"To take the concept of bonsai and narrow it from plantings in a tray to a tree in a pot, is to do a disservice to both the Chinese and Japanese and all oriental cultures that started this wonderful art. Why would we want to do that?"

I'm sure the guys that sell banzai at the mall will agree with you 100%. If bonsai only means plantings in a tray then most anything can qualify as long as it's in a shallow pot or something that looks like a tray. That's a pretty broad definition. I've already said in this thread that bonsai should symbolise a tree or group of trees with a woody trunks and branches. That does no disservice to the oriental cultures. Actually I couldn't honestly tell you how I've come to my conclusion of what bonsai is. I suppose it's a mix of reading books, websites, observing nature, talking to others in the hobby on forums like this, etc. I think I've probably been influenced more by [gulp] Americans than anyone else. What's wrong with that.

This question of what "exactly" bonsai is will never be answered anyway. There is so much room for individual interpretation that everyone can have their own definition. And that definition will probably change through the years if one stays with the bonsai art, hobby, science, err... I mean, horticultural experience. Is that a bad thing. Hell no! It's a good thing, this individualism.

My 2 cents

Tony

Hi Earl,

you wrote:
"Only when we come out of our mystical state, do we start to analyze the tree and think "look at the branch structure, look at the pot, look at the age." But then we have moved from ART to CRAFT."
--------------------------------

No. There are all kinds of levels of appreciation and there are all kinds of levels of artistic success. Some art is poor and some is magnificent. Good art is (usually) based primarily on great craft. Recognizing the craft in the art in no way detracts from or diminishes the art - and in no way means that it is not art, but merely craft. Don't try to imply a separation of craft and art because there is none. Without the one, there is not the other.
--------------------------------

you wrote:
"Come to think of it, maybe that's why so many people have criticized the Artful Environements display (see the threads about that elsewhere). They go to the display to examine the craft of growing the tree, instead of standing back and appreciating the mystery and awe of the natural scene the artist is attempting to convey."
--------------------------------

No again. Don't mistake what happend with this exhibit. The level of craft in the exhibit is wonderful. However, the artistry is somewhere between poor and non-existent. The main problem with the exhibit is that there is no "artist" involved. There are two artists who, individually, did great work, but then their work was thrown together to make a horrible mishmash that has no artistic relevance. The works on display were not meant to be used together. This exhibit is an example of the vaccuous idea that if 1 piece of art is good, 2 pieces together must be great! That's idiotic and this exhibit is testement to that fact.

Unless there is artistry in the composition of even good works of art used together in combination, the work fails and no amount of mysticism or magesty or even craft can overcome that failure.

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

Well said

Jls

I've been ruminating about this tread for days and I came across a definition I thought I'd put up. It's from an old copy of "Bonsai Miniature Potted Trees" by Kyuzo Murata.

"Bonsai consist of trees or bushes, and sometimes of perennial herbs found in fields and mountains, which are artistically planted in small pots or containers, occationally in combination with rocks of many forms, so as to reproduce in miniature the lordly appearance of large aged trees or landscapes such as are found in Nature.
Hence they are quite different from ordinary potted plants whos primary purpose is the enjoyment of their leaves and flowers."

He didn't even mention mallsai!

I agree that craft and Art go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

wow!!!!! so many things have been said, that i think this thread itself could be turned into a book, on the opinions of bonsai, and the name of the thread, could be the name of the book

Now THAT, as I see it, says it all.

Nice passage, Gary.

-OMC

Andy, you wrote:

"There are all kinds of levels of appreciation and there are all kinds of levels of artistic success. Some art is poor and some is magnificent. Good art is (usually) based primarily on great craft. Recognizing the craft in the art in no way detracts from or diminishes the art - and in no way means that it is not art, but merely craft. Don't try to imply a separation of craft and art because there is none. Without the one, there is not the other."

I totally agree and you said it much better than I did. I didn't mean to imply a seperation, only that we (or at least I should say "I") often concentrate on the craft portion (that is certainly necessary) to the neglect of the art, or the mystical connection to nature, of the feeling, or the mood, that we hope our art inspires.

Tony wrote:
"If bonsai only means plantings in a tray then most anything can qualify as long as it's in a shallow pot or something that looks like a tray."

I stick by what I said. To say planting in a tray can include anything is like saying any old tree in a pot will make a bonsai. It is the artistry and craft in either that distinguish it from any old planting, not the woody tree as oppossed to grass, rocks, figures or whatever.

Gary your quote is wonderful and says exactly what I'm trying to convey with other words. I won't repeat it all again, but Murata nailed it. I'm going to have to find that book!

Thanks for the interesting discussion. It seems like this one has gone beyond the usual debates. At least it has caused me to reconsider my goals and aspirations in my art.

Earl

I guess I'm just quirky but I can't bring myself to think of grasses in a tray as bonsai, no matter how artistically it's done. I've got an old book around here someplace on the art of bonkei "tray landscapes" That sounds more like what you're talking about.

Tony

It seems that the quest to define "bonsai" or "puntsai" or "bonkei" or "penjing" or the like is wholly semantic. Sure, when you're trying to write a book or lay things out in columns or make a literal definition of a word or idea, this kind of pigeonhole, classification exercise is useful.

However, with our endeavor, I believe that the aim is to create a meaningful representation/interpretation of nature (the artistic aim, anyway). In that pursuit, labels are meaningless within those already defined bounds and our own eyes can discern what is tree and what is grass and so on, in order to make comparisons (for judged shows, etc...). Beyond this, why is the precisely quantified label necessary at all?

If your aims are for personal enjoyment (not necessarily artistic), lables are even less necessary.

I agree that it can be useful to understand what is meant by foreign language terms, even native terms, but these terms mean nothing to our actually engaging in the endeavor. Anyway, there will never be any universally recognized, precisely quantified definition of "bonsai" now or ever. Let it mean to you what it means to you.

Having said all of that, I'm sure that every one of use will be "corrected" by someone else in a discussion when we call such-and-such a planting a "bonsai." ;-)

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

Next we will attempt to define what Art is.

That assignment will be due next Friday with a 20% grade deduction for any late posts!

Andy is right. In the end we must define it for
ourselves individually, or just leave the defining to others and just do it.