Branch or not branch, that´s the question

Russell Coker wrote:

David Cortizas wrote:The tree today without wire.

Yep, I'd cut off that branch and change the pots so fast your head would explode!!!!

Now, I'd PAY to see a demo like that!

From looking at your last photo I'm wondering if some (or all) of what appears to be downward growth on that branch is just due to the photo perspective? You're definitely looking downward into the pot on the last photo. Can you re-take the photo from a distance using zoom to get close, and from a level near or just below the mid-point of the tree? I think that's the standard way to take photos that have minimal distortion.

Or you can just ignore me! I don't mind...

Chris

.

Thanks for posting those! Amazing how much different that branch looks from the various viewpoints. The last photo shows that it's really quite flat. So I guess how you treat that branch depends on where you expect people to be looking at it from...maybe it doesn't need much adjusting.

BTW, I did like the suggestion that was made to bring some of the back foliage over more to left, to help fill the gap above the lowest branch.

Chris

In the style that you are making this tree I think you should keep the low branch - without it the tree is quite mundane IMO. However, there is a branch near the apex that goes up-and-to-the-left which I find very distracting even in foliage. From the picture I think the tree would be much better if you just cut it off but there may be a better way to be rid of that "up-and-to-the-left thingie".

I voted to keep the branch but I don't see it working with your present style of tree. In my opinion the branch structure is far too flat in the horizontal and for a deciduous tree this is wrong. I would personally re wire the whole tree and lift/ prune the branches to give them some vertical movement. You can then create more of a secondary head or tree from the new stucture in that branch. It would then tie in better with the rest of the tree. I have done a quick sketch to better explain my idea.

Ah... Have just seen the other thread of the same tree which originally had the kind of thing I was talking about........ I'll get my coat

I agree with Will,the bottom branch only works if you create the tree like his picture.

mike page wrote:The tree would be out of balance without the bottom branch.

I agree with Mike, without the branch the right side of the trees looks heavier, if you cut the tree you have to reposition the tree (till to the left a few degrees)

.

David Cortizas wrote:

I'd vote to lose it... However the only other solition for me would be to approach graft a whip onto that branch. Giving it its own roots. Cut the branch off and peg it back in slightly higher up the trunk(an inch or 2 depending on the size of the tree)
They'd be information on doing that on the web somewhere for sure!!!

Thanks
Bryan

I like Wills' idea. Shortening the branch and allowing the upward twigs to fill in the space will balance the tree and also reflect the nature of an elm. The only other thing you can do is to in-arch a sapling on that branch and move it a bit higher after fusion but then you just end up with an "ordinary" tree.

MY opion only !!do not lose the bottom branch !! to me that branch makes balence to the tree.. grow it the way you like it to fill it in but keep the branch..i really like this tree... take care john

Maybe it's more where to stop at the top than what to remove at the bottom...

I woul cut and change the front - looks more balanced to me

In my opinion, the important point is not to cut or not cut because none will be better or worse. Both, if ideally set, will convey different mood, different mimic, different expression, then depends which expression you want to pass on to the viewer.

Style in bonsai is simply a pose, just like how I want to set my body movement for a photograph. Different placement of my hands, my legs and my head will give different pose with different mimic. So on this bonsai, either choice, you just need to re-compose all the physical elements in a hormony formation with good visual balance..then I think both will look as good.

If you don't cut the left branch, then you need to lift up a little bit, lean slightly to the right, re-shape the foliage pads...



But if you cut it, you need to reset the movement by leaning more to the right, reposition to a smaller pot, rearrange the foliage pads, reposition the crown slightly to the left, then I think it looks nice as well with different expression.

Robert Steven wrote:In my opinion, the important point is not to cut or not cut because none will be better or worse. Both, if ideally set, will convey different mood, different mimic, different expression, then depends which expression you want to pass on to the viewer.

Style in bonsai is simply a pose, just like how I want to set my body movement for a photograph. Different placement of my hands, my legs and my head will give different pose with different mimic. So on this bonsai, either choice, you just need to re-compose all the physical elements in a hormony formation with good visual balance..then I think both will look as good.

If you don't cut the left branch, then you need to lift up a little bit, lean slightly to the right, re-shape the foliage pads...



But if you cut it, you need to reset the movement by leaning more to the right, reposition to a smaller pot, rearrange the foliage pads, reposition the crown slightly to the left, then I think it looks nice as well with different expression.

Excellent explanation Robert!!!

Thanks Rob, looking forward to more pictures from your Japan tour, so sad for not coming. Have a good time and give my best regards to our friends...

.

David Cortizas wrote:

This design is unbalanced to the right too, is a good design for a juniper but no for a deciduous tree

Visual balance in bonsai design is not only on the tree position, but the overall composition including the potting position, that's why I pot it to the left to give the achoring effect.

And why not for a deciduous tree ?

.

Thanks Robert.

Your second virt is what I've been trying to say all along. Beautiful and dynamic - and "dances"!

Thanks Russell.

You are welcome David, but I am still wondering when you said this design does not fit deciduous tree...

.

David Cortizas wrote:Ok. Show me from a Japanese exhibition ulmus or maple with your design.

Why should I design following what had been done by the Japanese ? How many deciduous trees available in Japan (nature ?) and how many deciduous bonsai has been done by Japanese artists ?

If you are traveling to different tropical countries, you will see unlimited deciduos tree shape in the nature with their physiological and morphological reasons. One of the most basic differences between connifers and deciduous tree is on the apical meristerm. Connifers are apical dominant and deciduous are not. Apart of that, you can design whatever style with your deciduous tree with logical natural fact.

BTW, I am sorry to say that the most common mistake is that many people design their deciduous bonsai like connifers with the single-line apex/crown..with the references of Japanese bonsai design. Maple and Ulmus are not the only deciduos trees...

Thanks to your thought any way...