A lot more than two but certainly less than the amount that critique.
Me I feel like I am in the 99.99 % that you talked about. That is the major reason that it is rare when one sees a critique by me on this forum.
Just not qualified to speak for the art. Still have a lot to learn

[ Moved up to the original post as an addendum ]

I understand your thoughts better now.

I was at my local garden centre which sells a number of bonsai. Mostly mallsai, but the occasional very nice tree, since they are supplied by a bonsai grower/importer who knows his stuff.

This was almost 3 years ago. I was contemplating buying a fukien tea, which at the time was my biggest investment in a bonsai. Then a small boy, maybe 5 years old, walked up holding his daddy's hand.

The child stopped and pointed at the F.Tea., and said, "Ooooh, Daddy, that one looks like a REAL TREE!"

So I bought it. His uninformed and innocent "critique" was enough to persuade me.

pootsie

Attached Images

Ted at store.jpg (70.2 KB, 51 views)

errr.. I had a post here, accidentally deleted it, oh well, will try again later..

Will

Once again, Attila has performed a vulcan mind-meld with me and put it to words

I think the question of who is qualified to critique is based on the intention of the artist. If the artist intends for a piece to be accesible and appreciated by only two people in the world, then those two people are the only ones qualified to critique the work.

Contrariwise, if the artist intends his piece to be acceptable and acceisible to the general public, then anyone in that group is qualified to be a critic.

I turn once more to music, since it is my chosen art form. The great masters of Baroque and Classical music were writing for the general public. Everyone can easily understand and appreciate their work. In the early 20th century, the serialist composers (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern) created pieces that would hardly be described as music by the general public. There was absolutely no way to appreciate their work without having a deep and abiding understanding of the principles, theory, and technique behind their work. Since 99.99% of people didn't have that knowledge, the only people they cared about impressing were their colleagues. The general public was not qualified to critique their work, and the composers didn't intend for the general public to appreciate the work anyway.

In bonsai this is evident as well. People like Kimura and Nick Lenz were not necessarily creating their pieces to be enjoyed by the general public. A lot of their pieces are enjoyable to all, but there are quite a few than can only be truly appreciated by those who have a profound understanding of the art of bonsai. i admit freely that I do not understand some of their work. Then again, I don't really like Guernica, either.

So, to sum up: The number of people qualified to critique a piece of art is directly proportional to the number of people intended by the artist to have an understanding of the work.

Another long-winded post by the Frog.

I hear a lot of old-timers saying that they don't mind critiques "as long as the person is qualified to give them". Never mind that this qualification in their eyes disqualifies about 99.99 percent of the bonsai crowd, leaving one or possibly two persons on this planet.

I think that there is someting wrong with this statement. I am not advocating that anybody should just step onto a soapbox and start ranting away without knowing or caring what he is talking about. But deciding who is qualified and who is not is a pointless exercise.

What I believe is that anybody can have something genuine and useful to say in terms of critiquing a tree as long as they take time to explain the rationale behind their statements. I think that's a very important requirement, and it is often overlooked. Often we are critiquing without opening ourselves to the listener and showing them the circumstances leading to our opinions.

A critique tells as much about ourselves as about the tree we tackle. So, honesty has major importance if the critique is to be successful.[/QUOTE]

I have a problem with the above. There is no doubt that everyone who looks at bonsai is going to have some sort of opion from claiming bonsai is tree abuse to the esoteric and absurd. Someone who is critiquing a judged show must have some sort of idea what he or she is doing, what those who have participated in the show are doing and be able to explain why he or she has judged the way they have. In the example Walter gave of the Coastal Live Oak, he grew to love the tree for what it expressed but understood as far as bonsai sensibilities the tree was off the charts. However he did and does know the differences and can defend his positions. If this is not the way things should be then why don't just pick some wineo off the street to judge our next show?

Walter with the "ugly tree".

I'm not so sure here Walter, "ugly may be in the eye of the beholder". I think that tree was speaking to you during that critique! I think it may have spoke just as I snapped the picture!

Bonsai-al

Attached Images

theuglytree.JPG (63.5 KB, 71 views)

Our learned friend Carl, (and I mean that sincerely and with admiration) has quoted the poet Auden concerning criticism. This is good, The more arts we have some knowledge and appreciation of, the better we may understand art as it pertains to bonsai, and all matters of life.
However, we need to remember that all things are temporal. No matter who we are, where we are, what we do, what we believe, the "Ozymandias effect" will someday put it in it's place.
I call it "Ozymandias" because that's the title of my favorite Shelley poem.
================================================== ======== OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
================================================== =======
It does create an image.

Mike

Auden's notions of the utility of a critic are useful, and I thank Mr. Bergstrom for sharing the distinction between "criticism" and "critique"; the difference is vital, and at the crux of why bonsai--or any artistic endeavor--is worthwhile. If one's work cannot speak to--and be spoken to by--those outside the circle of masters of the art, then it is quite probably bad art, or perhaps not art at all; if it is not susceptible to improvement by critique of a master, it is truly divine, or fully corrupt. Rare is the artist who toils only for himself, and rarer he who cannot learn.

Unfortunately, too often the tone of either the critic or the "critiquer" is harsh, and unloving, and disrespectful. Motives may be less than good. In many cases, the result is pleasing only to the ears of one who loves disharmony, and despises beauty. A moment's reflection on motive, mood, and method before giving forth any criticism might prevent unnecessary discord.

I have found that I can learn about flying from a sparrow as well as an eagle.