I'd also like to make clear that I am agreeing with Jim's post in large part above. Also, I agree with the "God" comment to a high degree, though I'm not particularly religous. However, isn't art really just about expressing reality (God's art, right?) to each other? In bonsai, we select a small portion of nature, we select and guide it to be an example of profound beauty in nature. You can give credit to the person who brought it to our view in this form, or you can give credit to the God that made it possible. I give credit to both, but can only critique the actions of the human artist.

eighten,

Thaks for your comments.

Well, I've always thought that monkies typing Shakespeare was practicably impossible... Stephen King maybe...

While I AM religious I was not necessarily taking an opportunity to plug the BIG GUY so much as I was unable to think of an example where forethought, even in the guise of experience, did not play a part in artistry, at least for us poor mortals.

On one of the half dozen "artistry spin-off threads" there is a mention of "random" artistic successes. Maybe there are true zen moments however, I think as luck favors the prepared, design forethought, at least as much as possible with natural media such as ours will increase the frequency and/or degree of such random successes...

As for your first set of comments:

1. I'd say that the criteria in (1) are "impossible" or at least bordering on 1-2-3 bonsai which I would contend negates it's qualification as art. Most natural material would fit your criteria of emotionally moving, it feels unique, magical, striking, vibrantly alive, etc. yet falls short on many of the bonsai design principles; it is not clear as to whether this is accounted for under (2)...

It is often possible to compensate or camoflauge such "defects" but not always. Often the Japanese accept a tree's defects simply based on it's status as a collected specimen and as an expression of naturalness. A branch might be left simply because it breaks all the rules.

It is the Westerner's mind that is caught up in design and rules.

2. "....If I am a naturally talented artist or if I have studied art and have gained a deep enough understanding of it, it is probably good art to a lot of people, and that is the good art that art critics and museum patrons like."

People like to use Van Gogh as an example on this forum. In the above context his art is unacceptable both to the unwashed masses as well as many of his peers.


Sincerely,

Jim Stone
TX

Al’s post discusses Artistry in bonsai: the application of design to a creative process. He puts forward a very good argument defining the terms, as he interprets them. You can not discuss artistry in bonsai without using the vocabulary of design. The language of design is a more common vernacular, so its use simplifies the discussion. Design is nothing but a plan until it has been implemented, at which time it becomes art. It is a foundation block of art, but only one of them. Unlike the fine arts where one starts with an idea and blank canvas, bonsai has an additional element, the life of the tree. Bonsai is never truly finished, it is always open to be remade. By its very nature, the artistry used to style the tree must be ongoing. The design can not be rigid, it must allow for the induction of chaos in the process. A branch may die, insect damage may force a change, and the artistry is the ability to modify the design to suit the tree. As in any art, we each bring our creativity, our skill, our past, our prejudices, our preferences, and our opinions to the medium. All of these channel through the artistry we practice into the art we produce.

Jim, yes. The criteria in (1) AND (2) are next-to-impossible (because 2 requires the hard parts of 1) . I should have called these criteria for a "masterpiece" rather than for "good art." Anything I would consider "good," however, would have to be very close to these criteria, which is not so impossible, just very very difficult. I'm talking about ideals (as eastern bonsai artists always have), which in striving for, the best work results.
As far as Van Gogh, I'd like to steal that example. Van Gogh was a naturally talented artist (not that he didn't study). He was a master of design in a rather traditional sense. His technique was the reason no one appreciated him. People saw blurry paintings with thick, messy-looking brush strokes visible all over the paintings. This was shocking, and a kick in the face to all of the artists who had spent a lifetime refining their brush techniques in order to make the paint look like reality. Van Gogh is a perfect example of my #2. Imagine that the first artists to explore the literati style of bonsai were laughed at and scorned. This would be very similar.

As far as 1-2-3-bonsai!, well no! What is 1-2-3 about it if you also say that it is impossible? Besides, I'm talking about 1-2-3-itisn'tart! or, 1-2-3-itisart! My criteria are far to general to use as instructions, don't you agree?

JLDogget, are you agreeing with me? because I'm agreeing with you. Al's posts were great and very important to artistry. My only point against them was that while he mentions "Artistic bonsai are those that have all the basic rules of bonsai assembled in an artistic manner. " He then goes into the rules/ideas of design as how to do this artistic assembly. Actually, he's calling the second step the third. Once you have all of that design stuff taken care of, you are still left with, "okay, it looks great! is it good art?" As Jim mentions, the tree may take care of this itself. If you bring out the emotional strength that a living tree already has by way of using good design and bonsai technique, you will have art if your specimen is good. That is when "bringing the essence of the tree" to the forefront is what bonsai is about. An understanding of art helps one to see where this essence/emotion/character/idea/ideal/statement/power/spirit lies.

I recall that article years ago in BCI magazine. However were you aware that it was a 'spoof'? The tomb unearthed and "voila" a golden pot w/ bleached out conifer...still alive because of a beautifully designed drip system... I was taken with the article for a while and later learned it was April Fool...

Fine thoughts and observations otherwise!

best,
vance hanna

Firstly, who are “many” here ? Who says that Bonsai is an artform ?
Secondly, what is art ? Do they talk about the same thing when they talk about Bonsai-art and Music-art of Sculpture-art ?

I think these 2 questions are much related to each other that I can approach to it as ONE subject. If you say “art” what do you mean by that ? I’m sure that we cannot talk about art as something that everybody all agree with. Is art much the same as good design ? Is art something beyond or after the intellect ? Is art the result of going beyond craftmanship, or are they just the same ? Is art (just) another kind of communication like talking and writing ? Is art everything that are beautifull and made by (wo)men ? Is art something that revealing, looking to something with other eyes ? ….. this list can go on and on. Art is maybe a word in the same category as God. Try to define it: you can’t. Try to analyse it: you can’t. Highly abstract. One thing is sure: art is a most respectable word.

By the way, someone tells me that in the East, people don’t talk about art and other abstract subjects. They have the word art, but tend not to talk deeply about it. They don’t talk about culture, too. In the West, we analyse almost everything, even God. Back to the point again:

When art is considered by “many” as a highly respectable thing, even beyond intellect as they say, than I can imagine that many Bonsai freaks like to put Bonsai in the high regions of the respect ladder. Critici would try to argue with it, of course. Among these critici there are 2 people in my life: my father and one of my best friends. My father said “Bonsai is not functional, not necessary”. My friend says “Bonsai is ugly, mainly for the tree itself”. I’m a Bonsai freak, meaning that I love it. But in some way, I can live with these 2 critics. Not because I want to keep good relations with them, but because I can take a step backward from my Bonsai, and from that place there are many more acceptable points of views.

Simpleton, do you think that musicians take a good book, grasp a guitar, sit down and learning to make artistic music ? Of course not! In many artforms, learning means often doing. “Many” know this already.

Ah, the good old days..,,


Will

Yeah, this is an old threat. But hopefully, it's not dead because it's great to talk about these things we call God, Art(istry), Design, Form, etc..
I hope that I can bring new fire to the topic, but first let me take a journey back, starting at August 11th 2004 when Al posted his great topic, putting a firm statement like this: Artistic bonsai are those that have all the basic rules of bonsai assembled in an artistic manner.

The discussion started by Eighten who brought in a sharp knife and cutted the cake in 2 parts: this is Art and that is (good) Design. Eighten was not happy with Al’s definition of an artistic bonsai. He tried to define Design by saying “calling design art is like installing a window in the perfect spot on your wall and calling it art”. Very nice methapor here. Further on, he puts Design on a lower ladder of Quality than Art by saying “Design is a craft, a science that every artist should be somehow skilled in”, because implicitly he says that an artist should have this Skill or Science, but it is not enough. Jim came in, agreeing most part of what Eighten said, hence “Artistry is achieved (only) through good design. I think probably only God can achieve artistry in spite of it”. It becomes interesting now, because Jim has just introduced a new concept here, namely God. And he is telling us that we, human, can achieve the artist state only by passing the Design path. There is no choice for us. Only God can pass the Design path without walking through it, and creates something highly in art degree. The very next day, Eighten replied, confirming the strong division between Good Design and Art by by giving us some explanation about what he thought must be the border line that devides these two. He devided the population of Designs into 2 categories: the Good Design, which can be close to Art, and ... now it comes: Art that alternates, modify or bring in some new points of view to the present consolidated state-of-the art. Art is, so to speak, always moving ahead Design, always bringing the Quality of the Products to the next higher ladderstep. Between his lines, we could read that he reffered to Design as: everything we learn with our brain, eyes and hand, through education. Eighten could also take Jim’s God but try to define art with these words: “However, isn't art really just about expressing reality (God's art, right?) to each other?”. Now he talk about the function of Art, which is to “express reality”. Wow, highly abstract, right ? Because from here, one could ask “what is reality ?”, and what does it means: to express reality. That path was luckily kept shut, so it ends to nothing.

Jim replyed at Eighten first category of Good/Best Design by saying that this is almost impossible. It’s impossible for a tree to have a fully 100% score on the Design criteria list or chart. I think we can take this point of view. Actually, Jim asked “what is than a Good Design ?” Something that has 80% scored, 90%, 50% ? Let’s put this aside (another dead path), because Jim had another, much more interesting new concept brought in upon the table: a distinction about at least 2 kind of Arts! One is something that is broadly acceptable (traditional art), and the other is ... unacceptable (to the people who has Authority in defining what art is and what not). We use to call this one contempory. At the end, Eighten brought in more divisions to the ladder of Art! He used words like Good Art and Masterpiece.

IMHO, we have good discussion/communication here, because of the abstract character of these concepts (and words). We have seen several statements which I could shortly list here, from high to low Quality:

Masterpiece = the highest Quality of all
Good Art = the next best Art
Art = Best Design but has a little bit more Quality and/or Innovative to the Traditions.
Good Design = results of good applications of the rules
Poor Design = results of bad applications of the rules
No Design at all = the novice hand with no skills and knowledge at all

Please note that “the little bit more Quality” of Art above Good Design is not yet quite discussed in depth. By the way, one can define Quality as “everything that still could be better” (there are many other possible definitions). But than .... if one puts these words in his/her mouth, he/she must give the explanation of the word better. I believe that there are many people in the history, mainly called Phylosophers, someone like Immanuel Kant, who have given their entire life to answer the question.........

If you're looking for a definition of art then you must look inside your own beliefs, in my view. Art means different things to different people. I, for instance, can't get at all excited about a painting by Jackson Pollock, or Caravaggio, or Rembrandt, or Turner, or many others. And yes, I have stood in front of paintings by each of those artists for long periods, trying to understand what the fuss is about. Am I a complete Philistine? Possibly, in the view of some.

I do find great beauty in minimalist art, but not in purely abstract art; merit in simple line drawings but none, apart from technical skill, in the intense detail of a Constable.

What's my point? ART is like beauty and love. It's in the eye of the beholder, with only our prior experiences and the expressed opinions and biases of others to impinge upon our outlook upon such things.

I don't necessarily agree that art can be separated from design. Art can, however, be separated from technical skills of execution... one need only look to the work of a forger or plagiarist, to see that distinction.

One of the businesses I own is a graphic design studio. We design corporate image concepts, logos, streetscape image and livery application standards and manuals. To this end I am constantly immersed in the business of refining and paring down design to its essentials; deriving the cleanest, purest image we can from the necessary elements included in the brief. Perhaps this is why I see beauty in minimalism, and I am less than enamoured of unnecessary or flamboyant embellishment?

In any case, the concept of art, as I can articulate it from my point of view, is likely to be different to the concept you or anyone else espouses. I think it is arrogant to assume that your definition of art should be applicable to others. Should your definition of the requisite technical skills? Absolutely, if that is what is required to comply with the basics of the artform. However, technical skills can be quantified and ennumerated, but "art" is more subjective than that.

One of the problems I have noticed, with the spread of bonsai to Western cultures, is that the intuitive aspects of the artform have been repeatedly subjected to attempts to quantify and describe in detail what makes a pot plant into a bonsai. The first major publication along these lines was the excellent book by Yuji Yoshimura. The book contains a lot of information that was interpreted as "rules" yet many of the colour plates in the book are of trees that definitely fly in the face of these "rules".

Westerners have long struggled with Eastern mysticism, mythology and religion, as it is largely counterintuitive to the rationalist approach which characterises Western culture and society. For that we can probably blame the doyens of The Enlightenment... Bacon, Kant, Hegel, Kirkegaard, et al.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we have to accept that Eastern art is different to what we were taught by slavish teachers with old textbooks and European ideas, and embrace the diversity of opinion that exists?


Getting back to the tree in the early stages of this thread: Removal of that portion of the jin appearing on the inside of the recurve on the right hand side of the tree might well simplify the design enough to make it look "right", within the confines of classical bonsai design? The shape of that curve appears a number of times in the design, so it may well be the element of the tree that needs to be highlighted, by the addition a little negative space at that point.

Just my point of view, mind you.

Feel it do not try to analyse it. We in the west do not feel, there are no rules just (guide lines) if it feels right it is right.

That is why we are still trying to find the ideal. The Holy Grail does it exist?.

Do it because you like it, simplicity is after all what the eastern culture is about.
Just my $ worth Pup