pots by Mateusz Grobelny

Hello Andrija

Sorry....that was a misinterpretation of your post!

Kind regards
Martin

Am I to do it or not?...nevermind.

Mugo Pine in a pot of Matheusz Grobelny.
The tree became its first styling recently, so far away from exhibition stage and the crown is only a sketch at the moment.





Best regards,
Marco

MerschelMarco wrote:Am I to do it or not?...nevermind.

Mugo Pine in a pot of Matheusz Grobelny.
The tree became its first styling recently, so far away from exhibition stage and the crown is only a sketch at the moment.

Just do it.
I have seen your mugo this Saturday, and I like it very much.

Looks very good! Maybe only some little changes like on virtual if is technically possible.

All I see is a magnificent pine growing out of something that looks like a hornet's nest. To me these "pots" desrtoy the beauty of the tree/pot composition, but I know you all don't see it that way.

R

MerschelMarco wrote:Am I to do it or not?...nevermind.

Mugo Pine in a pot of Matheusz Grobelny.
The tree became its first styling recently, so far away from exhibition stage and the crown is only a sketch at the moment.





Best regards,
Marco

Hi Marco,
I like what you have don with this not so easy Pine, you have a way of looking at bonsai that I realy like! Well don again Marco!!
Now about this pot choice.
First of all: I have nothing against Grobelny pots and I am sure that he is a great artist at what he those, so that's not why I am reacting to your post. Now I have to admit, that of all the Grobelny pot/ tree combo's I have seen in this ongoing post, this one comes closes to acceptable. Proportionally correct that is!
I know that I probably will be upsetting some people that realy like us to like these pot/tree combinations, but again it just dont work! Instead of highlighting the tree, this pot is screaming out for attention! The multi gray colored very busy structure is competing with the beautiful color and roughness of that lovely old bark and deadwood. And although this pot size is more or less the size you would choose for a regular pot, it still looks real massive and heavy! Again drawing all the attention to the pot. This pot, how pretty it may be, is not suited as a pot for this very promising tree! Why this need to mimic nature in miniature, if it devalues the beauty of this stunning tree? Instead of planting it in a simpler pot that compliments it? All sense of proportion are lost in most the examples posted here, that cant be right, or those it?! And that all for the sake of being contemporary. In most cases these explicit pots have diminished the potential of the trees that were planted in it. This is a shame for those trees and is bad for Matheuze Groelny's art as well! It is perfectly fine if you are a big fan of these extreme pots, but realise this, if you plant a Bonsai in it, it has to be absolutely perfect for the overall design, otherwise it will just look wrong. Taste you can discus, but things like open spaces, balance and proportions not! They apply even in contemporary art!
Just my simple point of view!
Cheers,
Hans van Meer.

I am so happy. We have bought 4 Mateusz's pots. In nature they look like much better ... something wild is in this pots and that fits fine with trees that has similar character.
Marco, we were also looking this pot, and almost buy it, but we have change our mind because we don't have already tree for it now.

I keep looking at these pots, which are indeed pieces of art and nobody can deny this, and i am trying to imagine the right tree for them.......It may be the fact that most of the masterpieces i have seen are in classic pots but my imagination cannot really provide me with any mental pictures....
I will agree with Hans that these pots distract the attention away from the tree.

This is a shame for those trees and is bad for Matheuze Groelny's art as well! It is perfectly fine if you are a big fan of these extreme pots, but realise this, if you plant a Bonsai in it, it has to be absolutely perfect for the overall design, otherwise it will just look wrong. Taste you can discus, but things like open spaces, balance and proportions not! They apply even in contemporary art!

I just agree with Hans. Also that this bonsai is very well styled in this early stage. I just think a much more impressing image of a strong dramatic tree will be seen if not overruled by the pot, that draws your attention.
I do not understand the eager to make these combinations of tree and pot. Where is the harmony, beauty, simplicity and peace that are fundamental keywords in the art of bonsai. Please study these images and the classic bonsai (Western or Japanese) most of us has admired so much. Why do we see the beauty of the trees? Because we do not look at the pots. They are there to enhance the image, but not to take the scene and the applauds. Just to frame the image and support it; the tree is the headline.

Regards
Morten

MerschelMarco wrote:Am I to do it or not?...nevermind.

Do it , because you want to .

Reading pages of fascinating discussion, I see two main groups of opinions: the traditionalists (I do NOT use this term in an unfavo(u)rable light) and the modernists (I just made up this term).

The traditionalists see the role of bonsai pot very clearly: a picture frame. It should stay out of the picture and not attract any attention at all.

For the above group, Walter's pots are clearly the worst choice, because these pots have a strong individuality: they won't stay out of the picture, in fact they are very much a big part of the overall picture.

The members of the second group (I call them the Modernists) see the role of the pot in a different light: as long as the pot has something meaningful to say (adds an interesting twist to the story), the pot is welcome into the picture. It no longer has to stay out of the picture. The idea is that pottery is an art form that blends very well with bonsai, and it makes a great combination with the tree. Thus the pottery can take a more and more prominent role in the story, becoming a BIG part of the overall image, and sometimes it can even take the main place.

I am the type of person who loves to see the bird's eye view in any controversy, and this one comes down to this simple question:
Do you see Walter's art as traditional bonsai, or as a sculpture that combines tree and ceramics? If you look at these works and try to find the traditional bonsai in them, then you will be disappointed. For the one hundred reasons that are enumerated in this thread.
On the other hand, if you are looking for a new art form that combines tree and pottery, then....you are looking at a great example of this new and exciting experiment. I call it experiment, because it is relatively new. But it may become the art-form in the not so distant future.

So, I recommend that we do not compare apples with oranges and try to argue which one is the best fruit. It is not just a matter of taste. They are entirely different art forms. I suspect that Walter has done so much bonsai in his lifetime, that he now is ready to try something new and exciting. He does not need more attention (everybody in the bonsai world knows him), but rather he is just excited by the great potential of this new art form.
I personally enjoy both the new and the old, and would be happy to have them in my backyard. But I would make sure that they occupy different sections of the area, and would not mix them, because they are different, but not different enough (just as I wouldn't mind mixing paintings with sculptures, but I would never mix classical greek scupltures with modern sculptures).

Atilla, I think you have summarized the thread very well.
I'd have to disagree with the argument that approach 'the pot shouldn't be seen', it should merely be the frame for the tree. Just now, browsing through the book Classic Bonsai of Japan by Nippon Bonsai Association, I find that the trees are very well complemented by the pots and know that great care was taken in choosing pots based on sometimes very subtle subtle variations in shape, color,texture, patina,size, etc. We all marvel at the beautiful pots presented here by our skilled potters. They surely don't think their pots should 'disappear' into the background. I think some of the atypical tree/pot combinations can work very well.

They surely don't think their pots should 'disappear' into the background.

Sorry John....but exactly THAT is "the true goal" we like to achieve....with the traditional pots.

The pot is "perfect" if you find a unique breath or touch of beauty on the second or third view!

Unfortunately its far from easy not to overdue a finish!

Kind regards
Klaudia

Klaudia & Martin wrote:

They surely don't think their pots should 'disappear' into the background.

Sorry John....but exactly THAT is "the true goal" we like to achieve....with the traditional pots.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

Klaudia, I'm horrified a potter as gifted as you would make such a comment! If that were true we wouldn't care so passionately about pots - and wouldn't even be having this discussion.

And, by the way, I'd take any of your pots (or anyone's really) over one of those Matheuze Groelny pieces of fossilized dinosaur poop any day of the week! I think that in just a few years you all will be asking each other "What the hell were we thinking? We spent how much money on this??"

R

John Quinn wrote:Atilla, I think you have summarized the thread very well.
I'd have to disagree with the argument that approach 'the pot shouldn't be seen', it should merely be the frame for the tree..

Well, I didn't really mean literally that the pot should be invisible. I know that we take great care when choosing a pot. But when I listen to the words and phrases describing the role of the pot, I hear a lot of "should not compete, should not stand out, should not clash, should complement, should be subdued, should be subtle, earth-coloured". Basically, the tree is the subject and the pot is the ambiance. Important, but very limited role. There are so many restrictions placed on a traditional pot, that it is a small miracle that they still exist.

In our case in discussion, the pot is elevated to a much more prominent role, than being the background music or a glorified mount. As I looked at those images provided by Walter, the pot/tree combination took on a landscape quality. In some cases, the pot reminded me of a cliff or a large rock, with the tree growing on it. Instead of contrasting with the rugged tree, or providing a background for it, it added to the ruggedness, resonating with it. It's just a different synergy, than in the case of a traditional pot.

But I have to admit that I didn't like the wooden pot either. Especially since Fiona mentioned that it looked like a pig.

Just a small clarification of my pot comments. Stating that the pot should be in the background of the image supporting/framing the tree may be interpreted as the pot should be as dull as possible. Not true, but harmony with the tree is the main focus. A few examples.

The kind of pot we discuss is large. It is light in colour. These two facts make it draw attention to it, rather than leading the eye to the tree. A darker pot will tone down the attraction to the eye, but these pots are almost all light coloured and used for trees with dark trunks and darker leaf. If suitable for anything, they would do better for deciduous and fruiting/flowering trees, except that the style is far too expressive and odd, not in harmony with such a tree.

If the pots were small pots like for Shohin e.g., they may work far better because the size matters (also in bonsai). Still they would look to clumpy I think, but maybe? A large pot over expresses it self being so expressive in style.
In Shohin you can use a lot more dynamic looking pots because they seem less because of the small size. Also in Shohin very coloured pots works, because they are placed together in groups, and therefore are toned down. If you scaled the many shohin pots up in size they would look terrible with larger trees.
Like putting a colour to a wall, it really matters if it is a large wall or a small area painted. This changes the impression of the same colour tremendously.

In photography, stills or video, a light point or a red colour will always attract the viewers eye. This you can use very strongly to attract the eye to a specific part of the picture. The light colour at these odd shaped pots draws the attention away from the tree, not towards it. What is the point of doing so, if any? Are the combination of tree and pot in focus or is it merely the want for something new and something that can make the piece stand out? The tree should manage that, just helped by the pot, not opposite.

A pot can be more or less formal, depending on the purpose. But the main purpose in bonsai is always to enhance the beauty and expression of the tree. It is not about taking attention away from the tree. That has no sense.
The pot can add dynamic to a powerfull tree, or it can enhance the peace and silence of a feminine elegant tree. Thats the purpose of the pot.

Best regards
Morten

Russell Coker wrote: Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Klaudia, I'm horrified a potter as gifted as you would make such a comment! If that were true we wouldn't care so passionately about pots - and wouldn't even be having this discussion.
... ... ...

Perhaps, the answer is in this quote which may have slipped attention...

Klaudia & Martin wrote: Sorry John....but exactly THAT is "the true goal" we like to achieve....with the traditional pots.
The pot is "perfect" if you find a unique breath or touch of beauty on the second or third view! ... ... ...

First view pertaining de jure to the tree, second or third view to the pot!

Attila's contribution has really enlightened me. Now I understand better what I am doing and why I am doing this.

Look at the generally accepted codes for dressing in 'better' circles:

Men dress so that the dressing is not seen. Nobody should notice their suit. A colored tie is the most that is allowed.
Women are allowed to dress a lot more fanciful. It is perfectly OK to see what she is wearing first.

Same with the two worlds of pot taste that Attila describes.

Morten Albek wrote:Just a small clarification of my pot comments. Stating that the pot should be in the background of the image supporting/framing the tree may be interpreted as the pot should be as dull as possible. Not true, but harmony with the tree is the main focus. A few examples.

The kind of pot we discuss is large. It is light in colour. These two facts make it draw attention to it, rather than leading the eye to the tree. A darker pot will tone down the attraction to the eye, but these pots are almost all light coloured and used for trees with dark trunks and darker leaf. If suitable for anything, they would do better for deciduous and fruiting/flowering trees, except that the style is far too expressive and odd, not in harmony with such a tree.

If the pots were small pots like for Shohin e.g., they may work far better because the size matters (also in bonsai). Still they would look to clumpy I think, but maybe? A large pot over expresses it self being so expressive in style.
In Shohin you can use a lot more dynamic looking pots because they seem less because of the small size. Also in Shohin very coloured pots works, because they are placed together in groups, and therefore are toned down. If you scaled the many shohin pots up in size they would look terrible with larger trees.
Like putting a colour to a wall, it really matters if it is a large wall or a small area painted. This changes the impression of the same colour tremendously.

In photography, stills or video, a light point or a red colour will always attract the viewers eye. This you can use very strongly to attract the eye to a specific part of the picture. The light colour at these odd shaped pots draws the attention away from the tree, not towards it. What is the point of doing so, if any? Are the combination of tree and pot in focus or is it merely the want for something new and something that can make the piece stand out? The tree should manage that, just helped by the pot, not opposite.

A pot can be more or less formal, depending on the purpose. But the main purpose in bonsai is always to enhance the beauty and expression of the tree. It is not about taking attention away from the tree. That has no sense.
The pot can add dynamic to a powerfull tree, or it can enhance the peace and silence of a feminine elegant tree. Thats the purpose of the pot.

Best regards
Morten

Could not said it better myself
Walter will you try to get one of this creations submitted to The Noelanders trophy this year?

Peter

Attila Soos wrote:
In our case in discussion, the pot is elevated to a much more prominent role, than being the background music or a glorified mount. As I looked at those images provided by Walter, the pot/tree combination took on a landscape quality. In some cases, the pot reminded me of a cliff or a large rock, with the tree growing on it. Instead of contrasting with the rugged tree, or providing a background for it, it added to the ruggedness, resonating with it. It's just a different synergy, than in the case of a traditional pot.

Definitely. This is close up of the Walter´s pot.

landerloos wrote:
Walter will you try to get one of this creations submitted to The Noelanders trophy this year?

Peter

Peter, whenever one of these creations is mature I will show it on major exhibits. I never 'try to submit'. I am used to show whatever I like. This is so in all major exhibits and it was so on the Gingko Award.

A similar example of the tree-pot combination would be of the orchestra and the solo singer. One should complete and enhance each other's performance, not the other way around. If a pot can do that to a tree and vice versa, then we have balance, an enhanced synthesis.
A question i keep asking myself : Once balance is achieved does it really matter if the pot is a classic one, a modern one does it really matter at the end of the day??

Very interesting discussion. I did read it very careful from beginning to the end. I’m new in the bonsai world and I really don’t think that it is necessary to express one more personal like or non-like opinion of a pot...especially if it is from a newcomer.

But there is usually always a but.......so here is the but...

I think I understand some things about art, design, visual communication,... and I strongly believe that what really matters in art, are the basics and the natural evolution of art. For instance the abstract art in its true meaning evolved from some artist who painted some realistic paintings to the real point of perfection and then got bored, discovered new dimensions and evolved to abstraction. Of course there are some artist who dint know a lot about basics of painting and skipped this part of evolution and declared them for abstract painters. Basically there is nothing wrong whit that, but only time showed which abstract paintings had some real art value and which didn’t.

I think the same goes for bonsai art. There are some simple basic ground truths (not rules) which ware discovered true time and I think that there is no bonsai master who can grow over the art of bonsai...at least not in one live.

As Andrija I can see the same problem at the right side of the pot. Something has to be done there. Here is a try.



Regards,
Marco

Morten Albek wrote:...harmony with the tree is the main focus.

We have to be careful using the definition of "harmony" with the traditional bonsai pots. Harmony means "joint agreement", "to fit together". The term originated in music, and was expanded to arts in general. Harmony does not exlude drawing attention. Two objects, as well as two sounds, can draw equal attention, and be in harmony at the same time.

This clearly does not apply to a traditional bonsai pot, which cannot draw much attention. So, the term harmony is used incorrectly, when referring to bonsai pots. I would rather call it "harmony with a lot of strings attached", or "harmony combined with unconditional surrender".