Great letter treebay ...

The nerve of this guy ,did he think his coments about bonsai would go un noticed?

I think Andy wrote the best possible letter to the photographer (what ever his name was).
You know, I take photographs too, but I wouldn't say anything I'd regret later of something I know nothing about.
It's obvious that he has some knowledge of what a bonsai is, but no knowledge at all of the philosophy fo bonsai growing. He may even have read a lousy book that has given him the impression that bonsai is a way to torture a tree that would like to be much bigger.

Matt, great payback.


Zeb

Alright linch mob, take off the hoods and put down the knoose. He is, indeed, entitled to his own opinion. Al be it an ignorant one. He suffers from what a psychologist would probably call anthropamorhpic error brought on a by illogical insecurities. That is, assuming all other living beings share the same set of emotions and . Lets not forget that trees are non-senssient beings, lacking a central nervous system to begin with. Not to metion, he is inconsistent with his views. So, it is ok for a tree to be naturally 'tormented', but not by a human.

Ah nevermind, lets string him up anyway by one of his carved trees.

***Legal Disclaimer***
I was just joking. And, if he shows up hanging from one of his trees, the other guy did it

Bonsai Lynch Mob......LOL

Yeah, lets get him!

Let's wire him up, and give him some movement!

Thomas Pakenham has a right to his own opinion.
Jens Jensen, the famous landscape architect, had the same opinion as Thomas Pakenham towards bonsai and both of them did pretty well for themselves.

It's apparent that he's ignorant of what bonsai is as well as how it's done.

I'm certainly not going to try and change his mind.
I learned long ago that the only person I can change is myself.

I think Andy Rutledge's letter to Thomas Pakenham is crude and uncivilized, not to mention rude. I certainly don't think Pakenham
needs to read Andy's letter.

So what if bonsai gives him the creeps—so be it. It's no sweat off my back.

The guy's a photographer and like trees. He's got a right to feel any way he wants to about bonsai.

Hi Gary,

You wrote:
"Thomas Pakenham has a right to his own opinion.
Jens Jensen, the famous landscape architect, had the same opinion as Thomas Pakenham towards bonsai and both of them did pretty well for themselves."
---------------

Certainly the man has a right to his opinion. I wonder how you came to believe that I or anyone else here ever questioned that. If you believe so, you have invented something rather than read it.

As to how well he or Mr. Jensen have done for themselves has nothing to do with anything of substance and certainly nothing to do with this subject.

You are entitled to believe that my letter to Mr. Parkenham was crude and uncivilized, but you would simply be mistaken. In fact, it was presented in a very civil tone. You mistake disagreement and contempt for crudeness and a lack of civility. I hope that you soon learn the meaning of these words so that you can use them in the correct context in the future. Words do have meaning.

As to it being rude, that is surely debatable. However, it was certainly no more rude than was his willful mischaracterization in a national publication of something which he knows nothing about. This is simply irresponsible, especially for a writer. He should know better and I, unfortunately and seemingly, have to remind him of this. The difference is that my possible rudeness was offered in order to inspire this gentleman to remedy his grave irresponsibility - to right a wrong on his part. I'll leave you to judge which of the two rudenesses was the most inappropriate. ;-)

------------
You wrote:
"So what if bonsai gives him the creeps—so be it. It's no sweat off my back."

------------

Your observation is understandable - I hold the same opinion. However, his opinion is not the issue. What is a problem is when he professes to speak from knowledge to demean something that he knows nothing about - thoroughly mischaracterizing and lending an evil aspect to something that is beautiful and benign. It is irresponsible and he needs to be called on it. It is indicative of low character and it should be called to his attention and to that of others.

That these things do not bother you is unfortunate, but I am offended that you would suggest that it is wrong, uncivilized or crude to care about and/or speak about it. I take exception to your insult. It indicates to me that either your character or your perception is lacking. Since I have no way of knowing, I'll leave it up to you to discern which.

-----------

You wrote:
"The guy's a photographer and like trees. He's got a right to feel any way he wants to about bonsai."
-----------

Neither I nor anyone should feel compelled to criticize him for his feelings. That has nothing to do with this issue. What he does not, however, have the ethical right to do is to use his ignorance-based feelings to spread lies in the form of published words that lend an evil aspect to something that is not cruel or evil. When it reflects on those who engage in the activity that he disparages, it's called libel. Beyond legalities, it is simply unethical for one whose reputation is based on the accuracy of his words to willfully mischaracterize something or someone. This is the only reason that this issue was raised in the first place.

By the way, Mr. Parkenham is not a photographer. Had you actually read the article you perhaps would have noticed that he is a historian - a writer. I guess this lends more creedence to it being your perception that is lacking here. I'm relieved that it's not your character.

Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas

He's pretty good with a Linhoff view camera, I would have to say!

Regards,

Matt

The bottom line is - everyone has a right to their own opinion. Making a statement in a public forum such as a talk show, newspaper or magazine article, or even bonsaiTALK, invites scrutiny. A person can relate to or take offense to things said, simply because emotions get involved.

In reading the link that Salix provided, my opinion of Mr. Parkenham became a little more solidified. I think he's somewhat of a jerk, but he's still a darn good photographer. And whether he's viewed by others as a jerk, doesn't matter at all to me. My opinion won't change the course of his day.

Hi Andy,

I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks.
My character and perception are unique and well cultivated - thank you.

I did read the article in the NY Times.

I just think Thomas Pakenham has a right to his own opinion and state it as do you or I without the need for anyone to feel compelled to change it.

I perceived your e-mail to Pakenham as more of an attack than a discourse.

I met Mr. Pakenham and listened to one of his lectures in Chicago. He's OK. He's a 19th Century Naturalist.....I think we need to consider the source here.

He just doesn't like bonsai. He doesn't have to. He certainly has the right to say what he wants if he believes it's the truth to him. That's how he perceives bonsai.

He was asked a question and he answered it honestly.
The only obligation he has, from my viewpoint, is to tell the truth as he sees it—

Bonsai isn't for everyone. I've heard that Chinese feet binding reference before...