Recently I bought a cork oak that is quite nice and rather old. It was styled by an old time member of our club, one of the founding members actually. It is unfortunately styled more like an informal upright pine than an oak.

But this thread isn't about this tree specificially.... it's about history, and respect, and restyling.

If a person buys a tree that has been styled by someone of merit, how deeply should they consider leaving the tree as it is (with the exception of horticultural needs and maintenance work)? Is it disrespectful to consider changing the tree considerably, so that none of the old styling would be visible? Is updating the tree reasonable within limits, or should anything go if the new owner has a different vision?

Speaking to Kay Komai, she made a statement about having seen old and venerable trees changed beyond recognition by new owners, and she expressed her feeling that such restyling is very disrespectful.

On the other hand, we are dealing with living objects, and they change as they grow. An updating and restyle may be just what is needed to revitalize the tree.


Opinions?

Joanie

__________________
"You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog will give you a look that says,
'Wow, you're right! I never would've thought of that!'" ~ Dave Barry

That's a tough question. Since tastes vary considerably amongst the bonsai growers, there is never a final answer to this. Everyone will have a different opinion.

Once you own the tree and are responsible for caring for it, you have to listen to your heart: do you like the tree in its current state? If you do, you keep refining it until it reaches the highest level of detail and refinement.

If you don't, you have to change it. There is no point of working with a tree that you don't really like. You have no choice but to change it.

Here is the deal. If it is a high quality, historical tree, the price will reflect that. And nobody will pay a small (or large) fortune for a tree that needs to be radically redesigned. One needs to really like it to pay that kind of money.

If, on the other hand, it is a low priced tree, it cannot really be considered of historical importance. It may have emotional value to a lot of club members, but that's about it. In that case, the owner should try to bring out the best of its potential by redesigning it to her own taste.

I'm too new to comment meaningfully on this subject, but I will follow the thread
with great interest. Bonsai may very well be the only art where one artist actually
changes the work of another artist. Akin to Dali purchasing a Picasso masterpiece, then "re-working"
it in his unique style.

Very interesting, indeed.

i suppose that even if the historically important bonsai stayed in the original owners hands the time may come when a redesign is inevitable, to not do this as a new owner would be in my opinion be more disrespectful to the tree and its previous owner than a well thought out redesign to restore it to its aesthetic peak , cheers andrew

"buys a tree that has been styled by someone of merit,"

Well, "some bonsaists are more equal than others." I mean, "merit" covers alot of ground and I think operates on a descending scale the futher you get from California ;-) I think there is some merit to preserving the "bonsai tradition" to some extent, but that tradition would most likely extend to only a handful of American artists, maybe only two or three not being of Japanese extraction. for a short list, check out the artists who have trees ON DISPLAY at the National Arboretum in D.C. Doesn't really count if the artist has only donated a tree, as the Arb accepts many donations, but displays only a few bonsai. The arb, by the way, struggles with this issue too. It has opted to preserve, as much as possible, the original designer's image.

The "tradition" of American bonsai is pretty short. Some of the trees that have been created in the past few decades, well let's face it, were on the learning curve and are pretty ugly and scream to be overhauled. The original designers do this all the time.

I would find it hard to believe that many American bonsaiists would take offense at altering some material, unless it's an established well known tree by a big "name." In fact, I'd bet most of them would encourage it, if the tree isn't really terrific.

Anyone that sells a tree no longer "owns" it. For someone to expect you not to work something that is yours is unrealistic. It's a nice gesture for you to look to preserve what they have done, but, it isn't mandatory.

Ahhh, but when does a tree "need" changing?
A completely subjective evaluation, I submit.

I dare any mofo to argue that "Goshin" or the Yamaki Pine "need" changing!
(Trimming and upkeep excluded -- I mean radical change)

wedded to the past,
pootsie

Attila, your point about emotional attachment vs. actual historical value is a good one and sort of gets to the heart of the matter.

Interesting discussion, looking forward to hearing from many others!

Joanie

I definitely support the above. There are trees considered unique and landmark trees. I believe those should be preserved as much as possible.

I see a similarity between this and the preservation of historical buildings. Architecture has an artistic side, just like bonsai. A historical building slowly decays and needs to be restored. During restoration, certain features could be "improved", but that will rob the building from representing a certain style and idea from the past. So, the restaurators need to rebuild it exactly the same way as it was before, although they may use the latest technology.

If you buy such a building, your duty is to recognise the role this building plays and preserve it --- In spite the fact that you may find it attractive to expand it into a fancy office building and make a nice profit.

Such landmark trees in bonsai history are very rare here in our part of the world. May be we will have more of them in a hundred years.

In Japan, it's a different story, although we saw many redesigns of very old trees in Bonsai Today. However, many of those redesigns were due to serious deterioration and neglect from the part of current owners. When the tree (especially conifers) deteriorates and grows out of control, a redesign is inevitable.

"If you buy such a building, your duty is to recognise the role this building plays and preserve it"

This is and will continue to be a big point of contention among historians and people buying buildings. The building to be preserved must be more than simply old--although extremely old buildings (Again, subjective) may be an exception. They have to have some "historic significance." Goshin has become an icon, as have many of Naka's trees, especially after his passing. Goshin is immediately recognizable --although it has changed alot since it was donated through dropped branches and other evidence of the years. Changing one of Naka's well know trees would be a problem. I would be slow to extend that kind of status to many trees though, especially trees that have been done in the last 30 years or so...

There are many trees like the Yamaki pine or Goshin. I doubt Joanie has inherited one like those. If she has, she shouldn't touch it. If not, this issue becomes alot greyer, I think.