Duchamp's Fountain of the bonsai world.

Duchamp's Fountain of the bonsai world.



Recently at the Artisans Cup 2015 in the  Art Museum of Portland, Oregon this piece was among the 71  bonsai exhibited. It is by David Crust, who is a student of Nick Lenz. I am sure that this was the most confusing if not disturbing piece of the whole exhibit. I was asked by many what I had thought of it as judge. In my answers I called it 'Duchamp's Fountain of the bonsai world'.

So what is Duchamps's Fountain? I have to digress here to make this more understandable: In the year 1917 the art world was in turmoil and much discussion was going on what was art, what was good at, what was not art and who made these decisions. Up to around 1880 the world was in order. Art was something that was beautiful and that appealed to most people. Painting and sculpture were realistic, up to photographic realism. This was more or less consensus among the art world and the general public. In the following decades the art world fell apart. Impressionists dared to paint outside in natural light and painted the world as they saw it and not as they were told to see it. Some did not paint in strokes but painted in what today is pixels - unheard of. Some painted things that one could hardly recognize any more. Then some painted abstract - end of civilization! All sort of 'insanity',abounded.

There was an open fight whether the new stuff was art. The art museums decided that it was not. So the new artists created their own art museums which still exist in Paris and other places as 'secession'. At art exhibits a strong judging system tried to avoid influx of unhealthy art.The general public decided that it hurts the eyes. So who decided what was art and good art? The museum Directors thought they did and they did indeed by exclusion. The gallerists did by selecting what they thought could be sold. They were astounded that the 'naive' Americans bought all this crap because they had no idea what good art was. The general public as always thought that they decided - what the majority liked was good art and what the majority hated was bad art. Nobody asked the artists.

At the most important art exhibit in the world in 1917 in Paris, Marcel Duchamp did the unthinkable. He managed to get into the exhibit what is widely called 'Fountian'. This is a euphemism because it really was a urinal, but the word is so obscene, isn't it. Well, obscene and shocking is what Duchamp wanted dot be. Therefore it should be clalled by it’s real name.



It was a urinal as mass produced industrially with no alterations or additions by the artist. When asked what in the world he was smoking
Duchamps said along the lines 'so many parties think that they decide what art is and should be, nobody has asked the artists. Her is the answer: the artist alone decides what art is. This is a urinal and I call it art, high art, good enough for the most important art exhibit. It is art because I have decided so. Period!.' What a scandal! up to today. Duchamp had invented the ultimate scandal as promoting art and himself. We are now so used to this as it had become commonplace in the art world. But at that time it was a novelty and it took a genius to do that. And Duchmp had invented what is called 'Conceptual Art'. This means that one has to know things to understand it. While eg a nude female or male body as sculpture needs no explanation and is understood by everyone instantly a urinal does need explanation. If one would not know what at this means one could think it is a mistake, it is crap. So ironically the cleaning crew thought after the end of the show and threw the original away. In 2005 around 1400 art historians from around the world congregated and had to vote for the most important piece of at of the past century . Guess what they came up with.

Back to the bonsai world. Yes, this is in a way shocking and it does need explanation. What exactly is it anyway? It is apparently a vintage Kirby vacuum cleaner probably from the fifties in which a nice little larch is planted and an Angel is hanging from it. It is by David Crust but could well have been by Nick Lenz. Is it art? Is it beautiful? It is ugly as good art - much to the surprise of many - does not have to be beautiful. And it is art as it was done by an artist.

It is a statement: 'the bonsai world was in order up to around 1985 when everybody knew what was right and what was wrong. It all could be found in the bonsai bible - John Naka I, Old Testament, John Naka II, New Testament. Everybody knew what was good and what was bad. And then came modern bonsai - they looked more like sculptures than trees. Then naturalism, bonsai looked like trees and not like bonsai - how dare they! Bonsai rules were obsolete. Then penjing - how ugly! Then other strange aberrations like Fairy Tale Bonsai Style. Nobody knows what is right or wring any more. Who decides what is bonsai art and what not? The ones who judge the entries to exhibits do. The judges for the exhibit do. The customers who buy do. The magazines by what they print do. The viewers on the internet do by their 'likes'. Nobody asks the artists.

This is the answer of an artist who says " I, the artist, decide what is art and what is not. This is art, period! It does not matter what others think It is not a democratic decision. If the ordinary person does it it is crap, if the artist does it it is art."

This is a statement that wants to say: the whole world thinks that what they like is good and what they don't like is bad. So what - they don't count. This room is full of vanity, all the bonsai try to be as beautiful as possible, as impressive as possible. They are craving for the public's attention and for winning awards or fetchng money. And the artists are following the wishes of the public. They create the kind of art that the public wants. This is artistic prostitution!. And this artist clearly shows so.

Like it or not. It will go into the history of bonsai art because it is the clearest statement so far that proves that bonsai is an art form. The discussion is open and will never end - as is the practise in art since ever. We will never again be certain what is good an what is bad. We will have to see what artists come up with.

Walter,

there is a move in Fine Art, that started small sometime after world war 2, where Ateliers, started to train painters how to draw and paint well, much as what was in the years of the Old Masters of the Renaissance. Examples are Da Vinci, Titian, Raphael, and so on.
Today, the Ateliers are much more numerous and painters are expected to be able to draw and paint well.

I see Bonsai is attempting to find it's way, and with that I say more power to you!!!

For me however, my love is in growing trees, and the memories that come attached with the trees, climbing, resting in the shade, first kiss, first embrace ..., birds nesting, wind in the leaves and ...........
I see trees well done, standing by themselves needing no other ornaments [ distractions ] and needing no explanation, for me that is when Bonsai will reach the idea of Art.
As a an oil painting needs no explanation, it just is, so too, will the composition / pattern / design of a Bonsai appeal if only until ihe tree continues to grow on. BUT by then we should be using 3d technology to illustrate our trees.

Best to you and your continued efforts.
Laters.
Khaimraj

thanks for putting that in writing for all to see, walter...
it was fun, funny and enlightening to discuss this past weekend.

and khai - you have expressed how and why you love this art, and whether or not it was your intention, you have beautifully supported walter's position as you, the artist, have decided what you call art. I believe that if trees planted in toilets or horse troughs or a shoe become the accepted norm, that you would stick to your guns by continuing in your view of the art, despite what the judges and public may think.

how liberating !!!

Kevin,

thank you.

Khaimraj

I find it difficult to discuss/debate what is art, what is not art?  This is a discussion that has been going on for probably twenty-thousand years when men decided to smear images on cave walls and associate them with mystical, metaphysical and mythical traits.  Bonsai to me, is a representation of a very special part of creation where the winds howl through the trees, at times bringing storms and avalanches of snow and stone.  Then they repent of their wrath and gently caress the branches, the birds sing and the breezes carry the pollen to generate the next generation of trees.  In my mind I can smell the fragrance of a Mountain side an arroma that cannot be duplicated, only called forth from my memories of being there. These are the things that I feel a bonsai must create.  A bonsai must (in my mind) depict an environment where it grows.  If it does not do that it has failed (in my mind).  

No tree growing in the collection port of a Kirby vacuum cleaner can make me think of these things.  No mountain meadow can be made better by the roar of a Kirby trying to suck up the dirt the seeds germinate in.  No mountain side should be difaced by the presence of a cast out Kirby.  Having sold Kirbys in my youth the memory of the noise and the smell of dust totally overwhelms the image I have in my mind and the memory I have in my heart.  Is this art?  Yes, of course it is,  but just because it is art does not make it incumbent on me that I like it.  Does looking at this make me feel better and at piece?  No it does not, even though it is art I reject it like I reject Lima Beans which I detest. This image does tell a story a story of careless humans throwing out useless garbage and infringing on an area that should have been left alone.

Call me an old fuddy duddy if you like, but I agree w/ Vance on this 'un.

JimLewis wrote:Call me an old fuddy duddy if you like, but I agree w/ Vance on this 'un.

From one fuddy duddy to another I thank you.  An interesting thing about bonsai I have noticed over the nearly half a century I have been growing them, the forms they take are pretty much unchanged in how they relate to a natural ecosystem. Surrealism is as adventurous as they seem to go and survive.  Attempts have been made to change this but the art form keeps coming back to basics and the reason for their existence.  Any thing that departs from this does not last long. Any thing that accentuates this image becomes an addition to the art, and becomes part of the style.

Understanding that the beginning of this discussion was DuChamps Fountain being a urinal it is appropriate that, in my eyes, the Kirby Bonsai does what any good Kirby should do it sucks.

Vance Wood wrote: Bonsai to me, is a representation of a very special part of creation where the winds howl through the trees, at times bringing storms and avalanches of snow and stone.  Then they repent of their wrath and gently caress the branches, the birds sing and the breezes carry the pollen to generate the next generation of trees.  In my mind I can smell the fragrance of a Mountain side an arroma that cannot be duplicated, only called forth from my memories of being there.

beautifully stated vance !

Vance Wood wrote: No tree growing in the collection port of a Kirby vacuum cleaner can make me think of these things.  No mountain meadow can be made better by the roar of a Kirby trying to suck up the dirt the seeds germinate in.  No mountain side should be difaced by the presence of a cast out Kirby.  Having sold Kirbys in my youth the memory of the noise and the smell of dust totally overwhelms the image I have in my mind and the memory I have in my heart.  Is this art?  Yes, of course it is,  but just because it is art does not make it incumbent on me that I like it.  Does looking at this make me feel better and at piece?  No it does not, even though it is art I reject it like I reject Lima Beans which I detest.  This image does tell a story a story of careless humans throwing out useless garbage and infringing on an area that should have been left alone.

amen !

because you, as an artist, have declared what art appeals to you, and in your eyes, "damn the trendy trends !!!" even though you evenhandedly acknowledge and recognize them as art...

beautiful !

Upon further thought there seems to be a trend or attempt to elevate (if that's what you choose to call it) bonsai into the realm of the avant gaurd progressive turd-burgelering, unrecognizable and justifiably ugly expression of the decline of the human race art form. I know this is harsh but in my mind it is accurate. What once we called beauty we now call outdated. That may be true but what would the world do without the kind of beauty a good bonsai can furnish. A good bonsai is not a trend and good bonsai is not an adventure in extremism, a good bonsai is a touch from angles that brings peace and escape from the noise of every day life. I think that is why it does not change much. The Japanese talk of Kami. The presence of a spirit in things like trees and swords, and things.

We are all enjoying this debate; I have read multiple threads here on the discussion of Bonsai in relation to what it was, is, and should be. Mr. Walters has asked the question, are we artist or are we craftsmen. If you dislike what Mr. Walters said, then you are a craftsman. You seek to make trees just like the ones that come out of Japan. You are satisfied with the Japanese ideal of a Bonsai and you wish to imitate it then you are a craftsmen and one day you may be a Shokunin.
However, if what Mr. Walters says rings true to your ears then you are an artist. The Artist appreciates where Bonsai came from. Yet his drive is self-satisfaction. Though the artist might feel saddened when people do not understand his work, the artist shapes trees the way he/she does because that is what he wants to do. The artist needs not give an excuse or reason other than he felt compelled to do so.
Are there bad artists? Most definitely, just like there are bad craftsman. An artist can inspire a new trend, or skew athletic value. A craftsman cannot. This is one man’s opinion.

Bonsai displayed WITH art works -- avant garde or otherwise, sculpture or flatwork -- makes an excellent pairing, and we have had several long an successful threads discussing these from Walter, Robert Stevens, Jun and others over the years.

Bonsai planted in, on, and closely around artwork, or found "art" (which I thought had died a very necessary death years and years ago)  as shown here is much less appealing or successful (in my opinion and that of my MFA wife).  Neither the tree-as-skeletalized vacuum, or the kitschy urinal are particularly artistic or (in the case of the urinal) particularly new.

well i personally find pots that look unfinished or broken, and especially the spherical pots the ugliest ceramic work I have ever seen. My opinion does not discard the fact that they are popular pots. The Bonsai pictured above did what it was intended to do. It was provocative just like "The Fountain" was. People will continue to debate its merits and will bring more people to Bonsai. New trends will come from new Bonsai enthusiasts.

One of Jun's work.

kimo wrote:
One of Jun's work.

None too visually appealing either. I'm behind Vance and Jim on this one.
Trees grow out of junk all of the time. In junkyards.

Walter Pall wrote: It will go into the history of bonsai art because it is the clearest statement so far that proves that bonsai is an art form.

Walter, I am curious as to why you identify this particular tree / exhibit as a landmark equivalent to the Fountain.

Why not some of Nick Lenz's work, for example?

Tom wrote:

Walter Pall wrote: It will go into the history of bonsai art because it is the clearest statement so far that proves that bonsai is an art form.

Walter, I am curious as to why you identify this particular tree / exhibit as a landmark equivalent to the Fountain.

Why not some of Nick Lenz's work, for example?

This IS some of Nick Lenz' work as David Crust is his student. Nick unfortunately never had a chance to show this one piece in a major art show as far as I know. If so at least it had  made no impact. This one does. It is futile to look for the one who did anything before already. There is ALWAYS someone who has done similar before. It is only important to see who made the impact which lasts for a long time. Do you think no one has ever tried abstract art up to Picasso? Probably you could find evidence in Roman ruins. Some pictures in Roman villas of 2,000 years ago show clearly impressionistic features. Did they make an impact? NO.

I am not pillorying anyone for the work or the hutzpah it took to make it and display it.  I have always said that bonsai is a peculiar bird that will only fly a certain way.  Bonsai is almost like the evolution of the shark where once achieving a particular form has not changed much in Millions of year.  What determines whether or not some of this crap-a-la-bonsai becomes successful as bonsai is one question, whether or not it becomes successful as "Modern Art" is another.  I guess it begs the question: What does the hoy-paloy think and what will they ultimately support.  Will people go to an art museum and approve of a toilet with a tree growing out of it, and more importantly; will the museum take the time and expense to care for the tree to make certain that the image of the artist's creation is preserved?  After all, what is important to them; the toilet or the tree?  It still comes down to what do I think and as  I am sure there are many out there that would disagree with what I think.  But I think I do not like this.......Personally.

Again; as a bonsai under the parameters I have described earlier, this image is, at best, expressive and maybe metaphorically correct, in that it has, in my eyes, put an attempt at "bonsai art" in it's proper place,------- in my opinion. Understanding that bonsai is a living thing that must be cared for it is almost impossible for the "Bonsai Art" to continue as it was created. "Bonsai Art" in my opinion, for what thats worth, is more a parody than an expression of an idea that is more important than graffiti.

Hmm, Art ?

A Fine Artist is at least 7 years of training in -

[a] Drawing from Life - 3 hrs daily 5 days a week.
At the end of the session [ 7 days to a month ] you are required to draw the image from memory, to see what you learnt.]

[b] Paint from life for 3 hrs daily - repeat of above.

[c ] Study Art History at least 2 hrs daily by the week

[d ] Study Art Philosophy - same as above.

[e] Discuss Composition / Pattern / Negative Space and so on

c, d, e are also expected to be written work. To be given marks from 100 to Zero.

Imaginative work is Research, as Scientists do.

You are expected to match or equal this -

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_chs2_7PGBEU/TU63H5y7QEI/AAAAAAAAAL0/agby4qbjVak/s1600/Correggio_Rest.jpg

___________________________________________________________

Bonsai is ..................................
Bonsai efforts require technology to show, as the trees outgrow the design - holograhic use.

How many of those Bonsai Masters even study Composition or Sculpture ?

It will take a while for the West to fuse back on the Art Studies to get past Triangles and mere technique, as is mostly seen today.

History decides what is Art, not lots of words.
Bonsai creations can be Fine Art, but not with memories, words or simple photographs.

Basically you folk are shooting off your foot.

Much more will be expected than copies of crap like DuChamps toidy, done tongue in cheek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Lots of words.

If a painting / sculpture needs words to explain it, it is a failure.
http://www.italianrenaissance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Michelangelo-pieta.jpg

If you are going to do something at least let it be noble and enlightening to the mind of the viewer.
Avant guarde --------------- rubbish.
Laters.
Khaimraj ---------- the one with lantern in daylight looking for honesty.

And why was the Artisans Cup then in the largest art museum of Oregon? Bonsai in an art museum!! Impossible you say.
It probably was a typically Ameican mistake of the museum directors who have mistaken bonsai as art.

Walter Pall wrote:And why was the Artisans Cup then in the largest art museum of Oregon? Bonsai in an art museum!! Impossible you say.
It probably was a typically Ameican mistake of the museum directors who have mistaken bonsai as art.

I agree with you Walter. Understanding that people are coming up with Bonsai planted like this, with more frequency, it is foolish to argue that this is not art. It most certainly is art and though I may not like it-----it is none the less art. The problem I have with it is the tendency of those who approach bonsai from the view-point of the traditional, by the book rules and sensibilities, to get out the hanging ropes pitch forks and fire brands; then march on the castle.

The problem I have with those who put bonsai in toilets, while boasting this is the new direction in bonsai, to totally disregard the spiritual foundation of the art and the possibilities of keeping this display alive and as intended for many generations. It is perhaps on this point hangs the conundrum. A bonsai in the traditional understanding of the beast is supposed to get better as it changes over time under the care of a master. A bonsai in a toilet may be living a display that symbolizes its own future. The fact that it does do that is what makes it art but does it make it a new direction in bonsai that should be emulated? Do we want, or appreciate, what in our views could be a very nice tree, understand that within a year it will be dead just to make a point?

Over the years bonsai has been meant to symbolize the longevity of the life of trees and the spiritual feelings they arouse in our minds and hearts in seeing them. I have trouble liking the symbolism of a bonsai in a toilet. At best, it is a cynical metaphor, that I personally do not like. I already believe that our culture is in the crapper, I don't need the one escape I appreciate to remind me of this fact.

Vance Wood wrote:...bonsai in toilets, while boasting this is the new direction in bonsai,...

personally, i do not believe anyone, not even the toilet or vacuum artists, are boasting that to be the new direction...

i believe the "bonsainistas" are simply showing what is possible, and dare say even acceptable, albeit in the extreme.

i do not know art theory, but these extreme examples may actually help some folks take even small steps in expanding what they feel they can do, which may not exactly follow the rule book (or as walter says: john naka's old and new testaments)

again - how liberating !

as an aside:
vance - i truly admire your reasonable stance on this...
politicians (among others) should take note.

Thank you, gentleman, for the thought provoking discussion...but I have one question:

Take Beauty away from the Beast.....and would she be as beautiful or memorable?

Your thoughts....?

Norma

Ha Ha,
History decides what is Art, time and more time.

Beauty, Norma, can be terrible [ as a storm or a historic battle ] or as gentle as a stream, passing through a meadow.
To quote - Beauty is Truth and Truth Beauty ..................."

As I said, good to see the efforts being made.

And controversy will always spark a discussion - chuckle [ eh Walter ] Wasn't that what you were hoping for?
Getting cold on your side, cabin fever ?
Laters
Khaimraj [ Chief instigator as Mum always put it.]

Have to point out that the vacuum is the stand, not the pot. Crust's tree is not comparable to a tree in a toilet. Duchamp was making one giant statement. This one is both personal and charming: evincing none of the impatience M.D.felt about general ideas of what art was or was not.

George Dawson.

Greetings Khaimraj,
I used the metaphor of "Beauty and the Beast" (a child's story) symbolically. Would the larch be as beautiful in a bonsai pot and in your opinion, have the same distinction in this show, if had been ?

Thank you for your thoughts,
Norma