As Colin Lewis has pointed out we should not forget that bonsai are a tiny fraction of the size of their natural counterparts, They therefore need to be simpler in structure and form. Salient characteristics need to be enhanced and irrelevancies eliminated. So it is simply not feasible to just copy a large tree. A bonsai conveys not necessarily the exact appearance of a natural tree, but the sensation one feels when you see it. The most skillful artists magnify the sensation by presenting us only with those elements that create it. One can create this sensation by simplifying and idealizing the tree, by making it more and more abstract. Then it is a rather abstract bonsai. One can also create this sensation by using natural forms and details, then it becomes a more naturalistic bonsai. But it is still far away from a direct copy of a natural tree, it is still idealized somewhat and thus abstract; but less than the first one.
It would be a mistake to think that it is easier to create a good naturalistic bonsai than an abstract one. Exactly the contrary is true. A naturalistic bonsai resembles an ideal, a typical natural tree. What is normal should obviously be easy to create. But just like a graceful move in dance or athletics, it is deceptive in its simplicity. It looks so easy ... until you try to replicate it. Then the apparent simplicity is unmasked to reveal quite a bit of complexity. One has to appreciate that a bonsai always is abstract to some degree. The classical bonsai are quite abstract. There are well known rules or guidelines which tell us how to create a classical, abstract tree. But there are very few written rules which tell us how to create a naturalistic tree. The solution is not to just let a tree grow, cut it back and let it grow again. By this standard clip and grow method one gets a pruned tree. But it depends very much on how the tree was pruned. It can well become an abstract tree that way.
Reiner Goebel asks : " bonsai started out with 'natural' or 'naturalistic' plants, a thousand some odd years ago. It took all this time to get it to its present state of refinement. And now you want to turn the sun dial back?" No, not at all. This is what is meant: „Pause for a moment and think what you are doing. Bonsai is the art of giving a small tree in a pot the appearance of a large tree – or use any similar definition. Now, what are most doing? Are they looking at large, natural trees and try to bring this feeling onto their bonsai. Or are they looking at bonsai books, at rules and try to copy bonsai masterpieces and apply rules? The latter is the case. How about a painter who paints people and goes to museums, studies books, hides himself and paints what he KNOWS should be painted. When he walks on the street he sees real people, but not for as second it comes to his mind that these could be used as models. The real people don't conform to the rules this person has learned about "ideal" people. Change real people or change the rules?"
As John Naka has pointed out repeatedly and shown in his famous books, the bonsai enthusiast cannot look enough at natural big trees to get inspiration for his art. Lisa Kanishas noticed that bonsai influences the way one looks at trees in nature rather than the other way around. This is an interesting observation and explains why so many bonsai enthusiasts enjoy looking at trees and pictures of them, only to go back and design their bonsai to look like bonsai rather than natural trees. In discussions on the internet it is repeatedly pointed out that while a picture of a tree in nature can look beautiful to most people, this does not mean that it would look beautiful as bonsai. Meaning: if it breaks some classical bonsai rules!. How about that: a person that looks beautiful to most people does not look beautiful on a painting. Meaning: if it does not look like the "ideal" human being. How brainwashed can one get? This goes so far that bonsai people who see the picture of a natural tree that breaks some bonsai rules but that is considered most beautiful by the overwhelming majority of ordinary people will say that it is not a nice tree. They are not aware anymore that they are applying neo-classical bonsai rules to a natural tree and judging it by these, instead of using their common sense and change their rules according to reality.

A sub-category of the naturalistic style is the romantic style. Designs in this style drive the naturalistic side to the extreme, try to achieve a lovely tree or scenery also with inclusion of accessories like rocks and figurines. Examples are the water-and-land penjings of Qingquan Zhao and some creations of Nick Lenz.
.

Abstract or Idealistic: To create any bonsai or piece of art means some degree of abstraction. This simply means going away from the naturalistic appearance. Many people think that abstract means something that one does not recognize anymore. This is not true, it is only a question of degree. Instead of abstraction one could also say idealization. One takes a tree and makes it more ideal, thus making it more beautiful. The question is only how far this goes. The question is also whether it is becoming more beautiful and by what taste.
In the classical style conifers are usually in an abstract style, they look like a natural tree, only more ideal so. The form of the crown is idealized, the trunk and the nebari are perfect and the branch layers are well defined with clean edges.
The abstraction can be brought much further in the contemporary style. This is when the design has given up trying to follow natural forms. Although it is always a living tree it looks like a tree from another planet. The deadwood looks more like a sculpture than natural deadwood. Crowns are styled just to show that the tree is alive. The uniform, small crowns that Kimura often uses, go in this direction.
The ideal tree is the archetype of a tree, or an icon that the viewer recognizes as such. This means that the viewer must have the same or a similar idea of what is ideal to immediately appreciate the bonsai. With classical bonsai the viewer either always had a similar icon in his mind or he has learned to see the classical archetype as ideal.
Contemporary artists are using more and more extreme material to form extreme bonsai. Nowadays the more contorted and fantastic looking, the better. This means that the artists have changed their idea of an ideal tree to an extreme tree. They are looking for the extremely formed material which allows them to do their abstract design.
This is not a totally new development in the history of bonsai, it is only new in the past decades. During the Edo period (1603 – 186 there was a considerable number of fashions for bonsai in twisted of fantastic shapes. These were frowned upon later and today are becoming fashionable again.
Abstract and artificial are not the same. It is not necessary for an abstract bonsai to be created artificially. As long as the tree looks somewhat styled it is abstract. If it looks unreal, not from this world, like a sculpture it is very abstract. Parts of the tree or the whole can well be natural.
Naturally created deadwood that is untouched by any tool can make a bonsai abstract if the appearance is extreme. A trunk that was formed by nature and is contorted and twisted can be material for an outstanding bonsai which is abstract. This is hard to understand, but it has to be remembered that a bonsai is not a replica of a tree but an image, an icon of a tree. It is classically the icon of an ideal tree, which is a “normal”, a “natural” tree. This image can be very close to reality, then the bonsai is naturalistic. The image can be more away from reality and then the bonsai is becoming more and more abstract. At one point the image does not represent a “natural, ideal” tree but an extreme tree - a tree that is so extreme, that it cannot stand as typical anymore.
One can imagine a line which is divided in half. On the left is naturalistic, on the right is abstract. The further one goes on the line to the extreme point one either gets an absolutely naturalistic and on the other extreme an absolutely abstract tree. If someone does the naturalistic style to the extreme, he is taking a shrub and plant it into a pot. On the other extreme, if someone is doing the abstraction to the extreme, he takes a tree in a pot and prunes it in a perfect uneven triangle, like topiary is sometimes practiced. Both extremes will probably not be considered good bonsai. The truth is somewhere in the middle of this line with naturalistic on the left and abstract on the right. A specific bonsai will never be at the extreme end of this line, but somewhere in between. The style that it has depends on whether it is closer to the naturalistic or the abstract extreme. All that counts is the appearance of the bonsai. A quite naturalistic tree often is considered not to be a bonsai but a piece of raw material by the audience. At the same token a quite abstract tree is often considered not to be a bonsai as well, but rather a sculpture. Both creations are on two opposite extremes.
It does not make any difference whether the appearance was created by man or by nature. So it is perfectly valid sometimes to call a bonsai which was put into a pot more or less unaltered, as it was found in nature, an abstract bonsai. On the other hand, a tree that was thoroughly wired and shaped with lots of deadwood that was all created artificially can be a naturalistic bonsai.
Many bonsai enthusiasts have a problem with what they call “excessive” use of deadwood and very contorted shapes. They just don't want to follow the artist to his degree of abstraction. Often it is said that this comes from the lack of exposure to very old wild trees. One can show pictures of natural trees which grow in extreme shapes and even prove that the bonsai in question was more than 95 % shaped by nature the way it appears. This does not help, because the bonsai still is abstract to some extreme, because it does not resemble a typical tree, but an extreme tree. The fact that one has to show to people that such trees really exist somewhere, is proof enough of the abstract nature of the creation. There is no need to prove that an ideal, nicely naturally grown maple, a typical maple, exists.
Pius Notter has pioneered the abstract style in Europe. He has used the natural material that can be found in the Alps in fantastic shapes to create expressionistic abstract bonsai. In the beginning he was accused of not creating images of trees but rather sculptures. This is a typical reaction to a degree of abstraction that the audience does not always want to follow.
Nature does not make abstract trees. Nature can create extremely shaped material that can be called grotesque, dwarfed, contorted or whatever fits. The artist then selects this material and uses it for an artistic tree. Only then it becomes abstract. Even if the artist chooses to not change at all what nature did it can be called abstract if it is part of art.
It is apparent that in contemporary bonsai, extreme trees are becoming more and more fashionable. While a bonsai had to look like a “normal” tree somehow in the classical style, it seems to not matter much anymore. A normal tree is considered a boring tree. Some artists go for the most extreme material to shape fantastic bonsai. Often this is material that would have been considered unfit for bonsai some years ago. A trunk now often cannot have enough twists and kinks. If the deadwood makes a triple summersault it is considered excellent. But then some artists cannot understand why the public does not want to follow them to their degree of abstraction in what they consider outstanding bonsai.
Contemporary artists love quite abstract creations. It is much easier to look like a great artist when styling an extreme bonsai with “artistic” appeal, which is the same really as a high level of abstraction. The creative effort in a more abstract work is usually much more obvious, if only from its deviation from the norm. Still, the trick to success is to obscure these creative efforts so that the gestalt of the tree is what announces it rather than the stylizations. It is in a way a shame that the naturalistic bonsai don't look so artistic and therefore don't appeal to many great bonsai artists.

WOW can i get a copy of the cd when you can get around to doing it

thanks for the insight again walter


ROBOKU

I also would like to purchase a copy of your thinking on CD if it ever is produced. You may have hit on a new way of publishing material for a limited market.

Glenn

Thank you Walter. In all my time at growing bonsai, I have never had this information so clearly laid out in front of me. It's kind of like having a whole new world of color open up for an artist.

What would be the possibility of posting some pictures of trees that you feel conform to the classical, neo-classical, etc. forms that you have been speaking of? I think that seeing a picture of each one would help people to make the visual comparisons that would help to propel this thread to another level.

Thanks again for sharing this knowledge with the rest of us. I know it has now changed the way I see my trees and bonsai in general.

<>

Walter,
You have taken Bonsai to a new level for me. I don't know why I hadn't seen it in this way before. I now understand the need for showing and judging of Bonsai. Before, I was awestruck with recreating the beauty of a tree in minature form and the symbiotic relationship between bonsai enthusiast and nature. Two words in that lesson hit me on the head and validated it all for me, "living sculpture." I received much from everything you said, but that short phrase really makes one think of Bonsai as an artform -- even more so the translation of the word "Bonsai" (tree in pot).
thanks,
Freakwent

I would only like to add to Walter astonishing article that the art of bonsai is the only art with four dimensions – it has the dimension of Time.

Walter, I also would like to buy a copy of your CD if it is ever produce.

Walter.....THANK YOU... THANK YOU... THANK YOU...

Thank you for taking the time to stop by this forum
Thank you for taking the time to educate me (us) a little more
Thank you for sharing your wonderful trees

I realize to publish your book would be nearly impossible but as other have said, when a Disc comes along... remember me!

Jay

If a book or a CD ever does get produced, I would also be VERY interested in reading your work.

Very informative and eye opening! Thank You Walter!

Andrew

Walter, what an astonishing article! It is definitely an eye-opener for me in a lot of aspects, in other aspects it confirms and elequently verbalises some of my own vague thoughts and inklings on the evolution of style and naturalistic bonsai.

Definitely deserving of publication, on paper or CD.

I too would ask if you could perhaps supply some pictures to illustrate things.

Regards,

TB