They're great with cinnamon rolls, too!



Regards,

Matt

Matt,

Aaaaaaaaaaagggghhhhh! You kill me, man. ;-)))))))

Kind regards,
Andy

Okay, here is the Tamarix (below) and a few comments:

1. The two elements are roughly the same mass.
2. The two elements are placed at the same point from the front of the table exactly side-by-side)
3. The two elements don't interact in any way.
4. The two elements AND the slate table they sit upon are of roughly (almost exactly) the same tonal value (THIS IS BEST SEEN IN THE BLACK AND WHITE IMAGE ON BOTTOM). Color is ALWAYS subordinate to tonal value.

Also, in my opinion, the ceramic is way too big to be used in conjunction with this tree (which is thin and whispy anyway).

Again, this is an example of two cool pieces of art placed together (side-by-side) and they have nothing to do with each other, don't enhance or augment each other and the combination enobles neither of them. They don't form a union (a composition).

They sit there, side-by-side as if to say, "take you pick."

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

Attached Images

656combo.jpg (39.1 KB, 140 views)

The piece by Banting and Kolar (pictured below) was actually among my least favorite of those displayed. I thought it was compositionally dead in the water, no pun intended.

On the horizontal, the center of the visual mass of the tree is right dead center of the background. WHY?

On the vertical, the tops of the incut segments reach exactly the vertical center of the background.

The copper backdrop obscures the pot.

The movement of the tree (blue arrows) is stopped dead by the implied upward movement (if there's any movement at all; these are more like bars to cage than dynamic objects) of the background (yellow arrows)

The slate base is at once insipid and out of place in the implied bayou.

The square corners of the background antagonize the forms within.

And who the hell would display a swamp cypress without a huge buttress and sick taper?

(Of course I'm just kidding on this last point - actually this tree is one of my favorites in all of the Pacific Rim collection, precisely because it doesn't fall prey to that fad and instead follows its own graceful form to the sky.)

---

As you can probably tell, I'm brand new to this sort of thinking. But here's my effort at a critique of this piece, and my effort to explain why found it among the worst of the exhibit.
Since I don't really know what I'm doing, I'd really love to hear comments on where I went right or wrong in my analysis.

Best regards,
Old Mister (aka Carl, since we seem to be using names here today...)

Attached Images

bantingandkolar_markedup.jpg (54.4 KB, 136 views)

Oh, and to borrow a trick from Andy,

Hey! Where'd the canopy go?

Attached Images

bantingandkolar_bw.jpg (24.9 KB, 129 views)

You have to increase contrast when you desaturate or the whole world would disappear. The monochrome argument only goes so far. There is no way to lose that canopy in the backdrop. I think a one-eyed rabbit would know what to eat!

Attached Images

bantingandkolar_bw[2].jpg (30.5 KB, 115 views)

Sure. But he still can't get a driver's license in Washington State.

I liked Crash Bonsai more.

Andy Thank you very much for taking the time to explain yourself. It is much easier for me to except your arguments when you put them together with these explainations.
You should know that an opinion with the explaination of "because I said so" or "because I know more than you" will never be exceptable.
Now that I have learned why these compositions are bad I am quite satisfied.
Again if I have offended you, you have my apology.

Glenn Van Winkle

Hi Glenn,

I'm glad that you get some satisfaction from these elaborations. I'm never upset by being questioned, only by the manner in which it is done. I never said, "because I said so" and offered reasons, but as you still persisted, it was clear that you didn't get my reasons. All of the above (in the illustrations) I've said before, but in general terms. For those who are not familiar with the specific terms and elements that I'm referring to, these illustrations should make no more sense than do my general references to these principles. But, whatever works for ya'..... I hope that we can be friends and kick this stuff around some more.

Maybe the best thing to do is to get a few books on artistic composition and absorb what they have to offer. Granted, that will be only a cursory introduction to these principles, but if you look for these elements in everyday life and in commonly found art, you can begin to see these things automatically. Further, you may begin to utilize them in your own work - eventually without even thinking about it. It will eventually just seem "right."

Probably the best kind of reference for things like this are lessons on composing landscape paintings. The conventions that are employed for looking at a real-life scene and translating that to the canvas are super for learning about what "works" artistically - for what makes sense to the viewer, even though it may bear little resemblance to what actually is in the scene that the artist used to make the painting. Wonderful lessons of landscape painting are hugely applicable to bonsai. I wish that more enthusiasts and bonsai artists would learn these lessons. This is not to say that I'm an expert because I'm certainly not. I can just recognize many of the triumphs and shortcomings in bonsai art because of these kinds of considerations. All bonsai "artists" should be conscious of them in their work.

I'll shut up now ;-)

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