Dwarf Hinoki Falsecypress

From the collection of the NC Arboretum:

[img][/img]

This Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Nana Gracilis' bonsai was originally in the collection of Dr. Bev Armstrong in Charlotte, NC, and I think he purchased it from Chase Rosade sometime in the 1970's. Dr. Armstrong donated it to the Arboretum in 1997. Here is a picture of the same tree from 2000:



I was surprised to read in another thread on this site that some people think of this variety as "difficult". I had never heard it described so before, and personal experience doesn't support that view. Although there are easier plants to work with, Hinoki's do not require any extraordinary measures to grow, shape or maintain. The cultivated forms, such as 'Nana Gracilis', do grow slowly, and they do not favor a lot of heat or extreme cold. Maybe that's where the difficulty lies. Here, we have used them several times as material for beginner-level workshops. They are excellent, and fairly traditional, subjects for bonsai.

Lovely tree, thanks for sharing.

My favourite species as well. Hinokis do not back bud on old wood that is why it has fallen out of favour for many practitioners. However, as you and I know they can be tamed using the proper combination of pruning and pinching.

AJ –

Thanks for posting these images. I have always been fond of this species and cultivar as well. However, I am willing to concede that the uniformly cool and moist climate of San Francisco may be responsible for the relative ease of cultivating these here (goodness knows it’s responsible for making the cultivation of many other bonsai “standards” beastly!)

I need to say though that I much prefer the positioning of this tree as it was donated by Dr. Armstrong, than that shown for 2000. The new pot is much better than the old, but why was the tree turned around (or so it seems)? This causes the branching patterns to be far less elegant. Perhaps it was for horticultural rather than display purposes? The tree is shown growing against a wall, and therefore would require a periodic “round-the-block.”

Nice tree none-the-less. It’s quiet and elegant. I like that! I can see in it the image of my ideal tree – healthy and vital, life-giving and life-sustaining. Not a tortured remnant.

Thanks again,
David Brunner

David Brunner wrote:
I need to say though that I much prefer the positioning of this tree as it was donated by Dr. Armstrong, than that shown for 2000. The new pot is much better than the old, but why was the tree turned around (or so it seems)

As far as I can tell it was not turned around. The first branch on the right in the 2000 pic was removed (or perhaps died). I prefer the newer image, but mostly for noticeable increase in refinement. I probably would have removed that branch... not too attractive how it emerged from the trunk with that awkward bow...

Hi Arthur... I agree with David in prefering the original orientation. To my eye, the tree now is tilted to an awkward degree.

Hi Arthur, good job as usual with the care of this tree. I had the same idea as Dr. John, to me the tree looks more comfortable in the pot in John's vert. Good call John.
Ken

These (suggested) changes are so subtle yet very rewarding and it should not be a problem putting them into place during the next repotting.

Thanks to those who have offered their comments. I'd like to briefly respond to my friend John's suggestion about changing the angle of the tree - Obviously, I disagree with your idea. As you know me, so you know the tree looks the way it looks by intent, and not by mistake or failure to consider other possibilities. As I know you, I respect your knowledge and ability, so I don't demean your idea. I just like my own better.

The tree when I first encountered it was nice enough, but I felt it was ordinary. It was a healthy specimen, mature and well grown, but its styling was too conventional. Rather than spend the next couple of hours writing a thousand words about it, let me draw you a picture. Here, reduced to a simple geometric pattern, is how the tree was originally designed:

[img][/img]

This image is recognizable as a tree, specifically a bonsai tree, but it is a dull composition. It will not hold a viewer's attention for long. To remedy this situation, after several years of living with the bonsai as it was, growing it and maintaining it, studying it and thinking about it, I undertook to alter its basic design. The lower branch on the right side, the primary branch of the old design, was removed altogether. All of the branches were thinned out, and their lengths were altered to create greater interest in the way they related to each other. The front of the tree was changed by a very slight rotation counter-clockwise, to bring the lower branch on the left side slightly more forward and to give a more flattering view of the lower trunk (which remains a weak point in the tree's composition.) Finally, the trunk was tilted slightly to the left and a different pot was chosen. The tilting of the trunk improved the view of the base of the tree, which was another inherent problem for this particular specimen, but more importantly, it created more "drama" in the composition. To borrow a phrase from bonsai smart-guy David DeGroot, changing the angle of the trunk increased the "tension" of the design. So, a simple geometric rendering of the tree's current design looks like this:

[img][/img]

The degree to which all this has been thought out is reflected in the choice of container and where the tree is placed in it. The pot is deeper than what would typically be used for a tree with the trunk diameter that this hinoki has, and it's rectangular. The intention was to create a strong, stable base for the composition. The tree is potted to the extreme right side in order to balance the sharp movement of the trunk to left.

All this may be of little interest to most people, but for me, as the designer of this tree, it makes the whole business much more interesting. Standing the tree more upright would make it look more conventional, and this would no doubt be more appealing to many people. Standing the tree more upright would relieve some of the tension, and then it wouldn't feel "awkward" to my friend John, and it would be more "comfortable" to my friend Ken. But relaxing the tension would make the composition less dynamic, and less individualistic, and that would make the tree less enjoyable for me.

In the end, we have to please ourselves in these creative ventures.

Good reply Arthur, I knew You had a reason for the way this tree was planted. I have done this myself with some trees that do not have a lot of interest, by making it a slanting style instead of a more upright tree, it adds interest. But I think that this tree has interest either way, very nice Bonsai.
That is so true that we have to please ourselves with our trees, that is the most important thing.
Ken

In my mind, there's a difference between dynamic movement and visual instability. The angle of the trunk could work very well to produce dynamic movement, but the branches on the right are angled up while the branches on the left are angled down or level. This produces an image of visual instability, as though it were one good windstorm away from falling over. If the branches on the right were brought down to level or below (conveying age as well), then the image would be that of dynamic movement and struggle.

Just my opinion and worth the price paid.
Kindest~
-d

The branch structure and refinement is far more interesting now than in the original composition so that goal was achieved. But I agree about the feeling of instability. The branches are not angled believably for the inclination of the trunk. They should be a little closer to level at least near the tips, and the apex should be more upright, like a tree that is compensating for it's lean by continuing to grow upright. This would create dynamic tension. The two elements of gravity and tree fighting each other. As it is I believe the tree simply looks like it is in the process of falling over.

Velodog2 and DaveP, thank you for taking the time to post your comments. I have carefully considered what you have written, then gone out to look at the tree in question and thought again about your suggestions. I want to be certain that I am understanding you correctly. So I have made a sketch of the tree (sort of like an old fashioned virtual), attempting to incorporate your ideas. Please look at my sketch below and let me know if I am on the right track (I don't expect to produce the exact thing you are describing, but let me know if I'm in the ballpark.)

[img][/img]

I like your sketch very much.

Hi AJ,

Your sketch is fairly close to the image I had in mind. Here's a rough virtual of what I was thinking. Obviously this could be better executed with detail wiring, as you've shown in your sketch. The branches on the right have been pulled down and shortened. The apex was reduced a little on the left side.



Kindest~
-d