American Bonsai at the NC Arboretum

MichaelS wrote:

There are more and more grumblings about some contemporary Japanese offerings coming from the west. I believe some of them are quite justified. The most pertinent example that springs to mind are the over-refined foliage mounds of some pines and junipers set on top of tortured, twisted deadwood. It does not sit quite right with me that such a lush, even and uniform crown should sit over what is perceived to be a tree which must have suffered a traumatic existence. (Some of Kimura type trees would be an example)

Maybe ''over-refined'' is not quite accurate. Maybe they are not refined in the most sympathetic way. A lazy way of thinking ''now that I have the branches where I want them, I just need to quickly cover them in green and I'm done''? Or maybe it's just the way the Japanese aesthetic sees it. Whatever the case there is no denying that to some Western (and also I believe Japanese) eyes, something is not right.

This aspect of bonsai comes up quite often in discussions about styling. On one hand...when I see some of those Kimura creations that you've described, the intellectual side of my brain screams out that it is contradictory to have such a vibrant, healthy, manicured foliage mass sitting on top of a torturous mass of deadwood. But at the same time, I find them strangely beautiful and compelling. Perhaps it is the very contrast that is so captivating? I don't know, but I do like them at the same time that I can see the contradiction.

As for Dan Robinson...I've read through "Gnarly Branches" a number of times. My reaction to a lot of his "bonsai" is that they look like they were just pulled out of the ground and stuck in a pot, with minimal alteration. Something looked interesting, caught his eye, and is now growing in his garden. Now, there's nothing at all wrong with that, and I'd LOVE to get out there and wander around his place. It's when people start arguing that his work is somehow "better" than classical bonsai, or that he (and those who "get" it) are more enlightened, that I have a problem.

Anyway, thanks Arthur for sharing your experience during this wonderful trip. I do hope to get out there someday to see for myself.

Chris

I don't wish to create an environment for an argument when after all at this point we are discussing aesthetics and personal opinion and personal taste. The contradiction exhibited by some of these trees is apparent but what is the alternative? You can opt for pure naturalism and have trees that are as interesting as a walk through a mosquito infested swamp. Where do you draw the line without making a case for the ubiquitous crapsai, where art does not matter?

Vance Wood wrote:The contradiction exhibited by some of these trees is apparent but what is the alternative?  You can opt for pure naturalism and have trees that are as interesting as a walk through a mosquito infested swamp.  Where do you draw the line without making a case for the ubiquitous crapsai, where art does not matter?

and of course you nailed it vance:

no matter the style, naturalistic or traditional, the art of it does matter.

to that i might add:

and as with all art (here comes the cliche'), the beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and the creator)...

and only the arrogant will presume to know what the beholder should find beauty in.

And so_____we run head long into the conundrum, when is it art and when is it poop?  If I mould a turd into the shape of ??????? is it art or is it poop?  I realize this is strident, but it is a logical question and it is after all, at the heart of the art debate today, and sadly in bonsai as well.

I know this is a really pecular question that really can be answered both ways. Think about it:--------I'll be back.

It's also important to remember that beauty is perceived by man, not nature.

Most Classical Japanese bonsai are "idealistic" and refined than naturalistic. Check out my comprehensive article in the last issue of International BONSAi- Naturalistic. And Classical Bonsai.

Bill

Stimulating posts since last here. So much so I don’t know where to start. It’s almost as if a real discussion is breaking out! What’s haaapennnnniiiingg?

While I’m under no illusion of us solving the Western world’s bonsai problems, or coming up with a unified theory, intelligent discourse is always worthwhile. At least until someone threatens to punch another. It’s safe to say we have an understanding of  the principles of both concept and execution but it’s a bit like the blind men describing an elephant. It depends on what part one is touching (Dibs on the ear!). MichaelS finds himself somewhere in the middle. I suspect we all do as far as having the willingness to use any solution necessary to bring out the best in a specific tree. That’s what passionate nutters do.

There may be something to what you say Kevin. Perhaps I did get a little too red-assed over Mr. Joura’s depiction of the unwashed opposition. It’s down to dark pink now my friend.  I don’t know. The cynic within gets a bit nervous when some well spoken guy in a headset, armed with laser pointer and power point, tells me he can lead me to the promised land with *registered trademark patent pending*. Even me, a poor Neanderthal chained to the past. Working on my crappy trees. Hope springs eternal. I’m opting to wait for the book (which is sure to come).

As far as embracing “Naturalism” as a concept? I’m just not sure what ‘it’ is? How is this recently branded bonsai philosophy any different than the Chinese model which predates Christ? If there is more to this movement called naturalism please fill me in. It is said Walter Pall is the leading proponent but when studying images of his conifers I see basic Japanese concepts with more spacing in the secondary branching together with more divergent angles for the prominent shoots. Is there something else going on I'm too obtuse to see? They are beautiful no doubt and the work is first rate but to my eye the mass of foliage caused by the spacing of the tertiary branching deemphasizes the trunk. There’s a shrubbiness in the overall look. Perhaps that’s it. Perhaps to the western eye Japanese trees would be more appealing if a bit rangier. More foliage. But which Japanese trees? Looking at the work of Saburo Kato it would be difficult to find a truer definition of ‘naturalism’ than his spruces. Certain species could lend themselves to a naturalistic solution more readily than others. Here in the states I think Michael Hagedorn’s work with hemlock and spruce have great naturalness while remaining firmly rooted in the Japanese tradition. We may be able to have our cake and eat it too if we work on the right species.

I enjoy all schools or styles of well crafted works of others but have a definite preference for trees to work with. I find myself in the ‘trunks are the main attraction’ camp. Trunk movement, taper, connection to the earth, size in relation to the overall, bark, deadwood  are what do it for me. Everything else, branching, apex, visual flow, foliage, and container are the supporting cast to the lead role: the trunk. If there’s something to the ‘westerners like more foliage’ that puts me way to the east of the middle.

Are these images of Dan Robinson’s trees representative of the far west? Is this the extreme of Naturalism? To my eye there’s a problem so I’d say no. Most do not pass that first test: Does it look arboreal? I can appreciate them for what they are. Living things stunted by a torturous existence.  For me they lack the classical elements of good form. Line, angle, asymmetrical balance, flow, tension, complimentary dynamics, and dare say: naturalism all working together to convince me it represents something much grander. Not just a tree but rather a glorious entity. Dan is a trunk guy as well. I think it comes down to perception. Dan doesn’t need all that to find the beauty within. He just sees it in them in all their feral glory. Vive la différence!

Someone mentioned breaking with the Japanese example. When a young person sets out to express themselves through music it usually begins my copying their heroes. It’s a great strategy. Once a point is reached where note-for-note, inflection for inflection, tone for tone then it may be time to break away from their inspiration and strike out on their own with compositions that express their vision. If as bonsai practitioners some begin by copying the Japanese example how many of us can truthfully say we’ve done that. I look around at the majority of trees produced in the west (my own inclusive) and can’t help but think we’ve a ways to go before we can break away.

[quote="mikeyeye"]

Are these images of Dan Robinson’s trees representative of the far west? Is this the extreme of Naturalism? To my eye there’s a problem so I’d say no. Most do not pass that first test: Does it look arboreal? I can appreciate them for what they are. Living things stunted by a torturous existence.  For me they lack the classical elements of good form. Line, angle, asymmetrical balance, flow, tension, complimentary dynamics, and dare say: naturalism all working together to convince me it represents something much grander. Not just a tree but rather a glorious entity. Dan is a trunk guy as well. I think it comes down to perception. Dan doesn’t need all that to find the beauty within. He just sees it in them in all their feral glory. Vive la différence!

Very well put. I find myself agreeing with every word!.....

MichaelS wrote:
(...) But if I pull a ball out of a pile of junk and place it in the garden, it's not art.(...)

Would Marcel Duchamp agree?

AlainK wrote:

MichaelS wrote:
(...) But if I pull a ball out of a pile of junk and place it in the garden, it's not art.(...)

Would Marcel Duchamp agree?

Ha Ha, Is it for sale???

i'm sure there is a line of suckers waiting to buy it, if it is...

The urinal, titled The Fountain, sold for $1,185,000 (£816,000), short of its low estimate of $1.5m, at the Phillips de Pury & Luxembourg auction. And this was NOT THE ORIGINAL. It was second or third edition of copies. Meaning that the original is priceless, probably in the 50,000,000 or much higher region had it not been lost after the show in 1917, probably being mistaken for junk and thrown away. Ironic, isn't it? So much about prices and values of art for folks who don't seem to have too much of a clue.

The Fountain is a 1917 work produced by Marcel Duchamp. The piece was a porcelain urinal, which was signed "R.Mutt" and titled Fountain. Submitted for the exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, in 1917, the first annual exhibition by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York,Fountain was rejected by the committee, even though the rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee. Fountain was displayed and photographed at Alfred Stieglitz's studio, and the photo published in The Blind Man, but the original has been lost. The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde, such as Peter Bürger, as a major landmark in 20th-century art. 17 replicas commissioned by Duchamp in the 1960s now exist.
In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art world professionals.[20] The Independent noted in a February 2008 article that with this single work, Duchamp invented conceptual art and "severed forever the traditional link between the artist's labor and the merit of the work"

I am sure that many of our readers are aware of this all. But some may not be and we can benefit from looking at this.

Duchamp marked an epochal point in art history when he made it definitely clear to the general public and even to those who believed to be in the knowing circles that their opinion did not count at all. The whole world may think that this is crap. If one of the powers to be says it is high art then it is high art.

I am sure that in 1917 and also still today 99.9 % of all 'normal` folks will say that this is terrible and cannot possibly be art, beware high art. But fact is that their opinion still does not count at all. The man on the street certainly will just laugh out loud about this being called art. It is very disturbing to people who know that they have a good refined taste and have studied art and hate this so much that their opinion does not count either. It is declared one of the most important pieces of art by the powers to be. Unbelievable - or is it?

While it looks that we are clearly digressing much form the original thoughts of this thread we are really right in the center:

If bonsai is art then similar things might happen here. The powers to be can declare a tree a great piece of art even if the public wonders why it made the selection process. The less informed audience howls and the more informed audience cringes. But it is declared high art and nobody listens to them.

Cannot happen here? Well, it does. certainly not in such a spectacular way, but it does.

So who are the powers to be? Hard to say, but a long time curator of one of the most renowned bonsai collections in America is probably part of the powers to be. He can declare a tree high art and the rest has to accept it. Or not, Does not matter. It is high art from then on.

Frightening, isn't it? If this is true then what are we discussing here? Well, it must certainly be acceptable to have a different opinion and a different taste. It must certainly be allowed to voice that out loud. I think discussion about these matters is very important. But if the general folks' opinion finally does not matter at all, why discuss? Well, to refine your own taste, to learn things , to learn to be tolerant, to be able to see other points, to widen your horizon.

Or am I dreaming? And bonsai is still a craft only?

Thanks for this, Walter. Better that you said it than I. I'm just a guy who likes beer and watering trees. If I had said this, I'm sure I would have faced some criticism. It's what I have said for so long....there is no art, only self expression. The "powers that be" deign this to be art, and so it is. Regardless of the masses, the ones who actually create, and whom see a friggen' urinal, those opinions don't matter. Lunacy.

Looks like a high-tech crescent pot to me.

JimLewis wrote:Looks like a high-tech crescent pot to me.  

hhhmmm.... could be you are on to something there, jim !

Walter Pall wrote:
(...)The man on the street certainly will just laugh out loud about this being called art. It is very disturbing to people who know that they have a good refined taste and have studied art and hate this so much that their opinion does not count either.
(...)

I haven't read from you for quite some time now Walter, but I can see you're still a sting in conventional views of what is "art"

And after all, there are so many ways to "see" a ball in a garden. It just depends where you are standing in the garden. where to stand to see the Truth, or "true art"?

I'll spare you a photo of the Ryōan-ji. That would be telling...

There is a colorful adage that goes something like this: An opinion is like a certain bodily orifice that emits waste - everybody has one. Although in some quarters this saying represents a prime example of insightful wit, it is nonetheless completely inaccurate in at least one fundamental respect. Comparing one human being to another, the waste emitting orifice in question is basically the same, that is, of equal relative value. This is untrue of opinions. Like it or not, some opinions have greater intrinsic value than others. Opinions formed as the result of analyzing verifiable data are worth more than opinions that are not, and the more verifiable data entered into the equation the greater the value of the opinion is likely to be. Put another way, first-hand knowledge and experience will either underline or undermine any given opinion.

In his recent reply to my posts about Dan Robinson, Chris had this to say:

coh wrote:"My reaction to a lot of his "bonsai" is that they look like they were just pulled out of the ground and stuck in a pot, with minimal alteration. Something looked interesting, caught his eye, and is now growing in his garden."

Here Chris is offering his opinion of Dan's work based on what he saw looking at photographs reproduced in a book. I do not agree with Chris' opinion, but beyond that I do not have anything much to say against it because he qualified it by saying that Dan's trees "look like" that to him based on the pictures he has seen. He is not saying they are that, but rather that they appear that way to him, and elsewhere in the post he readily admits that he has never been to Elandan to look at the trees in person. He also notes that he has read "Gnarly Branches, Ancient Trees" several times. Given this information any person can form his or her own reasonable opinion about the value of Chris' opinion, although I think that same person would do well to avoid forming any opinions about the value of Dan's bonsai based solely on what Chris says.

Elsewhere, in a response offered by another commentator, we are told in a declarative way that Dan Robinson's bonsai are "trees which are dug up and placed in a pot with little work done to them". This is stated as a matter of fact, even as this commentator admits to never having seen Dan's trees in person. Another commentator, talking about Naturalism, notes "I’m just not sure what ‘it’ is?" then proceeds to offer many judgmental opinions about it.

Here is a fact, and again, this is an actual fact and not my opinion masquerading as fact: Dan Robinson's bonsai are extensively designed and trained. None of the bonsai presented as bonsai in the book "Gnarly Branches, Ancient Trees", and none of the bonsai I photographed and posted in this thread were collected trees simply planted as-is into bonsai containers. None of them. Nor did they receive just a perfunctory trim, perhaps, before they were declared bonsai. All of them were thoroughly worked over and trained and changed substantially, in some cases dramatically, from what they originally were. How do I know? I know because I have seen the trees in person and studied them up close using my personal knowledge, experience and professional training to evaluate what I was looking at. I could see evidence of work that had been done, despite Dan's rather impressive ability to mask the manipulation. Further, in certain places in Elandan (not the main exhibit area) and at Dan's home I saw many other trees that were in earlier stages of development. Some were recently collected and looked raw and ungainly as collected material generally does, while others exhibited the tell-tell signs of training, such as extensive wiring or sacrificial branches extending ludicrously beyond the parameters of otherwise compressed and comparatively managed masses of foliage. I saw trees where the deadwood was in an unfinished state of carving, or in some case probably finished but raw and not yet aged. Beyond that, I have watched Dan at work and know first-hand how he goes about his business, and because I respect his ability I have asked questions and had discussions with him about his process and techniques. Remember, too, most of Dan's trees have been in his care for decades. Anyone who thinks you can collect a wild tree, transfer it to a container and have it sit there unchanging for decades either does not know much about trees or is not thinking through what they are saying. Has he ever simply potted up a collected old tree as-is and presented it as a bonsai? I do not know, but if he has I would guess it to be a rare case. I saw nothing among the hundreds of trees he is growing to suggest that he does that.

Here is an opinion, and it is based on many conversations I have had with bonsai people over the past half dozen years or so since I decided to take the NC Arboretum collection in a more naturalistic direction: Most of the people in bonsai who profess a dislike of Naturalism seem to have little or no idea of what Naturalism is. This can be discerned by the comments they make, even when they are not so honest as to admit up front that they do not know what it is. Many will use the word "natural" in place of Naturalism, as if the two are synonymous, which they are not. Some of these people will offer their own personal definition of what natural/naturalistic bonsai look like, and they talk about trees left looking all shaggy and unkempt and wild and anything goes, and calling your bonsai that is just an excuse for being lazy and not learning how to prune and wire correctly. For those who might care to know, here is a link to a dictionary definition of the term Naturalism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalism And for those who care to go deeper, here is a link to the Wikipedia disambiguation page for Naturalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism The concept of Naturalism has existed for centuries, and is not some loosey-goosey marketing ploy made up by Walter Pall. If you go to the Wikipedia site you will find that Naturalism exists in philosophy, literature, theater, religion, politics, and certainly in visual art. The same commentator on this thread who admitted to not knowing what Naturalism is then pointed out that its presence in bonsai is nothing new given the Chinese model "which predates Christ." (The last I looked, the historical evidence for the existence of penjing in China goes back about 1,000 years, but everyone is entitled to their opinion!) In fact, some of the various schools of penjing in China are strongly naturalistic, while others can be considerably more abstract than the current Japanese vogue. Looking at images of Japanese bonsai from 50 years ago it appears the Japanese favored a more naturalistic approach in those days too, although I expect some people might be of the opinion that the Japanese bonsai growers of that time had yet to "perfect" their art. Then again it is all moot because no one I know of has claimed that Naturalism in bonsai is anything new.

Let me close by re-posting one of the photographs I made at Elandan:



This is a Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum) and I know nothing about how old it is or where it came from or how long Dan Robinson has been working on it. I wonder what you see when you look at this image? I see a wonderfully ancient, battered warrior of a deciduous tree with a dead top and a hollowed-out trunk, full of character, tortured but stubbornly clinging to life. That is the suggested story. The actual story I guess to be one of a very healthy specimen with some age to it that has been made to appear even older than it is, skillfully designed to have an asymmetrically balanced yet dynamic form while giving every appearance of having just grown that way on its own. I like that it is a deciduous tree with deadwood, something that most bonsai growers avoid as though it was an affront to decency to have such a thing. I like that it plays against the knee jerk notion of all Japanese maples being "feminine" in character. I particularly like that it looks completely believable to me as a dramatic old tree I might come across on a walk in the forest. I wish it was in a different pot. I think this tree is an excellent example of the Naturalistic style of bonsai, and one of numerous Dan Robinson trees I would unhesitatingly call a masterpiece of American bonsai, if ever I was inclined to use such an ostentatious word as "masterpiece". That is what I think, but of course it is only my opinion.

Arthur,

Just to clarify something: I wrote in my original response

they look like they were just pulled out of the ground and stuck in a pot, with minimal alteration.

And here I'm emphasizing the word "look". After all, what is shown in "Gnarly Branches" is just a series of 2d photographs that (as we all know) can't fully represent the total tree. That's why I'd love to get out there and see them in person. I should have also modified my statement with "many of them look..." because, there are several in the book that look more altered or styled and tree-like to me.

I did know from reading the book that he has worked on the trees in various ways, whether it be adding/modifying deadwood, wiring, pruning, etc.  But, regardless...many just don't look tree-like to me. Now, the one you showed in your last post does look tree-like. And I can remember a fantastic tree - spruce? not sure - in the book that featured several trunk segments that died off over time, with new leaders forming. I remember that one looking very tree-like. I didn't see it in your photo sequence, maybe you do remember it though.

Maybe part of the issue is that I haven't spent much time in that part of the country, and am used to seeing different type of trees.

Anyway, I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts from the trip.

Chris

[quote="Arthur Joura"]

Elsewhere, in a response offered by another commentator, we are told in a declarative way that Dan Robinson's bonsai are "trees which are dug up and placed in a pot with little work done to them".

Hi Arthur. I must offer my apologies here. It was an oversight on my part. I usually take great effort to include the words ''appears'' or ''looks like'' whenever I make a comment on anything where I do not have the facts at my disposal. So yes, it definitely ''appears'' that ''many'' of the trees where dug up and placed into a pot with little work done on them.

This is a Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum) and I know nothing about how old it is or where it came from or how long Dan Robinson has been working on it. I wonder what you see when you look at this image? I see a wonderfully ancient, battered warrior of a deciduous tree with a dead top and a hollowed-out trunk, full of character, tortured but stubbornly clinging to life.

I do see that...to a point. Indeed I have seen similar trees in nature. Trees in their last few years of life. I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find examples of many of the trees we call bonsai in nature. Perhaps that's where the concept of ''idealism'' Bill Valavanis was talking about comes into the picture. In other words, modern bonsai art generally seeks to represent an ''ideal'' image of a tree. Your example of the maple here certainly does not represent an ideal image to me. As I mentioned earlier, the concept of beauty (my personal concept) is very important to me. This tree also does not inspire a feeling beauty to me and I suspect many others, perhaps the majority of the bonsai community? This may or may not be an important point when considering a public display. I would also suggest that many bonsai fanciers with at least a couple of decades of appreciation under their belts would find it difficult to be persuaded that this is the way forward. As I have been exposed to such works for for an extended period of time (usually offered by novices), I count myself amoung those who find this type of work unappealing and not open to persuasion.
I find your use of the word ''masterpiece'' troubling. The fact (yes fact) that such a tree can be (and has been) created many times in the past by novices in a short amount of time and with limited thought and manipulation suggests to me that the word ''masterpeice'' is being rather loosely used in this instance. In fact I have had similar looking trees appear at my nursery after having the tops layered off and the mother plant subsequently neglected in an out of the way corner for a number of years.
Personally I find classifing this tree a masterpiece comes across as a little over-inflated when compared to the tree below (for example) which no doubt took many years of extreme dedication, concentration, vision, planning and probably even heartache at times for the creator. Also I believe that the term ''American masterpiece'', ''Europen masterpiece'' or ''Japanese materpeice'' should not be seen as mutually exclusive. Surely a masterpiece is a masterpiece. I'm sure we can all agree the the tree below has no shortage of ''naturalism''. Which image do you prefer to live with?
You may argue that Dan's maple is still unfinished or in development. Perhaps, but if that is the case it cannot be called a masterpiece for the simple reason that it is a work in progress. Who knows that with thoughtful traning and another decade or two it may well become a masterpiece in the eyes of many people. But not withstanding that, if we take it as offered above it cannot fall into the masterpiece catagory at present (for me).






If you like the ancient look (and who doesn't) consider this apricot. It has the naturalism (although somewhat idealistic) and the ''struggle for life'' atmosphere but it also has delicateness and sensitivity which Dan's maple lacks. (In my opinion)


Thank you for the stimulating topic Arthur

[/quote]

I assume you realize
if you use this thing
it's going to dump pee
all over your Birkenstocks?

Arthur Joura Today at 12:35 am   Another commentator, talking about Naturalism, notes "I’m just not sure what ‘it’ is?" then proceeds to offer many judgmental opinions about it.

Guess that’s me! I can now see how you would confuse this inference. Not having slept through my basic courses back at school I can assure you I am familiar with the concept and methodology of the various iterations of naturalism[lower case]. It’s had it share of fads.  No. By capitalizing and embolding I was inferring this, the latest fad: Naturalistic Bonsai. I imagined the next sentence’s reference “recently branded” filed in the blank. I was mistaken. Clearly some of my oblique inferences are a bit too oblique. I will endeavor to be more literal in future. Since you like facts considered this one: Naturalism is the intrinsic, inseparable nature of bonsai. A basic premise long before the term was coined.Always has been. Simply usurping the catch phrase Naturalistic Bonsai and declaring a better vision for the creation of bonsai does not change that fact. It sounds marvelous. All good catch phrases should (Peoples Party, Right To Life, etc.) but it is to this, the latest fad, I applied the “nothing new”. My education and experience in the world of bonsai, while certainly not possessed by a “power that be”, has informed my opinions of what a bonsai should and shouldn’t be. The concept and application of naturalism figure heavily. Why should I trifle with all that has gone before me? This is the road chosen and I accept the premise. I submit this has been the case since the beginning.

When studying, critiquing, or analyzing a tree I’ve found the quickest way to separate the wheat from the chaff is to ask the following two questions: 1) Is it arboreal? If even vaguely so the answer is yes (we’re not judging harshly yet). Sadly the answer is most often no. This effectively eliminates many from further consideration. Calling them bonsai while pointing to the fact they are small and in pots is not enough. Unfortunately all too many western offerings fail at convincing us they are anymore than what they are; pleasant plants in expensive pots.  If the answer is no I move on to the next. If the answer is yes it is tree-like then on to 2) Is there a plausible case for this tree existing in nature? Now we are getting down to naturalistic cases. This is where it gets interesting as we have to consider a construct complying to an abstract concept (miniaturizing nature) and ask it to conform to a naturally occurring situation. Not so black & white as the first question. This is judged on a scale. Unlikely to highly likely. There are some stunning trees that essentially fail this test. That doesn’t consign them to ‘bad bonsai’ status. They can still be good trees well worth studying or owning, but they will never be great. It would be difficult to understand why someone would intentionally declare them masterpieces. My point is this; both of these questions are naturalistic in nature. They are naturalistic in philosophy, concept, and methodology. Proselytizing that a more enlightened way of viewing and creating bonsai is through Naturalism is like telling sailors they need to see the ocean as wet. Very wet. You may have had an epiphany but it doesn’t follow the rest of us need one.

I don’t really keep up with the powers that be or the trends so I must plead ignorance here. I was somehow under the impression that one of the major precepts of this recently  formed school of bonsai is “Untouched By Human Hands”? It’s kind of the motto am I right? If so did you not just condemn Mr. Robinson’s work with:

I know because I have seen the trees in person and studied them up close using my personal knowledge, experience and professional training to evaluate what I was looking at. I could see evidence of work that had been done, despite Dan's rather impressive ability to mask the manipulation.

?? Or is that a ‘powers that be’ thing? It will fool the masses but we elitists will know Mr. Robinson owns branch cutters and wire.

Naturalism is and has always been an intrinsic premise of bonsai but for me if a particular tree does well with those two questions it passed the naturalistic gatekeeper. We move on. The gut response to its beauty. How it’s able to excite. How holistically it symbolizes the essence of nature. This is an area in which naturalism tells no story. It’s not enough. Naturalism simply sets the stage for something which (if perceived) can run much deeper. I don’t think we need to be Buddhist monks  or art experts to see it. I’m avoiding the ‘art’ conversation for now. It’s doomed as a circular discussion.

Not quite avoiding but I’m a bit uneasy critiquing Dan Robinson’s maple. Dan did not post it. Nor did he ask for it to be deconstructed. I do wonder though how he feels about it being declared a “masterpiece of American bonsai”? I’ll just say this: To the second question (Is there a plausible case for this tree existing in nature?) its answer is “Highly Unlikely”. Well, I guess one could make a case it’s from Chernobyl. It’s something not likely to be encountered in any forests I go hiking through. Maples do not grow like that. If that’s your shining example of The New American Naturalism then I beg you: Please stop.

all strong and well informed points... many of which i am still realizing/learning as a novice,
(and mikey - i like your method of "critiquing" a tree)

and being a 3-4 year novice i may have the least informed opinion in this discussion (which might be a good thing ?)

but having said that, i must say this:
RIF: READING IS FUNDAMENTAL



read how arthur couched his use of the word "masterpiece"...

read how arthur referred to naturalistic bonsai as the "better vision of bonsai"
whoops... you might not be able to read that one because i don't believe he wrote that it is "better"... just more appealing to him.

read how arthur is telling everyone how naturalism is a "more enlightened was of viewing and creating bonsai"
whoops... my bad again... i dont believe i recall him writing that...

and while this next one is not about reading: comparing the apricot to the maple is comparing apples to oranges.
someone might like nice shiny apples (maybe because the fruit is crisp and clean tasting) and someone else likes bruised oranges (maybe because the juice is sweet)... simple - no debate needed.

i believe arthur chooses his words very well and very very carefully to avoid saying: "WHAT IS RIGHT OR WHAT IS WRONG"

i believe he is very good at explaining (in no uncertain terms) why something appeals to him and to some that may seem like he is saying "my way or the highway" but i think he is simply shining a light along the path he is following, while leaving markers along the way to show where that path originated... you can travel that path or take a fork in the path or a different path entirely, but either way all the paths began at the same place... (sorry for waxing poetic at the end)

BUT as mikey said, all of this does lead to very interesting and informative discourse and i myself have learned a few things from both camps in this last couplafew pages...

i just dont like when someone's words are taken out of context to support an opposing view...
i see it in politics ALL THE TIME and just dont like seeing it here of all places...
(and if i myself have done so, i apologize)

btw - i just got dan's book yesterday and even cursory page flipping revealed stunning trees that were most certainly "worked" and worked in a way that i found very appealing... and i did not see one that looked anything like it was just dug up and stuck in a pot. (some will say that is the novice speaking and that may very well be...)

This tree also does not inspire a feeling beauty to me and I suspect many others, perhaps the majority of the bonsai community? (emphasis added)

I think you are SO wrong!  I'm not particularly fond of the PICTURES I've seen of many of Mr. Robinson's trees, but this is a gorgeous example of an old deciduous forest tree, and I suspect there are quite a few folks who might agree.

And to those who say his ancient maple doesn't look like a maple in nature, that may be true for the typical species used for bonsai; it certainly doesn't represent a Japanese maple (an understory tree) in nature -- if they even exist in nature anywhere these days.  I doubt, however, that this was necessarily meant to represent even a MAPLE; rather it exemplifies an old, struggling, lightening struck deciduous tree nearing the end of its life -- with a good bit of handsome dignity.

BUT, those of you who post from Australia and the Pacific Northwest may never have seen a old Acer rubrum, the American red maple in the forest.  They are very large trees, grow to great age, and I could easily  see one of those in this tree.  

I'm no deep philosopher of bonsai, but Naturalism does not have to be literal -- otherwise we'd never have anything like a boxwood shaped like a natural live oak .  Like all of bonsai, a naturalistic tree exhibits the essence of a tree in nature.

Arthur certainly can (and has) defend himself, but I think there was a bit too much knee-jerk reaction to his thoughts on Dan Robinson's trees; no one here needed to feel threatened by his opinions. But enough from me; aside from my comments on the urinal, I wasn't planning to enter this discussion.