-garde/contemporary should be categorized in an exhibition as such and judged as such. This is another reason why classification of traditional and avant-garde must continue to be proposed and disseminated; it allows the existence and validation of these more radical bonsai within the formal public exhibits.

Where will this all go? There is much talk about national (Western) bonsai styles which are evolving or which are even already there. The new liberal spirit leads some to believe that one should try hard to create a national style. But who needs that and why? There are cases where a certain tree species grows in a particular way in one country. This is about the only need for a national style or rather form. How about a “Liechtenstein Style”?

The truth is that while some countries are progressing at higher speed than others it is very unlikely that the result will be clearly national styles. This was true in arts at times when there was almost no communication between nations. Nowadays with travel being so easy and everyday communication in person or via pictures across national boundaries is normal, everybody learns from everybody else across the whole world. The result will be more liberty and more distinctive personal styles, especially in the West. Colin Lewis doesn't see a homogenizing of bonsai styles, but a diversification, as more creative souls take up the art.
There will be more artists who feel free to do what they think is right and they will have followers, thus creating new groups which style in a certain way all over the world. They may have more followers in some countries for a time, but this then should not be called a “national” style.

I think I have just had an "Aha!" experience and now understand why Bonsai is art! Just goes to prove the importance of asking the right question, I guess!

Thank you, Walter

Fred

Al said:



I think I said it pretty close, just not as wordy.

Thanks Walter for the history lesson, Bonsai-al

This is an exelent article worthy of publication, I would love to see it in one of the national magizines some day.

Glenn

Glenn,
this is just a brief part of a long section of my book. The section is called 'Styles and Forms'.
It was published in Internatioanl Bonsai, on the TBE which is the online Bonsai Magazine, it was published in Swedish, Italian, Indian and other local magazines.
It did not have all that much of an impact (yet?) because it is too academic for most folks.
best regards
Walter Pall