American Bonsai at the NC Arboretum

Interesting that Mr KyleT never once uses the Term Bonsai but only Containerized Trees, he does Wax Elegantly regards Ones views of the Endeavor FWIW...

Interesting...

or maybe I missed something of importance here...???

Should we rename this site the Internet Containerized Tree Club... ???

That what this really comes down to, isn't it? The use of the term "bonsai". I mean, no one really cares what Dan Robinson does in his backyard. If he wants to simply dig up trees and put them in containers and never touch them again, so what? If he works them using "bonsai techniques" but does so in order to make them look like they've never been worked, again - so what? If he wants to take trees with wild deadwood and top them with perfect green canopies, that's fine too. Same for any of us, we can do whatever we want.

The problems arise because some object to the use of the term "bonsai" to describe such trees. So how do we get past that? Is it enough to call them "naturalistic bonsai"? Is there some other term that would be satisfactory to all? Or is this just always going to be a point of contention?

Arthur Joura address's this very topical question very clearly and concisely in Forum pages 9-10-11-12 it is worth a read IMO, check it out...

Thanks for the reminder...had read that before but forgot it was in the thread. But...concise? Not really. I think my post pretty much summed up what took a bunch of people several pages to express.

That stuff was written almost 2 years ago and here we are...in the same place, it seems.

Anyway...carry on!

Dear Arthur and Walter,

Thank you for your discussion. I am enjoying your conversation and hope it continues. Looking forward to seeing you both in a few weeks.

Steve

Kyle, I thank you most sincerely for taking the time to write your excellent contribution to this thread. I wish I could do it justice by responding in way that equaled the thought and effort you invested in your post, but right now I cannot do it. I can only tell you I read what you wrote with great interest and real appreciation for your insights. You approach the subject matter in a much more academic way than I am capable of doing.

I will answer your question, though, however briefly. If I use the 4 options you provide, I would categorize myself as being inclined toward soft naturalism, but in a decidedly subjective vein. Here we encounter the problem with theory - it is always more neatly arranged than life as we know it. For me personally, creativity always functions best when it walks the tightrope between intellect and emotion.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a photograph taken this year of a tray landscape bonsai I put together 10 years ago:



I would feel comfortable having this piece stand as a representation of my work in its most naturalistic form. There is much more coming about all of this, by the way, but I have some pressing business to attend to first.

Thank you again for your post. And please, call me Arthur.

Hello Walter,

I had to laugh when I read in your last letter: "Arthur, you make me wary." Surely this is wrong? You have as much to be wary about with me as an elephant does with a mouse. Perhaps you mis-typed and meant to write "weary", as in, "Arthur, you make me weary." This I could understand, for I have heard it many times from many people.

The rest of your letter I understood very well and I much appreciate you taking your time to write those thoughts. Not so much of it was new to me because you have written about this topic numerous times before and I have read all of it I can find, but still I read this latest iteration several times over. You did not develop your ideas overnight and it is a fair assumption you are not entirely done developing them, and I think it is good for them to be aired out in public every so often. That way those of us who have been following you for some years now can see where you are currently at, and those who perhaps have never before encountered your disturbed and dangerous ideas can try them out for size. Personally, when I read some of these things I think to myself that I agree wholeheartedly with them, they are my thoughts too, but then I have to wonder if such viewpoints we share did not mostly originate with you. I have freely admitted that your views have been influential to my own, but at this point when looking back I can no longer discern where my own original ideas about naturalism leave off and those I picked up from you begin. Ultimately this does not matter so much to me. In the Bible we are told "there is nothing new under the sun", and I suspect that was already an old saying when it was written down. Besides, there are other ideas I have that I have never heard you advance (although I doubt they will much shock you) and these I will introduce to this discussion, but not just yet.

It has been interesting to read responses to our conversation, posted here on the IBC forum or on your blog. Some people are supportive of the views expressed and a few have made noteworthy contributions to the dialogue. Some other people have essentially shrugged and said 'There's nothing new here..." Of course there have also been varying degrees of antagonism expressed about the very idea of naturalistic bonsai, and I have to admit I am most curious about these responses, rereading them several times over in an attempt to understand these opinions and see things from their perspective. I think it is useless to react with hostility to disagreement, but it is also counterproductive to dismiss dissenting voices by simply concluding that these people do not understand the point being made. Unfortunately that is often how I genuinely feel, but I have learned it is best for me to try and get past that reaction. In order for any discussion in which the participants disagree to be worth the trouble of having, all parties must attempt to understand those views in opposition to their own.

As best as I can understand it, the views expressed in opposition to naturalism in bonsai fall into the following 2 categories:

1) There is no need to designate certain bonsai as naturalistic because all bonsai are inherently naturalistic. Nature is the inspiration and a piece of nature itself is the medium, so how can it be otherwise? In this view, naturalists are doing something that has always been done and attempting to pass it off as something new. The impetus is usually the self aggrandizing ego of certain individuals who are out to make a name for themselves. A variant of this view is that there really are not different styles of bonsai at all beyond the Japanese style and its predecessor, the crudely inferior Chinese style. In this scenario Chinese bonsai compares to Japanese bonsai as Neanderthal Man compares to Homo sapiens, and what is called naturalistic bonsai is just a misguided throwback to the old Neanderthal ways. All bonsai is naturalistic, but those practicing naturalism are simply less refined in their tastes.

2) Naturalistic bonsai is a title invented in an attempt to justify inferior work. Naturalists are too lazy to take the time and dedicate the tremendous effort necessary to produce genuine bonsai, or are simply not skilled enough to master the prerequisite techniques, or do not recognize the subtle artistry involved, or altogether do not understand what bonsai is all about. These people, having failed for whatever reason to make the grade, declare their work to belong in a separate but equal category which calls for a different standard by which to be judged. Along similar lines but worse, naturalists are attempting a ruse whereby they take naturally stunted trees from nature, plant them in a bonsai pot "as is" and try to pass them off as legitimate bonsai, or even superior to legitimate bonsai, in the vein of the old story "The Emperor's New Clothes".

(A third category might well be made for those whose response can be summed up as "Who cares?" These people find all the talk to be a waste of time, time they would rather spend pursuing their hobby. They readily admit that a hobby is all it is for them and they struggle just to keep their bonsai alive and hopefully someday it will be something worth looking at, and all this blather about what style it might be, beyond, you know, informal upright or something, is over the top and irrelevant to the level at which they operate. There is no reason to argue with this. If a person feels this way I say, go in peace. Perhaps one day your bonsai path will lead you to a point where such considerations matter and then maybe this discussion will take on meaning it does not presently have for you.)

The 2 categories of Naturalism denial I have identified above are not mutually exclusive. Some critics of naturalistic bonsai like to mix and match from either category and the more severe ones combine both categories into one expansive all-of-the-above condemnation. How to answer these doubts?

Well, maybe before that, why answer them at all? The why of it has to do with caring about bonsai as an art. If it is to be practiced as an art, then the matter of style becomes much more important, and the freedom of those who practice it to engage in a variety of styles, perhaps even seek out new stylistic territory, becomes critical. Differences in opinion are guaranteed. The existence of a multitude of stylistic possibilities, however, and the right to pursue any and all of them while still being firmly positioned within the parameters of what we call the art of bonsai should be beyond question. You can disagree with a style, even find it repulsive, but to deny it the right to exist or to say that a certain style needs to be called by some name other than bonsai is to put up a wall of separation that condemns bonsai to creative stagnation even as it attempts to keep it pure. To say that bonsai is done one certain way and should not be done any other is to admit that you do not actually think bonsai is an art.

But that is all too stuffy, I admit. I do not like to even dip my toe into that high-minded swamp of artistic debate. Here is another shot at it: It is worth trying to explain what naturalistic bonsai is and to stand up for its existence because it is a pathway to a potentially more meaningful bonsai experience for a greater number of people. Here again, though, I am getting ahead of myself. I will elaborate on this idea, but not just yet.

So, back to the question of how to answer the doubts of those who reject any notion of naturalistic bonsai, or think that bonsai as it is generally practiced is naturalistic enough already. As it is, the answers have all been given. You, Walter, have already provided them, over and over. Here is a link to an article you wrote, dated 2011, where you examine the question of styles and why it is useful to be able to identify them: http://walterpallbonsaiarticles.blogspot.com/2011/01/worthless-discussion-about-bonsai.html In what is perhaps your most comprehensive written examination of the whole question of bonsai as an art and the importance of distinguishing various styles, not to mention a thorough explanation of the difference between the terms "style" and "form", here is a link to an article you first wrote in 1998 and then updated in 2001: http://walterpallbonsaiarticles.blogspot.com/2009/10/styles-and-forms.html I would tell you that I think this is simply one of the most intelligent pieces of bonsai writing I have ever come across, but I do not want to swell your head any further than it already is. Do you know there are times we can see your head from this side of the Atlantic?

The problem is (how do I say this delicately?) that great piece of writing is rather long and dense. It is much longer and denser than this piece of writing, which means there are probably even fewer people who will labor all the way through it. If I may, then, I will ask you if you will please pare it down for us? As you have so far suffered my requests, will you once again produce a simpler, more concise treatment of this business of styles? Specifically I would appreciate hearing your summation of the identifying features of Classical, Neo-classical (or Western Classical), and Modern bonsai styles. You have already shared with us your pared down definition of Naturalistic bonsai, so that is not called for here, but any information you might see fit to include comparing the 3 styles mentioned above with the Naturalistic style would be appreciated. And as you have many excellent photographic bonsai images, I hope you might be able to show some examples of the different styles to make understanding easier.

I know you are a busy man and I have overtaxed your indulgence already, but I am busy too! That is why it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have a big show I am supposed to be getting ready for now, but I am writing this instead. It leads me to conclude that continuing this discussion must be worthwhile, so I hope you will think so too.

To thanks to all.
Regards,
Khaimraj

[quote="Arthur Joura"]

Arthur, I must admit I find it curious that you continue to voice your opinions and ideas about those expressing opposing views to Walter Pall rather than addressing directly those (me) who are actually expressing those views. But be that as it may, and as this is a forum, I hope you will not be too concerned if I take the liberty to answer you directly - rather than in a second hand way...

As best as I can understand it, the views expressed in opposition to naturalism in bonsai fall into the following 2 categories:
1) There is no need to designate certain bonsai as naturalistic because all bonsai are inherently naturalistic.
Nature is the inspiration and a piece of nature itself is the medium, so how can it be otherwise? In this view, naturalists are doing something that has always been done and attempting to pass it off as something new.

Certainly as far as I'm concerened, this is wrong. I do not believe that all bonsai are inherently naturalistic. Far from it. Further, I cannot even recall reading that idea anywhere.

The impetus is usually the self aggrandizing ego of certain individuals who are out to make a name for themselves.

Perhaps you have some evidence for this? I do agree that certain parties are ''out to make a name for themselves'' but as far as I can tell they do not belong to the those who are in the opposing camp.

2) Naturalistic bonsai is a title invented in an attempt to justify inferior work.

In some cases...yes!

Naturalists are too lazy to take the time and dedicate the tremendous effort necessary to produce genuine bonsai, or are simply not skilled enough to master the prerequisite techniques, or do not recognize the subtle artistry involved, or altogether do not understand what bonsai is all about.
These people, having failed for whatever reason to make the grade, declare their work to belong in a separate but equal category which calls for a different standard by which to be judged. Along similar lines but worse, naturalists are attempting a ruse whereby they take naturally stunted trees from nature, plant them in a bonsai pot "as is" and try to pass them off as legitimate bonsai, or even superior to legitimate bonsai, in the vein of the old story "The Emperor's New Clothes".

I could not have put it better. Except the ''as is'' part. Some work on these trees is inevitably done. Also I would add the word ''Some'' at the start of your quote.

The 2 categories of Naturalism denial I have identified above are not mutually exclusive. Some critics of naturalistic bonsai like to mix and match from either category and the more severe ones combine both categories into one expansive all-of-the-above condemnation.

Well no. A dissagreement or disacknowlegement of the validity of some concepts and attempts at naturalistic bonsai is NOT a condemnation of naturalistic bonsai.

The existence of a multitude of stylistic possibilities, however, and the right to pursue any and all of them while still being firmly positioned within the parameters of what we call the art of bonsai should be beyond question.

It is beyond question.

So, back to the question of how to answer the doubts of those who reject any notion of naturalistic bonsai, or think that bonsai as it is generally practiced is naturalistic enough already.

Once again Arthur, that particular question is not there to be answered as far as I can see. Who in fact is rejecting any notion of naturalism in the art?

I trust you will forgive my intrusion into your letter to Walter and my rather short point by point stlye which I prefer to a more long-winded approach. I look forward to Walter's pared down definition of bonsai styles.

Arthur Joura wrote:

1) There is no need to designate certain bonsai as naturalistic because all bonsai are inherently naturalistic. Nature is the inspiration and a piece of nature itself is the medium, so how can it be otherwise? In this view, naturalists are doing something that has always been done and attempting to pass it off as something new. The impetus is usually the self aggrandizing ego of certain individuals who are out to make a name for themselves. A variant of this view is that there really are not different styles of bonsai at all beyond the Japanese style and its predecessor, the crudely inferior Chinese style. In this scenario Chinese bonsai compares to Japanese bonsai as Neanderthal Man compares to Homo sapiens, and what is called naturalistic bonsai is just a misguided throwback to the old Neanderthal ways. All bonsai is naturalistic, but those practicing naturalism are simply less refined in their tastes.

These argumenbts I have read and heard so often. They seem to sound so true, so relaxed. Some famous bonsai artist does not cease to repeat 'there is no need for all this analyzing. There are either good bonsai or bad bonsai. And everybody can see the difference without this analysis'. This sounds like true Asian wisdom, superior over our inquisitive western minds. Let's see. OK, there is no need to analyze food. There is either good food or bad food and I know the difference. But isn't it sometimes good to know whether you want to go to an Italian restaurant or to a Chinese? And then – there is only good music or bad music and I know the difference. Well, when speaking about music do we not need words like 'classical', 'country', 'pop' etc.?  So this statement is just a non-statement. It tells you nothing about the matter bur a lot abot the speaker.
This kind of response comes from folks who hate what they call elitist discussions and analysis. I am afraid it often could be because they cannot follow or any analysis would weaken their agenda. So why should we lower our standards to let follow folks who don't want to follow anyway.

Arthur Joura wrote:
2) Naturalistic bonsai is a title invented in an attempt to justify inferior work. Naturalists are too lazy to take the time and dedicate the tremendous effort necessary to produce genuine bonsai, or are simply not skilled enough to master the prerequisite techniques, or do not recognize the subtle artistry involved, or altogether do not understand what bonsai is all about. These people, having failed for whatever reason to make the grade, declare their work to belong in a separate but equal category which calls for a different standard by which to be judged. Along similar lines but worse, naturalists are attempting a ruse whereby they take naturally stunted trees from nature, plant them in a bonsai pot "as is" and try to pass them off as legitimate bonsai, or even superior to legitimate bonsai, in the vein of the old story "The Emperor's New Clothes".

It is unfortunately true that too often someone makes this attempt to justify inferior work with the title 'naturalistic'. This disqualifies the person and not the idea, I think. How often do we see not so good, bad, outright atrocious attempts of doing 'classical' bonsai styling. Does that disqualify the Classic Style or the folks who fail miserably?
There is a school that tries to find trees in nature, put them in a container, change almost nothing and declare it 'naturalistic piece of art'. Well, if anything this can be called 'Natural Bonsai Style'. It is called 'naturalistic' because it is NOT 'natural'. Many believe that what nature does MUST be goog and certainly better than what humans create. Well, look yourself in the mirror.

Arthur Joura wrote:
A third category might well be made for those whose response can be summed up as "Who cares?" These people find all the talk to be a waste of time, time they would rather spend pursuing their hobby. They readily admit that a hobby is all it is for them and they struggle just to keep their bonsai alive and hopefully someday it will be something worth looking at, and all this blather about what style it might be, beyond, you know, informal upright or something, is over the top and irrelevant to the level at which they operate. There is no reason to argue with this. If a person feels this way I say, go in peace. Perhaps one day your bonsai path will lead you to a point where such considerations matter and then maybe this discussion will take on meaning it does not presently have for you.

Oh yes, I love the remarks like 'why all this – let's go back to bonsai'. While I don't  share their reasons for saying this I do do accept that some are bored and even annoyed about all this 'superfluous' discussion. Maybe they will understand one day.  But I do not think that they should show their contempt and how much they are above this. You don't want to know how often I see something on a forum, a blog or on facebook that I really hate or that I really think should not be there. Would I not make myself an arrogant bigot if I mentioned my dislike every time. It would be fifty times a day.
Dear Arthur,

Arthur Joura wrote:
Well, maybe before that, why answer them at all? The why of it has to do with caring about bonsai as an art. If it is to be practiced as an art, then the matter of style becomes much more important, and the freedom of those who practice it to engage in a variety of styles, perhaps even seek out new stylistic territory, becomes critical. Differences in opinion are guaranteed. The existence of a multitude of stylistic possibilities, however, and the right to pursue any and all of them while still being firmly positioned within the parameters of what we call the art of bonsai should be beyond question. You can disagree with a style, even find it repulsive, but to deny it the right to exist or to say that a certain style needs to be called by some name other than bonsai is to put up a wall of separation that condemns bonsai to creative stagnation even as it attempts to keep it pure. To say that bonsai is done one certain way and should not be done any other is to admit that you do not actually think bonsai is an art.

Too many confuse the bonsai style discussion with  religion or politics. The ensuing 'discussion' then gets ugly ever so often. Good moderation of forums often is necessary to avoid this getting totally out of control. I have come to the belief that it not at all like religion or politics. You can like and practice many bonsai styles in parallel and it is OK. It widens your possibilities, it gives variety to your collection, it makes bonsai life easier. Those who  insist that there is only one way to do bonsai right I call bonsai fundamentalists. And they are my special friends. Bless them! The battle with them will never change their minds, but sometimes the minds of those who watch it. And as Arthur has  pointed out, to watch the battle is entertaining.

Quote of the day:

Walter Pall wrote:You can like and practice many bonsai styles in parallel and it is OK. It widens your possibilities, it gives variety to your collection, it makes bonsai life [...]

[more enjoyable] : I wouldn't say easier

"L'ennui nait de l'uniformité"... (French saying, sthg like "standardisation creates monotony", or a more literal translation could be: "boredom is born out of uniformity")

Dear Arthur,

Arthur Joura wrote:
I
Specifically I would appreciate hearing your summation of the identifying features of Classical, Neo-classical (or Western Classical), and Modern bonsai styles. You have already shared with us your pared down definition of Naturalistic bonsai, so that is not called for here, but any information you might see fit to include comparing the 3 styles mentioned above with the Naturalistic style would be appreciated. And as you have many excellent photographic bonsai images, I hope you might be able to show some examples of the different styles to make understanding easier.

I could write a thick book about it. But you wanted a short note.

Classical Bonsai Style

Pro:
Ideal
Quiet
Less is more
Zen Buddhism
Wide acceptance
Static
Abstract
Soul more important than form
No holes in broadleaved trees except for Prunus
Deadwood  - less is more

Con:
look alike
No surprises
often not art but rather craft
Sometimes boring
No innovation
artificial









Neoclassical Bonsai Style
(Western Classical Bonsai Style)

Pro:
according to clear rules
Popular
Well designed
According to expectations
Everybody can be successful
Abstract
No deadwood on broadleaved trees
Deadwood mostly artificial

Con:
cookie-cutter
No soul
Misunderstood as 'classical', really retro
Old-fashioned












Modern Bonsai Style

Pro:
unique
Impressive
Dynamic
Extreme
abstract
Becoming very popular – mainstream
Great sculptures
Great deadwood
Impressive proportions

Con:
aggressive
Show-off
Hollywood
Egotistical
Artificial , 'licked‚
Artist more important than tree
For winning
Commercial
Grotesque
Form more important than soul

Thanks Walter. This will take some study. But it is great with examples. Safe journeys..

Walter
as a surfer, snowboarder and skateboarder (who still rides but is well past his prime),
i appreciate your use of the word "SOUL" in your brief descriptors...

i have always found parallels between surfing and bonsai as it applies to "soul".

and as a segue back to "American Bonsai at the Arboretum",
i am very excited about the "Main Event" at the NC Bonsai Expo in a few weeks...

hope to be front row.

like doug said: safe travels !

Walter

Nice concise synopsis of the three styles Arthur asked for. Well illustrated also. However for the sake of clarity would it be possible to add an illustration of the naturalistic style as well?

Having a direct visual comparison in the same post would be a useful addition to this discussion and a well chosen example might even help dispel the myth that naturalistic bonsai are just poor quality material, crudely worked, stuck in a pot and called art.

I'm sure you have a few suitable photos knocking about in your archive!

Regards

Richard

I'm glad the discussion is bearing fruit again.

Herr Pall; Thanks for the great examples. You have said that your collection includes trees of various styles, not just naturalistic. Would you be willing, on you blog where you often have a frame with the brief history of the tree you are showing, to tell what style each tree is?

see you in Harrisburg in October.

Thanks Walter,

The visual examples help a lot when trying to understand the differences.

Looking forward to seeing you again at the NC Expo. Hoping to make it to Natures Way in December.

Steve

will be back soon and answer this all.

Richard S wrote:... ...However for the sake of clarity would it be possible to add an illustration of the naturalistic style as well?
Having a direct visual comparison in the same post would be a useful addition to this discussion and a well chosen example might even help dispel the myth that naturalistic bonsai are just poor quality material, crudely worked, stuck in a pot and called art... ...

Walter Pall wrote:will be back soon and answer this all.

Yes, please Mr. Pall, sir!

[quote="Walter Pall"]

Classical Bonsai Style

Pro:
Ideal
Quiet
Less is more
Zen Buddhism
Wide acceptance
Static
Abstract
Soul more important than form
No holes in broadleaved trees except for Prunus
Deadwood  - less is more

Con:
look alike
No surprises
often not art but rather craft
Sometimes boring
No innovation
artificial

Walter,
I don't see any difference in the style of this tree.......

And this tree. The first is obviously in a different league - older, more refined, more worked but the styling is basically the same. But you have one as ''classic'' and one as ''modern''

Neoclassical Bonsai Style
(Western Classical Bonsai Style)

Pro:
according to clear rules
Popular
Well designed
According to expectations
Everybody can be successful
Abstract
No deadwood on broadleaved trees
Deadwood mostly artificial

Con:
cookie-cutter
No soul
Misunderstood as 'classical', really retro
Old-fashioned

So you regard poorly designed or ''unfinished trees as a ''style''?
Is this tree ''according to clear rules''? ''well designed''?



What about this one?



This tree is more or less going down the style of the first needle juniper. It is ''rushed'', ''new'', ''raw'' for sure and very inferior because of this and other things but can you really seperate the styles for those reasons?



This one looks like an old hinoki and looks like a Japanese trained one too - not western. Therefore it would be many decades old. I don't like it much, but how can you seperate this from your classical? You have it as neo classical. When did the ''neo classical period start? Is it only western? If not, why did the Japanese proponents of the neo classical turn their back on tradition only to make inferior trees? This is not a style IMO it is simply inferior trees (or unfinished) It's only inevitable that as more and more people (including Japanese) take up bonsai, that more and more sub-standard examples appear. It is quite natural.



I completely agree with your comments about ''moderen'' bonsai in these examples below. Although I think the second one could quickly be made into a very good tree with the removal of that rediculous and meaningless long jin and some branch rearranging!





However I disagree with placing this tree in the same catagory. (ie show off, aggressive, egotistical, grotesque, artificial) It is none of these things. The arrangement of the crown has been influenced by the contemporary trend towards a very full neat crown, but this is really only a small matter. The most important parts of the tree  (the trunk and main branches) are very natural and fit more with your ''classical'' description to me.
However I only regard ''cassical'' as being in the very deliberate style of the early pine trees with the first branch the main one and one third up from the height of the tree etc etc. This particular tree does not fit into those very rigid parameters. As much as I hate to classify bonsai, I (personally) would put this somewhere between ''naturalistic'' and ''modern''



The same with this one..


I really need to comment on this one! This tree almost makes me angry. It is a very deliberate attempt by the maker to bring attention to himself and IMO has completely disregarded (or missed) the whole concept of growing bonsai. I cannot even call this tree a bonsai!

Picky,aren't we.
And funny.

A tree never made me mad.. But i also dont like the last one though.
Its more like a sculpture, very tanuki-ish, even if it isnt.

Well, if I have learned one thing from this thread lately is that Bonsai craftsman have an extremely narrow vision on what bonsai should look like and could be. Maybe the distinction between styles isn't necessary, but instead a distinction between the creators of bonsai. Craftsman vs. Artist?

Stephen Krall wrote:Well, if I have learned one thing from this thread lately is that Bonsai craftsman have an extremely narrow vision on what bonsai should look like and could be. Maybe the distinction between styles isn't necessary, but instead a distinction between the creators of bonsai. Craftsman vs. Artist?

Yes and depending on wether you like or dont like a certain tree you are a craftsman or an artist
Oh wait that means you can be an artist today but maybe you are a craftsman tomorrow

I cannot even call this tree a bonsai!

Amen, brother. I call these kinds of trees "designed by Mixmaster."

But . . . when you get down to it I'm concerned very little about any kind of label or "classification" system for styles or schools of bonsai. What matters to me is its overall feeling of "treeness."