Classic Bonsai Forms…or throw the baby out with the bath water?

It has come to my attention thru reading internet bonsai forums that there are particular members that find styling trees in shapes other than the way they grow in nature, somehow boring or cookie cutter. Bonsai for generations have been classified into five basic forms, Chokkan, Moyogi, Shakan, Kengai, and Han-Kengai. These forms are by no means the end of the road since bonsai covers many other forms also. These basic five do cover a huge percentage of the way most bonsai are styled. Are not these forms the ones we are first introduced to when we buy our first book? Books have gone out of their way to reproduce these five images for all of us to etch into our memory and reproduce each time we start our initial cuts on our virgin material.

As an example of a difficult species to deal with, lets use a Japanese maple. The Japanese maple does not grow like a pine tree in nature. What if we want to make a formal upright tree. In this case we are left with one option, broom. The broom form uses this broomstick straight trunk and offers us the look of a maple we might find in nature. What happens if we style it like the formal upright that looks like a pine tree. Even if the form is achieved with artistic precision, there are going to be those that scoff at this work as being cookie cutter.

Do we have to accept the five basic forms as cookie cutter?

I think not. What we have to do is make sure that the form we choose best suits the material we are trying to manipulate. The best bonsai are those that make the best use of the attributes the material has to offer. Working within these confines and making a tree with poor attributes into something resembling the five basic forms is sometimes a lot to ask for. This is one of the keys to bonsai. Finding the tree within. We don’t set out to make a poor bonsai, they just happen. Too many these days fail to gain the knowledge that the basic forms give us. They are a foundation to build on. These forms must be mastered, they must be apprenticed to gain the experience to move in different directions. Making the best cookie cutter tree possible is no easy feat. It takes just as much artistry to make a good basic formed bonsai as it does to make one more naturalistic. Naturalistic is not an excuse for being sloppy or lazy. It requires a keen mastery of the basic forms to pull off a natural styled bonsai.

Natural bonsai are more beautiful?

Natural styled bonsai are not necessarily more beautiful, they are more soft. Bonsai styled in a more rigid shape conforming to a traditional form will seem rigid or overly groomed. Many people like this overly groomed look and it is still very popular in Japan today. Kunio Kobyiashi, Shinji Susuki, and Masahiko Kimura still style bonsai this way. In fact tree artists in the Creators exhibit still enter overly technical and heavily groomed trees each year conforming to these classical forms.

So I am left with a question. Does the tree pictured below convey a technically achieved Moyogi bonsai or a poorly designed maple tree?

Attached Images

newtop.jpg (65.6 KB, 118 views)

__________________
I been kidding the last seven years.
no.... really!

Thanks for the reply Moshi. But I am hopeing for a more in depth response on this question. We all know that pictures are a poor medium for appreciating bonsai. They are three dimensional with an accent on a fourth dimension. Another thread for another time.

My question is more oriented towards: has bonsai so moved away from the classic forms, that they are not appreciated any longer?

John Naka said; "Don't make your trees look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like a tree."

While I can agree with this statement in general, is is pretty contradictory. Not many trees grow in nature looking like the five basic bonsai forms. Yes they look similar but do not have such strict codes of branch placement and things like that. Most trees will never grow like that trident I posted, yet thats how most books tell us to style a tree in a Moyogi form.

Will the next 20 years throw these forms to the wind and will the trees of Walter Pall and Dan Robinson become the new norm? I can see the most recent work of Tony Tickle and Kevin Wilson at IBC and they stick to the more traditional forms.

Thanks for the response, Al

I agree with you to a point, calling the traditional styles Cookie Cutters is a bit off target. However when a tree is forced, or appears to be forced, into one of the traditional styles then it becomes a "Cookie Cutter". Regardless of what you, as an artist, see in your mind for the tree's future it should not be driven by a stubborn adherence to a commitment in making the tree look like this or look like that.

I don't know how many times I have run into students at work shops that say to me about a tree; "I think I want to make an informal upright of this tree". That's OK if that's what will make the tree look the best taking all things and elements existing in the tree into account. This way of thinking pushes the artist's mind into a mould and eliminates the possibility of thinking about something a little different, John Naka's admonition to make your bonsai look like trees.

On the other side of the coin with the Naturalistic style, there can be those who avoid the traditional styles like the proverbial plague, this too forces the artist into a mould. The truth as I see it does in fact reside somewhere in between, in finding the beauty of the tree and making that work to best advantage.

So I submit to all of you this little idea: A cookie cutter is a mind set that an artist adopts that forces him/her to limit their options, and even ability, to see beyond some sort of predetermined standard or model. It is a lack of freedom to do or think beyond a certain point dictated by a third party; either a book or a teacher, or a web site. It really doesn't matter, the thoughts are not your own.

However after saying that I default to my old argument: A bonsai must be beautiful. If it is it does not matter what rules it follows, what rules it breaks, or if there was no thought to any of the above. If the tree is not beautiful then it is still just a tree in a pot and not much more. The same applies to those who blindly follow some preset rules, forms or guidelines.

Again: A cookie cutter is a mind set that can surface on either side of the fence. I remember the Hippies of the 60's. They dressed funny, they acted funny, they were funny. The idea was to rebel from "Normal" society. But in their rebellion they became what they hatted. They set up a bunch of standards that they expected the followers of the movement to adopt.

I do not think that trees styled in the traditional 5 categorys are either boring or exciting. It depends on how rigid the classification system is. Any tree will fit into one category or another, if we want it to. What I do find boring is when the styling becomes mechanical, when there is no thought behind the choices. Styling solely by conventions is boring in my book, perhaps not for the viewer but for me as designer. With that said, I don't think that conventional styling is bad or ugly, just boring to do.

I actually set out to make "poor" bonsai sometimes. I still buy "mallsai" to keep me from tearing down the house during winter. I don't have any dreams that one day they will make it to Gingko or Kokofu-ten, my only wish is to make them look like "cookie-cutters" and for the therapy.

I have a hard time accepting that the basic forms must be mastered, I think there might be other routes to better bonsai. I interpret the "basic forms" as conventions or "cookie-cutter" just for the sake of this discussion though. What I mean is that the way to be a better illustrator is not to learn that the human face is five eyes wide or that a human is 8 heads high. What makes (or can make) one a great illustrator is to draw what you see, not what you think something should look like. If a bonsai is based on esthetic principles, I suspect that one should learn esthetic principles instead of "no branches on the inside of curves". To me, "no bar branches" is not an esthetic principle but an esthetic convention. Don't learn the do's and don'ts, learn the why's and why not's. The greatness comes from the understanding, not the application.

"Boring" has become an American excuse, it's a rant of mine but we have come to expect that life will be easier, cheaper, and not consume a lot of time. Yet we do things the hard way( for not using past experience, and common sense), spend rediculous money on "worthless" things, and have no time because we try do "half A$$" too many things, instead of doing with quality what we can fit into a "schedule" ie 24 hour day.

Now the Japanese, I don't think they understand us, a lot of the rest of the world either for that matter, but the Art came from people that do things in an ordered manner, follow procedures step by step, and do it all very well. Quality before quantity, if everyone followed this idea, things would be quite different. Half of us would have 3 trees instead of 75, if at all.

Trends will be trends, but Classics live on. Hopefully we don't loose all the experience before the knowledge dissappears.

Al just a small part of the "problem"as I see it, in my opine anyway.

Not saying that the "issues" you raise pertain to just us, but to me it seems more prevalent here. I'll add too that the 2 forms should be able to coexist, and we have to remember that the rules are kind of the foundation, and if you can make a "good" boring cookie tree, then you should be able to more effectively be able to deal with the "new" styles. Again not that there is anything wrong with either.

"Don't learn the do's and don'ts, learn the why's and why not's. The greatness comes from the understanding, not the application." Mindcrime, this is a huge, huge idea, I wish more would understand and practice this principal.

Bill

I speak strictly from the perspective of knowing Dan Robinson, and his work, better than most. Dan's work will not become the norm. Mostly because there are not many in this world, (imho) who can match either his skill in collecting/choosing material, or his artistic vision. Some people are just exceptional that way. I think it may be an influence on someone, those who choose to study it. But becoming the norm... it shall not.

Dan has his own set of philosophies and principles which govern his work. If his work seems well outside of the traditionalist vein, that's because it is. However, it is always consistent. It isn't haphazard or accidental. He has rules for form as strictly observed as anyone who studies traditional forms. Knowing a good many of his rules, there may possibly be even more than the traditionalist keep. His standards are certainly higher than most. Funny thing is the rules he does not keep at all, are the ones that traditionalists can't get over.

I only mention this, because it would be incorrect for someone to assume that because there is a feeling of a looser interpretation of form, that there isn't a method as consistently adhered to, as any traditionalist master.

Not that I think YOU would assume this Al... you know better.


I can't answer the question you are left with... Dan isn't teaching me those rules.

Your friend,

Victrinia

And one other bit... a point that I do feel is relative to your thought.

Dan's goal in his bonsai is singular. Expressing the vision of a ancient and venerable tree. "Natural", in the way that people accept that concept, actually has nothing to do with it.

Which is another reason it won't become main stream. You have to know what that looks like before you can create it.

To this end, let me introduce you to the beauty that Dan calls "God Tree". You can't appreciate it's twisting spectacular form, unless you see it in person. This tree is ancient. It doesn't have to respresent it, it just is.

Now which of the classic forms would anyone like to squish this tree into?

Seems rediculous to try, doesn't it?

Attached Images

deoalbro small.jpg (71.2 KB, 78 views)

Ms. Vic and all,

As some are aware, I tend to collect 'profound' statements from others that mirror my own philosophy on bonsai...This one definitely deserves a place along side some of the more well known artists...

To paraphrase Mr. Walter Pall, In the Eastern culture an artist is considered such when they can make an exact copy of what others have done...The more accurate the copy, the higher rating the artist deserves...In the Western world this is thought of as 'counterfeiting', 'forgery', 'knock-offs', 'rip-offs', 'boot-leg', a craft at best...

In my opinion this 'artistic vision' or the ability to see beyond the 'rules and guidelines' Ms. Vic refers to, is what separates the artists from the craft people...If properly executed and attention paid to the details, a 'craft' item can become a work of 'art', in that it is widely recognized as such...But, as Ms. Vic stated, an artist "has his own set of philosophies and principles which govern his work"...

This is a great thread idea, and I have much enjoyed reading the thoughts of others, and searching my own feelings on the subject...

Regards
Behr