Rather than just drop altogether the subject of artistry in composition in bowing out of a pissing contest (in a related thread), it really would be worthwhile to examine, in the context of art (not baseless opinion), some of the compositional elements in the recent Pacific Rim show. Examining the compositional flaws in these displays might be a good way to learn about and discuss alternative methods of bonsai display beyond tokonoma.

My observation is that regardless of the new, different, previously untried and inventive ways that these displays were put (thrown) together, they failed to be aristic at nearly every turn. What is at issue is not tradition vs. innovation, but rather meaningful art vs. chaos and inattention to pleasing composition.

In the image below, for example (lines drawn for illustration of some of these points):

1. the display is unbalanced. The whole of the interest is on the right side.

2. the painting (which is just a verbatim copy of a portion of the sky in Turner's classic work, "Hannibal Crossing the Alps") is used basically to put a "dome" over the tree, cramping the tree, pushing it down, hemming it in, confining it without any other referential reason (that I can detect).

3. the position of the tree, aside from being placed in "dome" of cloud, is leaving the composition. It's energy is directed to the right - exiting the composition. It should instead be entering the composition (or there should be another compositional element that suggests why the tree is "leaving").

4. the tree is placed right under the "sun" - as if the tree just got a bright idea - or is, perhaps, a miner with a helmet lamp. This kind of "stacking things on other things" is not good composition, regardless of what might be in the "sun's" position.

5. the left side of the composition is vacant of any interest, of anything that leads your eye to the tree.

6. there is no flow to the compsition. The painting sits like a stone over the tree (which is on its way out of the picture).

In my opinion, while the painting is nice and the tree is nice, these two elements were not designed to be used together and they do not, in any artistic way.

Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
b u n j i n | d e s i g n :: www.bunjindesign.com
zone 8, Texas

Attached Images

aeshow5lines.jpg (19.6 KB, 185 views)

In this example (below):

1. The tonal values for the various elements are monotonous. They do not have enough contrast and just dissolve into a chaotic mess. THIS IS BEST SEEN IN THE BLACK-N-WHITE IMAGE TO FOLLOW THIS POST.

2. There is no interest in the various levels of the elements in the composition. The primary level to which every element in the display rises is exactly the same! (indicated by the red line). That some of the elements break this line is lost in the monotony of this glaring, artificial, overbearing line.

3. There is no focal point for the composition. Every element screams, "Hey, look at me!" Nothing stands out (not even the tree) and nothing compliments anything else in the display.
a. the tree is quite dynamic
b. the "background" is quite dynamic
c. the left-hand side "thing" is doing its own thing (whatever that might be) and looks like it was left there by mistake.

4. The beautiful highlights on the foliar masses of the tree is lost against the mass of highlights on the extra-shiny mountain things in the background.

Nothing in this composition compliments anything else. Every element competes for your attention and not one element succeeds in getting it! That the "mountains" and the tree flow in the same direction is almost an afterthought - and a funny one at that (as if it were by accident).

When you eat a cake, you don't want to take a bite and taste just the eggs, next bite.. just the flour, next bite...just the sugar. No, you want to taste a symphony of flavors that make a wonderful "whole." If this display were a symphony, each of the elements would be blaring a different march - as loud and as fast as possible.

Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
b u n j i n | d e s i g n :: www.bunjindesign.com
zone 8, Texas

Attached Images

aeshow9sm.jpg (16.4 KB, 183 views)

The black and white image to illustrate better the tonal conflicts. Notice how the foliage of the tree virtually vanishes against the background.

Kind regards,
Andy

Attached Images

aeshow9bw.jpg (12.8 KB, 177 views)

I have to agree with you completely on all your points. I remember when I first looked at the pictures from the show. I thought the trees were nice and some of the art was nice but overall I kept feeling a sense of distress and confusion. I wanted to reach in and move things around or take things out. In the "mountain" composition you just spoke of, I had to look for a second to actually find the tree amidst the chaos of the background.

I don't have an art background but feel I am sensitive to form and line and things like that. A lot of these pieces disturbed me. As you were saying, it looks like things were done by mistake or accident.

I applaud the effort to try to do something different but the effort, in this case, was not of quality.

Thank you for persisting in your efforts to educate and keep the focus on composition and artistic merit rather than traditional/non-traditional and all the rest that's been going on.

Andy, I guess I have more of a question than a reply. I have several trees that are worthy of displaying, now mind you they are far...far...far from specimen/finished/show quality. But they do have a nice look and I enjoy them. Can I display them as a single tree with no stand or background? If I am content to learn to 'build' my trees and do not deal with the other elements in this discussion is it still art?
Believe me I am asking this to learn... not to start an arguement!

Andy,

Thanks again for persevering with this subject...

I suspect I am like a lot of people in that I can tell when something doesn't look right but am unable to put my finger on the reason why not. Hopefully I can learn why not.

I have a question regarding the first image above. Is there NO way the two elements can be combined? what if the tree was in the left space, would that have been better? (I suspect not, but...)

Regards,

Hi Jay,

Since bonsai is an art that uses artistic elements of composition of not only multi-element composition (like tokonoma or other kinds of display), but also for the trees themselves, individual trees are (can be) works of art, yes. There is nothing really wrong with display of a bonsai tree by itself. However, the "art" of bonsai is "best" exhibited with other environmental or referential elements in an integral composition. This is how the tree is put into context. But bonsai trees by themselves are often cool works of art, too.

As to whether or not you should exhibit your trees, I'd suggest that you be firm and concise in your reasons for doing so. When you offer up something for an exhibit, you are offering it up for critique whether you like it or not. While bonsai does not have to be an exercise in quality or convention or good-and-bad, and can be simply a fun hobby, when you exhibit it, it is taken into the realm of "art" and will be judged as such.

Now, we all start somewhere and learn and improve and such and there is no reason that exhibited work has to be "finished" or top quality (heck, most of my trees wouldn't pass muster for many shows), but it will likely be critiqued - either officially or unofficially. Use the positive feedback as encouragement, the negative feedback as a challenge to improve or as a lesson to work on - or simply ignore it and pay no mind.

If you want to exhibit your work, great! I say go for it, but know that you have to leave your expectations for the "results" out of consideration. Go for it! My advice, anyway. ;-)

Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
b u n j i n | d e s i g n :: www.bunjindesign.com
zone 8, Texas

I wonder if anything really worked?

Some came close:

1) The Lenz & Hull display wasn't terrible, although Juniper conveys a wild mountain image and the cattail accents aren't exactly native to that environment, but the proportions and spacing were fair, so I will give it a B-

http://pictures.bonsaitalk.com/showphoto.php?photo=278

2) The Bald Cypress seems to work fairly well. Using a similar wood and the rough-hewn edges seem to recall the environment. I am not partial to this style in bonsai, but I am not native to that swamp area either. I will say B

http://pictures.bonsaitalk.com/showphoto.php?photo=277

3) This weeping Ota Tamarisk with the mushroom thing... well the fungus look might be starting to grow on me. Another B-, but I like it a tiny bit better every time I see it.

http://pictures.bonsaitalk.com/showphoto.php?photo=280

4) The Cunningham sumac has some real interest to it, in my opinion. Sure the apex of the tree and painting converge, but at least there is some contrary motion between the image and the trunkline. I think I'll rate this the highest of the series: B+

http://pictures.bonsaitalk.com/showphoto.php?photo=279

Regards,

Matt

Andy, thanks... the insight is useful. My plans are more in the line of home display, or possible at a small demo for new individuals. But you are very correct. Place your work infront of people and you WILL GET a response. I can live with it!!

Hi "Treebeard,"

Here (below) is the image with the tree moved to the other side. I'll let you judge for yourself if it works - works better, or at all. In my opinion (just my opinion - not "the" opinion), it's "better," but it still is not an example of good artistry.

The crown of the tree and the "dome" that it used to be under are still at about the same level, which is bad composition.

The composition is balanced better (tree on left, painting interest on right), but the two elements still don't "go" together. This is not a case where the painting enhances, accentuates, or offsets the tree or vice versa. The tree and the painting have nothing to do with each other. This is an example of putting a piece of art in front of another piece of art. The each look cool, but the combination is not really a harmonic or even artistic one.

Another way of putting it would be: just because chocolate and peanut butter work well together does not mean that chocolate and asparagus go well together. Combining them does not necessarily make "dinner" any more than combining two works of art makes "art."

A "sky" painting where the sun peeking through the clouds makes rays point toward the tree might work - would certainly work better than this. Any painting done with a mind toward being ultimately combined with this particular tree would no doubt work. This is not an example of that situation and it shows.

Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
b u n j i n | d e s i g n :: www.bunjindesign.com
zone 8, Texas

Attached Images

5sm.jpg (14.2 KB, 142 views)