American Bonsai at the NC Arboretum

Arthur,
I love that you have brought to light the western art of trees for us to contemplate in our endeavors to create artistic bonsai.  I for one, have had a long time interest in the subject and there is one painter that I have recently come to appreciate which has a small following in the bonsai community, Jacobus Pierneef.  His art has influenced the bonsai artists in South Africa which is understandable as he (Pireneef) painted the South African Landscape in the early 20th century.  There are only a handful of example trees done in that style (a published bonsai style) none of which are in any of the publicly maintained bonsai collections in the world outside of South Africa and I'm not sure even there.  There are many fine paintings by Pierneff that are inspirational, at least to me anyway, that have inspired me to embark on a path to create one.  Below I have included a typical example of his work.  The image is in the public domain so having it here should not be problematical.

Pierneef 1945

In addition I would add, that there are many avenues that could be traveled by bonsai artists to not only interpret painted art into a living piece of artwork, but also to use plant material as a medium to express an idea or concept that goes beyond trees in nature.  In my old age, I have embarked on some work in this area with results to be had in a few more years, god willing!. I for one, would love to see other bonsai artists express their ideas on this little discussed topic.  Thanks so much for your entry into this area of bonsai ART.

For Arthur -

You also posted one of my favourite Chinese painters - Ma Lin, and Europeans - Caspar Friedrich, Jakob van Ruysdael,
Ruysdael was someone I used to worship at the Uffizi.

Can't grow oaks, so I mess around with Indoor Oaks [ Buddhelia [ spelling? ] type. chuckle.]
Much thanks,
Khaimraj

Randy - I am still trying to get a catalogue raisonne on Pierneef, Very rythmic work.

Jakob van Ruysdael - An oak



An oak drawing

Doug - As I have never witnessed any sarcastic tendency in you, I will have to conclude you are in earnest and thank you for your kind (albeit mysterious) comments! I am glad you enjoyed looking through the gallery of painted tree images, and I hope others did, as well.

Randy - Thank you for your post, and for bringing the work of Jacobus Pierneef to my attention. I have for a while now heard reference in bonsai circles to "Pierneef trees" and wondered about it. Although I understood the term was used to describe the look of trees shaped by the hungry mouths of giraffes, I did not understand the Pierneef descriptor. Thanks for filling in that blank for me! Elsewhere in your post you suggest the possibility of using bonsai to interpret painted art works, and this surprised me, as such was not my intention in posting the images I did. It is an interesting concept and I am not making any judgment on it, but simply saying my purpose was something different. With today's post I will move a little closer to defining that purpose.

Comrade Khamraij - I thought you, with your formal training in art, might find this subject of tree images enticing! Friedrich and van Ruysdael, yes, and I would add Corot to the list - these were painters who indeed spent some time studying trees! More about them later...

The other day, while I was on Wikimedia Commons looking at tree images, I stumbled across a collection of drawings by young people, filed together under the heading of "Vale Youth Art Project". Here I saw a collection of pictures produced at a middle school in Colorado back in 2004, where students had received a presentation about the US Bureau of Land Management and then were asked to make paintings inspired by what they had learned. Looking through these pictures I realized a few of them make useful examples to illustrate a couple of points I think have great relevance to bonsai design.

Picture #1:



This image can be seen as typical of a child's drawing of a tree, albeit one done with more artistic talent than is usually the case. The tree is presented in the classic "lollipop" form - a fat stick for a trunk, a ball of green on top for the crown.


Picture #2:



Here is another painting of a subject quite the same as the previous one. It shows a deciduous tree in a field, at some point during the growing season. Looking past such matters as compositional skill or technical ability in handling the medium, and focusing instead on just the simple representation of a tree, what do you notice? To my thinking, the student who painted picture #2 has a better understanding of how a tree is actually put together. A logical (although not unquestionable) assumption is that this young person had been more observant of trees, and so when they made their painting more of that tree information found its way into the picture.

Ever wonder what those lollipop trees, like picture #1, look like as a winter silhouette?


Picture #3:



So, we have a fat stick for a trunk, leading up to what? Not a ball of green, because the leaves have fallen off for the winter, but rather a ball of smaller sticks representing twigs. This is logical, in that most people know leaves are attached to twigs and branches, so when the leaves are gone that is what we see.


Picture #4:



Here, again, we have an image of a tree that contains more accurate information regarding the anatomy of real trees. This student realizes there is something between the trunk and the twigs that connects them, that there is a transition between the one fat stick and the many smaller sticks. Moreover, they accurately convey that there is a step-down transition, that there are what we in bonsai might refer to as primary, secondary and tertiary branches, and all these together form the crown of a tree. Giving this young person the credit they deserve, they also incorporated in their tree image a sense of taper to the trunk and texture to the bark, and a graceful, almost lyrical sweep to the branching, which is certainly designed but not obviously contrived. I think this student's work exhibited a well developed understanding of basic tree structure, in addition to some respectable artistic skills.

Understand a distinction is being made here between tree knowledge and artistry. Ranking these images in terms of tree knowledge, I would say that #4 is the best, followed by #2, then #3, and lastly #1. Artistically, I would order them this way: #4, #1, #3, #2. The point being that it is possible to create an image that is artistic without it being well informed by observation of physical reality. A lollipop tree image can be executed in such a way that it has artistic merit even though it does not have much to offer in terms of conveying an understanding of trees in nature. Of course, it is likewise possible to have a tree image that is accurate in describing the features of trees in nature, but has significant failings as a work of art.

And given these two possibilities, we should not overlook the obvious third possibility - that a work can be simultaneously artistic AND legitimate in truthfully representing botanical reality.

Very well put Arthur! All of these images are intriguing and enjoyable, from the masterpieces to the beginner level.

-- I have been disappointed by most every attempt to come up with percentages in bonsai. Is it 50/50% Horticulture/Art? or 60/40 or 70/30...etc..etc. My argument is that it is 100% horticulture, and 100% art/craft. Truly successful bonsai are alive and healthy because they are cared for correctly; and they represent the image that the owner is attempting to convey because of skilled artistry or craftsmanship. To have a truly well structured bonsai one must be able to master both sides of the coin. You can't have one without the other in bonsai. So to me, they are 100/100

I was originally taught that bonsai is 90% horticulture and 10% art... I have rebelled against this from the very beginning... Though I do understand the logic behind the statement, I don't want my trees to only be 10% artistic...lol

Arthur, Dan,

health is the most important situation, but as to what comes next ......................???????????????????????????????

A celtis in a tin can is still a tree, and it can be healthy, even if it has no attempt at a design, it is still a tree.
It might also make the owner content.

Does one really have to display trees ?
Gain approval from other than the owner?

When those children did these paintings, were they expressed feelings, or to be exhibited / competition work?

The only time paintings have to impress is if they are to be sold.
The most sincere compliment is when someone buys a painting.

So if the owner is content with a healthy tree in a tin can ????????????????

Wishing to display is when Design takes over, has to fit the Exhibitions rules, to impress.

A long while ago, I discovered that I could draw certain trees into a design and then just grow the seed or cutting into the drawing. The drawing uses mass for branchlet/ leaf zones, as these can be a multitude of angles that would still satisfy the eye. Mostly seen in shrubs that hedge by the way, more choices per response to a cut.

So as the IBC functions, what is more important than health. It takes 7 years of training at an Atelier to get enough drawing, painting, philosophy and so on under the belt. Then we get the JOB title Fine Artist, but as I have said before only History will say if we had anything to say, to be contemplated.

So my choice would have been #1. Why, because it pure innocence [ health ] and not trying to be anything else.
The tree loves the sun and the wind/air to grow well.
Which is how I grew to love trees.
They also give refreshing shade/shelter.

My question has always been, when one tries for more than just a Design, the tree will continue to grow and without some sort of record, the great attempt will disappear.
So is it the tree that gives the great Design or the memory recorded ?

For my part, I just continue to use simple designs, and try to keep my trees healthy, and not worry about the ART.
Laters.
Khaimraj

Khaimraj,

I agree that one can pursue bonsai at any level they desire. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone wanting to grow a seedling in a can. It's absolutely true that there is beauty in simple, "innocent" creations.

But, what I'm personally passionate about, is finding, growing and sharing world class trees; trees that will live for generations, passed on from one enthusiast to the next. The phrase "Multi Generational Trees" has been used in the past; Trees that have history, and have been enjoyed by generations of bonsai lovers is the best thing about Japanese bonsai in my opinion, and that's what I want to be part of in the future of American bonsai. When I'm discussing bonsai, studying bonsai, and enjoying bonsai, I'm seeking to grow in my understanding and skill. True, many trees will outgrow their form and eventually lose what they had, but some will be passed on to new hands that will each leave their mark. Many Japanese bonsai show the loving care and work of many different artists, it's up to the current owner to bring out the most beautiful vision they see in a tree at their given time.

I do enjoy even the smallest seedling in my collection, but my goal is to see it become something more. I enjoy my trees for what they are, but also for what the can become.

I would never tell someone their tree was worthless or not good enough for bonsai; BUT, if they asked I would try to help them make it better.

I hope this helps you understand where my point of view is coming from.

I still have a long way to go on this journey. That's why I'm here: to learn from those with more experience, and share the journey with others.

Thanks for the discussion,
Dan

First of all, Thank You Arthur for some very inspirational art work!   
Posting such examples, makes us examine and question our motives for investing our time and creative efforts in Bonsai.
I, for one, believe that this medium in art is perhaps more flexible than some.  That is, if we want to apply the 90% Horticultural to the 10% artistic sensibility rule, it works out okay to a point.  Or, as one responder pointed out, even 100% - 100%!
That is, until you decide to keep a very easy species of tree for your climate/zone.  
So, what happens when a tree is booming on your bench, and growing beyond it's supposed limitations horticulturally?  What happens when this tree, whatever the species, is proving to be especially easy to keep?
Can it be that when the MEDIUM becomes easier to work with - it can free the artist to apply more artistic expression in design to style it?  Such an easy-keeper, or easy to grow type tree then, might be rated at 80%.  Even 70% or less in the horticultural demands of keeping - instead of 90% right?

In other words, it's not always 'Just Growing The Tree'.  
The art and interpretation of the trees we see and are inspired by, MUST have their say.  With no art, our Bonsai Trees could become just simple (sticks) landscape/nursery trees in a pot.

Dan,

over the years I have observed one great truth ---------- very, very few observe trees in nature, and as such never see the ART that they should be drinking in/searching for.

In fact the vast of majority of trees being shown are actually -------- just ------- copies--------of other folks' trees.

In Art History we would call this ----------- Mannerism.

Since I tend in painting towards Idealism/ Realism, I study trees through drawing, and look for the qualities that define a tree type.

Additionally, the ones who claim - Naturalism - are mostly happy design accidents, as you have to go much further to really achieve any real sense of naturalism.

To grow trees with the objective of - ART - requires as much effort as it does to get an oil painting to that level.
To affect the viewer, to get them to contemplate, to stop and drink in the view, to go away with memories/thoughts.
That would require years of growing by a man with a tree, as an oil painting [ by an Old Master ] would take months to years to work on and finally move onto another effort.
[ apologies years of Fine Debate coming through ]

It will not come without observation and lots of sweat, and years.
[ BUT when it grows out of the effort ???????????, how will you know/prove it ?]

Most folk, even professionals, will only achieve --- a hobby.
Art is normally a rarity, taking thousands of opinons by professionals who seriously study and write about Fine Art over a long period of time ----- the History part, I always mention.
Which is why I use simple designs, and have Bonsai as a hobby, too much pressure and why to get to the ART part.
MUCH easier to do an oil painting - chuckle
Laters.
Khaimraj

Thank you to Dan, Khaimraj and Auballagh for their thoughtful contributions to this discussion. I find much to think about and some to agree with in all that was said.

Dan, there is no need to worry about percentages unless it makes you happy to do so. There is a horticultural element to bonsai and an artistic element as well, and both are important and both demand dedication and skill on the part of the grower. We all do well to put forth our best efforts and learn what we can, where we can and how we can, in the fields of both horticulture and art. This much I think is true - the health of the plant is paramount. A healthy plant can always be worked towards artistic improvement, but once the health of the plant is compromised artistic concerns must be put away until the plant is healthy again. An excellently designed dead bonsai is worth nothing much beyond regret.

Khaimraj, I too was an art student once, long ago and far away... I remember those all too earnest and mind-numbing conversations from back then about the meaning of Art and what it takes to be a true Artist. These days I think of engaging in such topics as being about as appealing as the prospect of a colonoscopy. But that is not really a fair comparison, as colonoscopies are not interminable and they typically produce a useful conclusion. When it comes to the matter of debating the subject of bonsai as an Art, I would rather go prune on a tree. Still, there is Art... and then there is art, and there is art enough in bonsai to pay the matter some attention. That is what I am attempting to do with these current posts, and I know you understand this.

Auballagh, my friend, following your train of thought gives me motion sickness! But then I picture you saying all these things and your good nature and enthusiasm more than carry the day. I thank you for reading, and perhaps the next time I see you we can hash it all out. I hope all is going well with your collection.

In my last post I wrote about the issue of observing trees in nature, and how the information gathered by doing this can, but does not have to, inform the work of someone creating visual representations of trees. With this post I want to introduce a related topic, and that is the idea of symbolism, or iconography. That is, a thing that stands to represent something else, typically an idea.

For example, soon it will be Valentines Day and we can expect to see these things all over the place:



If I asked you to tell me what this is, you would likely respond that it is a heart, because that is what we call it. Well then, what is this?:



Here again, the logical answer is - a heart. Yet the two are distinctly different things. You might then say, "Ah, the first is the symbol of a heart and the second is a real heart." That too is a logical enough thing to say, but it is also incorrect. Both of them are actually images, created out of pixels on your computer screen, which trigger certain predictable responses in your brain. They are both symbols, or icons.

This heart:



typically signifies the idea of love or affection, while this heart:



signifies the organ that pumps the blood in our body. Interestingly enough, the first image can also sometimes be used to signify the heart in our body, but sending a Valentine's card with the second image on it will not convey the intended idea.

Most of us might be inclined to think that this heart:



is more of a cartoon, while this heart:



is more realistic. How about this one?:



A real heart, right? No - a photograph of a heart (not really; more pixels on your computer screen, depicting a photograph of a human heart.)

Even though these are all images, representing the same basic thing, in our minds we rate each on some kind of mental scale that corresponds to reality. The cartoonish heart is the least "realistic" and the photograph is the most "realistic". In truth, however, none of them are "real". They are all symbols representing an idea.

Returning to the painted images posted earlier, I would like to share with you some thoughts about them. As much as possible, I will restrict myself to discussing how the subject of "tree" is handled in each, without going too much into other considerations such as world and art history. Please remember, these are my observations and opinions and they are not presented as anything other.



Unknown, mid 14th century BCE, Egyptian (Facsimile painting from early 20th century) (www.metmuseum.org)

This is the oldest of the images presented (although, as noted, it is an historically accurate facsimile and not the 3000+ year-old original), and it is a detail from a much larger work that covered the wall of a great room. These tree images are clearly symbols, not meant to be seen as realistic. They show several different varieties of tree, but they are highly stylized representations that do not rely so much on observation of trees in nature. Much the same can be said of the way in which the humans are depicted. The work depicts a funeral ritual in a garden, so the trees can be thought of as scenery that provides context - props, in effect.



Unknown, early 1st century, Roman

This section of a Roman mural is the oldest western artwork in this selection of images. It was part of the home of a wealthy person, and depicts a garden. The trees here are much more realistically depicted than in the Egyptian artwork. The way they are rendered suggests the painter spent some time studying the way trees are structured and wanted to convey that information in his or her work. The mural was meant to be perceived as believable impression of a scene in nature.



Ma Lin, 1246, Chinese

This Chinese image is a detail from a scroll, painted with ink and color on silk. In the west we tend to think of Greece, Egypt and Rome when we think of the great empires of antiquity, but the Middle Kingdom (as China was then called) rivals any of them in scope and cultural development. The sophistication of this representation of trees seems far advanced from what was produced at the same time or earlier in the west. That they were strongly informed by observation of trees in nature seems evident to me, yet they are at the same time highly stylized and full of feeling.



Unknown, early 14th century, German

This work was an illustration in a medieval codex (or book). The trees are stylistic to the point of seemingly being oblivious to the reality of how trees are actually formed, and my guess is that it was not the artist's intention to convey any sense of tree knowledge. These are decorative representations, meant to provide background to the main subjects which are the 2 human figures. Still, they are recognizable as trees, and one might even hazard a guess as to the genus of a few of them based on leaf shape. (I cannot help but point out the way the movement of the tree trunks echo the curves of the human forms.)



Wu Zhen, 1328, Chinese

This is another Chinese piece, and once again I am struck by the sophistication of the overall design and execution given the age of its creation. The sense of "tree-ness"  is great, yet again the trees are depicted in a very stylized manner, and the result borders on the fantastic. Those of us who favor the literati form of bonsai will recognize immediately the connection between it and this type of Chinese artwork.



Shen Zhou, 15th century, Chinese

This image prompts the same thought in my mind each time I see it - can you imagine the response you might get if you showed a bonsai group planting constructed the same way the trees in this painting are arranged? It is all wrong! 4 trees, instead of an odd number, different species, crossing trunks... from a standard bonsai point of view, this composition of trees is a mess. Yet, as a composition of trees in a painting it is a beautiful work of art. Is this not strange?



Aert van den Bossche, 1494, Flemish

This image brings us back to the west. (Sigh...) Ignoring the nastiness in the foreground and taking note of the way the tree is presented, we find again a blending of information gleaned from the study of trees in nature with somewhat stiff conventions of style. It is a formal upright, I suppose, shaped to fit the dimensions of the canvas on which it is painted. To be fair, the tree is there only to provide a place to which the hapless victims can be secured, but still the artist is conveying some sense of trees as he knew them.



T'ang Yin, 1523, Chinese

This work was produced by one of the greatest painters in Chinese history, who was also a scholar and poet. My eye was attracted to the way the trees in the right foreground are presented. They are apparently deciduous trees and have the soft and graceful feeling generally associated with deciduous trees, yet the branching is very angular, the way we typically think of as belonging more to pines. Is this the result of observation of nature, or the application of accepted design conventions of the day, or both? I am not certain.



Kano Chokichi, mid-16th century, Japanese (www.metmuseum.org)

This painting, a detail of a large folding screen, is the first Japanese image in this gallery. If you study the way the trees are depicted in this work and then look again at the Chinese work presented just before it, you cannot help but notice a striking similarity. At that point in history, and for centuries, Japanese culture was largely derivative of Chinese culture. Bonsai was just one of the artistic pursuits included in this great transfusion, which also included poetry and painting. When I look at this work, I do not see evidence of first hand observation of nature, so much as assimilation of conventions and forms from China. The result is a depiction of trees that is more symbolic and less realistic.



Unknown, 1610, Indian

This work from India shows a very colorful and appealing sense of decorative style. I think the tree is rendered in a way that shows substantial familiarity with the way deciduous trees grow in nature, yet it is designed to fit neatly within the parameters of the surface on which it is painted. In all of these earlier works, I think it is instructive to compare the way the tree is rendered with how other objects are depicted. Everything in this painting is flattened, as if a 3-dimensional image had been pressed in a book. The tree comes off better in this treatment, I think, than do the rocks and the animals in the background.



Unknown, 1619, Afghan

This image shows a strong influence of what I am guessing to be Mongolian culture in the way the people are depicted. The tree is stylized yet natural in its overall appearance. The person who painted it created a tree with individual personality and not an idealized form. The aspect of it that really grabbed my attention, however, is the way it protrudes out of the boundaries of the space allotted to the overall picture, and on up into the upper portion of the page, where it is framed by the suggestion of clouds in the sky. This seems to me to be an unconventional approach, and if it was, I wonder how it was received?

Arthur,

very simply, as an art student you would know that these images are composed to fit the images they are in?
That they work because of their interaction with positive and negative spaces within the image.
The Chinese ones are based on observations, but taken from other Chinese painters observations, and even then the parts were considered what was best from nature.

For Bonsai to function like this we would have to either design them to be seen from one angle [ the front ] as many Chinese efforts are done - Calligraphic Style.
A great deal attention would have to paid to interaction with negative/positive space.
However as 3d sculpture we have to work more with traditional sculptural rules.

Any how you look at it, to get the ART part, would not the creator and the observer have to have some training in ART APPRECIATION or you intending to use FOUND ART rules, where anything goes?

I have no problems with either approach, but prefer to design trees as I do Traditional oil paintings.
Good Ideas.
Please keep developing.
Thanks
Khaimraj

Khaimraj - I am most sincerely grateful for your participation on this thread! You make excellent points, and so I am glad to defer to you on matters pertaining to painting, or sculpture, or the higher concerns of ART. My purpose lies elsewhere. By the way, I was a failure as an art student, and a generally poor student in all regards. I should have mentioned this earlier!

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe endured a period of about 800 years or so typified by ignorance, brutality, and rampant disease which we have come to call the Middle Ages. Western art to a great degree reflected these unhappy themes, or took refuge in religious subject matter. Here is a painting from the late Middle Ages that illustrates the point:



There are a couple of trees depicted in that painting, but I do not think most of us would choose to use them as bonsai inspiration:



Moving out of the Middle Ages, Europe enters the Early Modern Period, often referred to as the Renaissance (literally "re-birth"). Some historians argue that this period was not such a great improvement as is often suggested, but without a doubt it was a revolutionary time in the history of art. For our purposes here, the salient point is that painting at this time turns dramatically toward the ideal of realism, and there is a great renewed interest in observing and depicting the world of nature. Across most of Europe, and most of the New World, an ever present element in the world of nature is that entity we refer to as the tree:


Gijsbrecht Leytens, 1600's, Flemish



Jan van Goyen, 1641, Dutch



Jacob van Ruisdael, 1646, Dutch (www.metmuseum.org)

In these works from the 17th century we see trees take the center stage. To be sure, the trees depicted are situated in landscape scenes that include a human presence, but in each work the focal point is a tree or group of trees. These trees have been closely observed, too. They are artistic representations made by human hands, and not photographs, but they convey a great sense of realism - they are believable as individual trees with their own distinct character. They are symbolic, not just in the sense that they are representations and not actual living trees, but because they can be read as referring to some idea beyond their identity as trees. In the first image the stark, bare forms of these deciduous trees, particularly the very light colored, almost white one in the middle of the composition, speak of the bleak and bitter nature of winter in the north. The second image uses the striking presence of the massive, old, half-dead, twin-trunk tree as a metaphor for the passage of time and the struggle of life. In the third a tree conjures up the sense of the rich fullness of life in summer.

In my opinion, and for my tastes, many of the most glorious artistic representations of trees can be found in western, mostly European, paintings from the 19th century. It is when looking at these images particularly I think in terms of bonsai and the issue of design:


Achile Etna Michallon, early 1800's, French

The artist who painted this image died very young, and did not produce many works, but those I have seen are strongly tree-oriented. This is such a beautiful representation of a deciduous tree in the glory of its prime, and yet there is the disturbing element of the recent (very recent?) loss of a great limb, and the raw wound it left behind. The contrast of the pastoral lushness of the overall character of the tree and the savagery of the damage sustained creates tension and an air of mystery - what happened? If you presented a tree like this in a bonsai show, I think most viewers would say it should be taken off display and the wound cut clean and treated with cut paste!



Camille Corot, 1825, French

Corot is considered among the greatest of naturalistic landscape painters, and trees are prominently featured in many of his works. This image captures perfectly for me the way so many of the trees that grow where I live are formed. The "rule of thirds" does not seem to be applied to the structure of this tree, with its trunk extending about half way up the entirety of its length before the first branch appears. The lower branches reach out horizontally, while the higher branches arch upwards, and the apex is formed by many limbs and not one central leader. The crown is symmetrical and rounded. Is it a lollipop tree? Not quite! Where are the bonsai that reflect this common form of tree?



Johan Christian Dahl, 1825, Norwegian

What a wonderful group planting! I particularly like the way the character of the rocks and the character of the stones echo and play off each other to create a moody, desolate atmosphere. Curiously, the bonsai model that most westerners follow says that stones should not be used this way in a bonsai group planting.



Caspar David Friedrich, 1827, German

This tree projects such a powerful, craggy image. It fits perfectly with my stereotypical idea of Strum und Drang. Once again, though, if we consider what kind of commentary one might receive if one displayed a bonsai with such a design, it is difficult to imagine it being positive. Just for fun, count all the ways this tree goes against the standard rules of bonsai design! Yet as a painting this kind of tree image can be embraced for its power and character - what accounts for the discrepancy?



Julius von Leypold, 1835, German (www.metmuseum.org)

Considering the tree that dominates this landscape, I can hear the bonsai artist at the critique instructing such a tree's owner to "remove at least half of this trunk on the left... maybe all of it, because it crosses the main trunk and looks out of balance, then wire all the branches down."



Thomas Cole, 1846, American

This is the first American painting presented in this little gallery, and it is naturalistic but highly idealized in its own way. What I appreciate most about it is its depiction of trees that are remnants of the North American forest primeval, which strongly appeals to my more romantic tendencies. One of my goals in bonsai is to create just such an image.



Gustave Courbet, 1864, French

This is a masterful representation of a massive, fully healthy, open-grown deciduous tree. How many bonsai have you ever seen done in this form? What would you call this form?



Jean-Francois Millet, 1872, French (www.metmuseum.org)

The tree at the center of this evocative image, would, I think, be termed a "broom" in bonsai parlance. Note how it is put together, though - no central leader. I would without hesitation bet this tree was modeled on a living tree in nature, and was not constructed primarily from the artist's imagination.



George Inness, 1876, American (www.metmuseum.org)

The artist who created this image is sometimes referred to as "The Father of American Landscape Painting". Realism is strongly at work here, and although there is a romantic tendency in it as well, there is no doubt these trees represent actual trees in nature. I would even hazard a guess that they are Italian Stone Pines (Pinus pinea). This is another tree form that is not represented in traditional bonsai styling, presumably because there are few trees that grow this way in Japan.



Albert Bierstadt, late 1800's, German-American

The warm glow of this painting is hard to resist (eat your heart out, Thomas Kincaid!) However, what I enjoy most about it is the leaning deciduous tree just to the right of center in the image. The shape of that tree would make a wonderful bonsai image, planted in a round pot and thought of as almost a literati form. Again, the owner of such a tree would have to protect it from the advice of most bonsai experts.



Ernst Platz, 1931, German

This image is a bit of an outlier, being from the 20th century and done in a style belonging more to another age. I included it, though, because it is a straightforward depiction of trees in nature, growing in a high elevation place and shaped by their environment. Platz was apparently a mountaineer and illustrator, in addition to being a painter, and I suspect this painting is of a specific locale and the trees he found there looked very much as he presented them in this work. So, his objective was to represent trees as he knew them from experience, and not how he imagined them based on some overarching design theory.

Just amazing Arthur...how do you find the time? You desire for knowledge and understanding is very admirable! Your ability to express yourself is just a delight.

But...you make my brain hurt!!  

Now, I am certainly not qualified to make a peep in this discussion, but I am going to toss out what was going through my mind as I read your most recent post.

You made several comparisons of the trees in the paintings with bonsai...and bonsai in shows. For me at least, the trees in the painting have a context, the rest of the painting, you make mention of this in almost all of your commentaries. Where as bonsai, let's say in a show, lack the same context. Which, I think, partially explains some of the differences in the trees in the paintings and how we often design our bonsai. For me the trees in paintings, although certainly realistic/natural, are only a part of the whole...even when they are the focal point...and perhaps often it is their imperfection/naturalness that adds to the context. With Bonsai, I think we have the tendency to compensate for this lack of context by creating more idealized trees...more perfect in structure and aesthetic appeal. I know it is a loaded word, but I might even goes as far as saying "beautiful" trees. I also certainly believe that this tendency is influenced by our perception of Japanese bonsai.

I wonder how appealing the trees in the pictures would be on their own...without context??? (I tried a virtual but didn't have the patience to do it well) I suspect that is probably exactly the point you were trying to make. Even though, like you, I love trees, and they all have something to say, there are only a tiny percentage that really influence my bonsai design....for good or bad I am not sure??

Thanks for making me think!!!
John

Thanks Arthur.
Yes, John, those trees are beautifully woven into the compositions of the paintings. They would probably look odd as individuals.

Arthur, an interesting point made by Mr. Yoshimura, he says that Yammadori, were not altered, but left to grow as they were found, called-- Potted Trees.

The Bonsai part didn't start until the late 16th century.[ as Japan goes ]
source - The Japanese Art of Miniature Trees and Landscapes - Yoshimura and Halford.

As he states it - on the Aristocrats could afford potted trees, but the Merchant class created a demand.
[ Who wanted the Dutch little Masters and at what time in history ?]

My point, as Bonsai becomes more commercial, what happens to the standard ?

To Joe average, this is a hobby, but at the lowest level. To the professionals out of China / Japan, this would be Art, and this probably why you are presently receiving only token responses. You may have gone too deep [ head hurts   ]

What is the difference between Art and Craft ------- cost, and so even if you practice Bonsai as a low level hobby, you might be able to get back your money if you say ART.
[ taught to me by the Potters on Clayart.]

You will probably find that the Professionals of Bonsai in Europe, have little or no knowledge of Oil painting History, as this is the way Bonsai is going - very sad.
Wishing you well.
Khaimraj

* I got into Bonsai, because I grew up in a Forest Reserve, and the great giants were my friends and playmates, so I have a natural love for trees. I also started by myself and am adaptable.
So I continue on a path of my own choice, not what goes on in Bonsai world. Very peaceful.

I just happened to open this forum and was awed by Arthur's command of art history and trees. I learned much here and am humbled by everyone's input. I have much to learn, but do know this much: trees stir my soul! Thank you all. I need to travel to Asheville soon!

Thank you John, Khaimraj and Todd, for reading and joining in the discussion!

Todd - If you ever find your way to Asheville and the Arboretum, I know you will enjoy them both.

Khaimraj - That was an astute observation on your part, drawing the parallel between bonsai and painting and the role that commerce has played in the development of each! I have always felt blessed to be able to do bonsai professionally while being free of the need to sell any of them, and I am certain that has a great deal to do with the way I look at and think about the art of shaping miniaturized trees growing in decorative containers.

So, you have noticed that this current phase of my thread is receiving "only token responses"? You may be correct that the subject is "too deep" for many, but I am not worried about it, because there may be other reasons, as well. With this entire enterprise (that is, maintaining this thread on the IBC) my starting assumption has been that the audience for what I have to say is quite small. The portion of the overall population that knows or cares anything about bonsai is minimal, and this forum is read by only a tiny fraction of those people. Out of that minuscule slice of a minuscule slice, the portion of people who are interested in even considering the possibility that there may be more to bonsai than what the conventional view tells us there is, is a pitiful minority. When you take that number, whatever it is, and subtract from it the people who are disinclined to comment in the first place, or who cannot comment because they read on this forum but do not belong to it, the number left may not be enough to fill the seats in an average size minivan.

I might be discouraged by this, but for a couple of considerations: 1) I personally benefit from writing all this stuff, because it forces me to concentrate and distill my ideas for the sake of effective communication; and, 2) when you put a message in a bottle and toss it into the ocean, there is no telling where it will wind up and who's eyes might eventually see it.

The Internet, for all our thinking of it now as commonplace and taking it for granted, is a mind-boggling tool of communication. I sit here at my computer terminal in a little town in the southern USA, pecking away at a keyboard, sharing ideas about this activity we call bonsai, and when I send this message out on the forum it becomes accessible to the rest of the computerized world. Who knows where my written thoughts will go, or who will see them, or what thoughts mine might trigger in others? I could generate a great deal more attention by pandering to what the larger market wants (a single photograph of an attractive, young, Asian woman, wearing a see-through kimono and holding a stereotypical, commercial grade bonsai, would attract many more views in a week than my thread here has garnered in nearly a year), but I am in it for other reasons.

As for the state of bonsai art in Europe and what bonsai professionals there know or do not know, I am not informed enough to say. To paraphrase Will Rogers, all I know about European bonsai is what I read on the Internet!

John - Thank you for checking in and sharing your thoughts. You say you are "not qualified" to join in the discussion, but I know this is far from true and the questions you raise prove the point.

Let me begin to respond by making this statement - every one of the focal point trees featured in the last round of paintings I posted (western/realistic) could be used as a perfectly acceptable model for a bonsai. I say again - every one of them. To be certain, many, if not all of them, would look strange and probably be unacceptable to the great majority of bonsai enthusiasts at this point in time, but there are reasons for this that have nothing to do with the legitimacy of their forms.

You noted the effect of context, that in the paintings there is a whole world depicted within the frame of the image, and this peripheral information certainly influences how the viewer perceives the subject (in this case, the tree.) Therein lies one of the most significant differences between eastern and western art, particularly that of the period before there was much communication between east and west - eastern art tends toward the suggestive, while western art tends toward the definitive. In short, the aesthetic ideal in the east seemed to focus on how much could be left out while still maintaining the integrity of the image. Western artists, on the other hand, seemed inclined to fill up the available picture space with as much information as possible.

The element of suggestiveness, of intentionally leaving out, is central to the concept of bonsai as an art form. In my view, it is the most "Asian" aspect of bonsai, and I embrace it entirely.

That said, I can still look at any of the trees depicted and see them as bonsai, planted in containers or on slabs, removed from the context of their paintings. Not only can I visualize them that way, I think they would make excellent bonsai and I would prefer them to a great many of the bonsai that utilize the design concepts currently in vogue. But I say this speaking as a person who has consciously changed his way of thinking about what is acceptable in bonsai. And I hasten to add, imitating the design of the trees in these paintings is not at all what I am proposing!

The overwhelming majority of people in bonsai think about bonsai the way they do, see bonsai the way they do, and practice bonsai the way they do because they accept with little or no questioning all of the standard bonsai ideas they have been taught. That they do so is a matter of personal choice and it is perfectly acceptable to be that way. That does not mean, however, that bonsai is only what these people think it is, and it does not mean that questioning conventional wisdom and thinking differently about bonsai is wrong. It does mean that when confronted with an idea outside of that with which they are familiar, people will naturally perceive it as strange. How they react to that strangeness can cover a wide range of possibilities, including: outrage, fear, dislike, confusion, indifference, curiosity, cautious acceptance and possibly even attraction.

This is not a phenomenon exclusive to the world of bonsai. This is the predictable human response to just about anything that is different from that which we are conditioned to expect. It happened in a big way in the world of painting, in the second half of the 19th century...


Camille Pissarro, 1894, Dutch-French

To look at this image in our day and age it is almost impossible to imagine how works of this sort were initially received. Pissarro was an Impressionist and this particular painting was made late in the 19th century, late in his career. Other Impressionist painters include Monet, Renoir and Degas, artists whose works now hang in the great museums of the world, and adorn calendars, T-shirts and coffee mugs. However, when Impressionist painting first appeared, around 1870 or so, it was met with mostly scorn from the critics of the day and rejected with derision by the general public. In their day, many of the Impressionists struggled to earn their living. Today, the same paintings they often could not sell fetch millions at auction. What accounts for the difference between then and now? Time, and the inevitability of changing ideas.

As a side note, we see that the tree Pissarro chose to depict is not a mighty, aged giant, but a simple, young fruit tree in a garden. Beauty can be found in trees of all ages, sizes and descriptions.



Alfred Sisley, 1879, British (www.metmuseum.org)

The Impressionists were focused on capturing the ephemeral effects of light, and their work was typically done outdoors, in plein air. In this painting, Sisley was apparently not interested in ordering the tree to satisfy an ideal of humanized nature, but rather to capture authentically the scene before him at the moment.



Hans Gude, 1874, Norwegian

I had never seen this painting before finding it on Wikimedia Commons, and I was unfamiliar with the painter, Hans Gude. To my eye, however, it is an impressionist work and this is noticeable in the way the painting of the trees was handled. The trees are completely believable representations, and clearly show that the artist spent time looking at trees and allowing what he observed to inform his work.



Arnold Lyongrun, 1912, German

It might be a little bit of a stretch to call this painting impressionistic, but it has some tendencies in that direction. As for how it might relate to bonsai, consider this - when we do a group planting using 3 trees, one of the conventions we are taught is to use trees of different size, with one being clearly dominant. I have followed this convention rather strictly myself. But here we see a group of 3 trees wherein each tree is approximately the same size as the others, and it works well in terms of compositional interest. Where is the focal point? To my eye, it is the 2 trees growing closely together. Could this work as a bonsai composition?



Paul Signac, 1893, French

This work is certainly impressionistic, but it was done as a preparatory sketch for a more "finished" painting (one of the criticisms leveled at the Impressionists was that their work was sketchy, and unfinished.) Of some interest to me is the fact that the tree depicted is a pine, and exhibits a form most bonsai people would identify as belonging to a broadleaf tree. But the painter was recording what he observed in a tree in nature, not repeating a conventional symbol he had been taught. By the way, here is what the painter eventually produced from his preparatory sketch:



This much more formal, stylized work was done in a style that was known as Pointillism, which grew out of Impressionism. Another outgrowth of Impressionism was a style that came to be called Post-Impressionism, and it includes 3 of my favorite artists - Cezanne, Gauguin and van Gogh.


Paul Cezanne, 1886, French (www.metmuseum.org)

I have to restrain myself here, lest I forget the purpose of this post and spend the next 10 paragraphs gushing about the brilliance of Paul Cezanne! Trees were a favorite subject of his, and I know for a fact that he painted from life - that is to say, he went out in nature with his canvas, paints and brushes and responded to what was in front of him. But photographs taken in various sites that Cezanne had used as landscape subjects reveal that he never adhered strictly to reality, but altered it as suited his purpose. There is nothing so unusual in this. Indeed, one of the reasons painting changed so dramatically at this point in history is because of the advent of photography. The camera could do a better job of capturing objective reality (not really, but people think that way), which left the door open for painters to start expressing a more subjective view of the world. So when Cezanne painted trees he was not focused so much on realism as he was on capturing sensations - what he experienced when looking at trees. He was interpreting them through his personal experience.

For anyone who cares, this is exactly what I want to do in the bonsai medium!



Paul Gauguin, 1892, French

So, Gauguin wanted to do a pastoral scene... Was it nighttime? Why are the trees blue? Why is there a rainbow running horizontally across the lower third of the image? Was this guy high when he painted this picture? The answer to the last question is "probably not", but the answer to the other questions is this: "Because he was Paul Gauguin, a brazen and powerful creative force, and he felt like doing it that way!" The trees still look like trees, however, despite being blue.



Vincent van Gogh, 1888, Dutch (www.metmuseum.org)

van Gogh was one of the most prolific painters of any age, yet he was able to sell exactly 2 of his works in his lifetime. Like Cezanne, he most often painted live, from nature, and recorded his personal experience of the subject matter. Like Gauguin, he was an almost elemental force of creative vision. Trees can be found in many of his paintings, and each one exhibits its own individual personality.



Henry Ward Ranger, 1910, American

I am not certain how this particular painting should be characterized, in terms of what artistic style it falls under. It does not really matter, for our purposes. It is a fine representation of a tree, apparently based on observation of a living tree in nature.



Leendert Gestel, 1910, French

I think of this work as being an exercise in tonal modulation, but I might be making that up. It represents a tree, however, and one that would make an eye-catching literati. It reminds me of the growth habit of Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) in the forests where I live.



Andre Derain, 1906, French (www.metmuseum.org)


Henri Matisse, 1907, French (www.metmuseum.org)

With these 2 paintings we see trees depicted in ways that have departed from any concern with realism, yet in each case we can still easily identify the fact that trees are part of the image. The work is consciously primitive, expressionistic yet decorative, too. At the root of the tree depictions is still a sense of tree-ness, based on observation of the natural example.



Georgia O'Keeffe, 1925, American (www.metmuseum.org)

This work is our lone example from the abstract style of painting, but the subject matter is still discernible without resorting to reading the title. There may or may not have been an actual living model for this tree image, but regardless, it is clearly informed by knowledge of trees and has a naturalistic feeling despite being viewed through the lens of abstraction.

These pages have been fun. Thanks.

MY favorite tree pictures seem mostly to come from the Mustard Seed Garden Manual of Painting. Two are shown here.






I'm fortunate en0ugh to have a print from the Mustard seed Garden Manual, although the print is of a bird, not a tree. It's put away in the fade-free dark so I don't have it to copy now, but I cherish it.

Arthur - First and foremost for creating this wonderfully informative blog a big "thank you".  I believe it is more appreciated than you think.  Up until I read your last thread I would never have thought to comment.  The simple reason for this is I've only been studying bonsai for the last four years and don't believe I have anything of value to add.  But I do love to read your blog and I assume there are a lot of others that feel as I do.  Your knowledge and displays are awe inspiring.  I appreciated your thoughts and the paintings that were referenced.  I have a degree in Art History and your thought your words were right on. Artists' renditions of trees are a terrific source of inspiration for styling bonsai.  Whether you want to adhere to traditional bonsai rules or prefer to be more Avant-garde in your styling approach remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  So far I haven't seen any pictures of the NC Arboretum that I don't find beauty in. Can't wait to visit and see the real thing@

Arthur,

just to help out with Lyongrun's work, there is in painting something called - General Focus - which means there is no point that the eye might be drawn to.
Also have you looked at the American [ Boston or California ] Impressionists?
Supposedly different worlds.

Much of what you are saying, are points made a while ago. Study 10 trees, in the mature state, or middle or young and extract what you think is most important. Do by drawing or image on the computers screen and traced with a 6b or other lower b pencil.

The trick is to be able to project that information on a tree. You would have to have grown x amount and have a working experience with the type to be able to put what you want into the effort.
BUT to do that you would probably be well off and could do as you wish or try to get to a stage where others would want to purchase the effort. [ Hmm sounds like an ism / oil painting - Da Vinci - Botticelli - Titian - Caravaggio - Rubens - Rembrant to Vermeer - Murillo/Velasquez, all rebels /agents of change ? Pre-Raphaelites ?]

A lot of time and preparation to put into an effort that would hold the effect for say a few weeks and then grow on.
which brings me back to my repeated point - use a hologram of the tree and not the tree to show the effort. A photo won't do it.

As a hermit who pretty much grows what he believes in, as I also paint, I am all with you.
BUT in the words of a well known Bonsai-ist, most folk are amateur gardeners and non of this matters.
The professionals not attached to a Museum [ as a job ] have to study sales/teaching or some form of $$ to live, and hence the repeated often mannerised tree forms - it sells.

I tend to take my example of operating from Wu Yee Sun.
Excellent points thus far, but I hope you don't end up frustrating yourself.
Thank you.
Later.
Khaimraj

Arthur I also have been following along and enjoying all the posts and photos. I don't have an art background like most who have commented lately so I have only been following along. Be assured that people are viewing with excitement even if they aren't commenting. I hope you continue this foray in refrencing paintings for a perspective on bonsai as it is something that is not talked about in most bonsai forum posts.

Arthur,

I have not commented on the past couple of post's you've made on this thread only because I was unsure where you were going.  With your last post I'm getting a clearer picture but there is still oh so much more to discuss on this topic.   I have been actively working on a few trees that have been inspired by paintings and am committed to following this path with what time I have left before my health begins to fail more than it already has which is just a few more years by the look of it.  Not withstanding that, a couple of your comments stuck a chord with me, one of which is "context".  You are perfectly correct that it's the essence that the artist is gleaning from the painting not an exact replica. Which brings me to my interpretation of context, that being the 3 point display.  In a 3 point display the ancillary items are the things that provide the context that the artists wishes to convey to the viewer. The display composition provides a stage on which many stories can be told by the artist.  A tree in a pot, by itself is just a tree and leaves the viewer to his/her own interpretation which may or may not be the one that the artist intended.  There are many, many things in this can of worms but be assured they can be plucked out one at a time and put into some order.  

I don't mean to hi-jack your thread but some actual pictures of real trees interpreted from paintings might provide some insight to those not initiated to this subject matter.  As such I have added some images below of a Pierneef painting and the tree that I created as a result of it out of leaf.  Beyond just the tree, I'm  working on display elements for it which will give some context to it, most particularly things that convey the native habitat that the trees of Pierneef live in.  Please keep going in your direction with further posts as I'm reading with great interest!!!!


JH Pierneef 1957 - Camelthorn tree  THE INSPIRATION

Arthur,

design to tree.
early 1980's cutting to today. I have changed the pot as of Jan.2nd this year.
To get even closer to the shading on the design, the lighting has to go to a 45 degree, as though it were a Still Life.
The design is based on leaf mass as the Gmelina doesn't have a lot of branches/branchlets.
This is a shrub and with a shrub, the sky is the limit.

I have grown, many, many of this type, to learn about what the tree's properties are.
Working on the surface roots presently/
Still learning.
Enjoy.
Khaimraj

There are always people that you read whatever they write. Arthur and Khaimraj are two of those people for me. Thanks guys!

Arthur,

You and I have similar portions of our paths with bonsai: our explorations are of current interest to a very small percent of enthusiasts, but what we are doing is not necessarily for the present but for generations to come.  I also learned long ago, near the beginning of my so-far 28-year research of the detailed history of this group of gardening arts, that few persons were anywhere as interested in this as I was.  The downside is the lack of colleagues who want/are able to dialogue on our level of intensity as much as we'd like.  But I also continued and my detailed thought and discovery have led to profound insights that will have their place in future incarnations of what describing "bonsai" is.  Similarly, your play and work and development of various ways of looking at these dwarfed potted trees, from your varied explorations of display to your studies of two-dimensional views as a jumping-off point for four-dimensional (height, depth, width, change over time) portrayals of "treeness," will be given more in-depth consideration in the future.

Our sometimes lone explorations are appreciated and are enlarging the overall picture of this worldwide interest.  It is what we are driven to do.

Continue well, sir.

Robert

Well, goodness - there has been quite the flurry of activity on this thread since I last checked in... Thank you to all who have responded! One of the primary reasons why I maintain this thread on the IBC, instead of having it exist as an independently operated, proper blog, is for the community aspect that exists on a public forum. It gets messy, sometimes even ugly, which can be discouraging, but there is also a value-added component provided by the free exchange of ideas that a forum facilitates. I am employed at a public garden, building a public collection, and all my bonsai work is entirely open to public scrutiny, so putting these ideas out where people can publicly respond to them is not unfamiliar territory for me to operate in.

Jaybird, tmmason10, and steveb - Thank you for the kind reviews. It does make a difference knowing there are people reading, and I appreciate you joining in the discussion!

Jim - Yes, the "Mustard Seed Garden Manual of Painting" is a famous book, and one that had substantial impact on the development of art in the Far East. For those who might not know of it, this book was written in China in the 17th century, and was a manual, a how-to book in effect, about landscape painting. It traveled to Japan and had great influence on the development of art during the Edo period, including bonsai. It would seem my impulse to look at 2-dimensional tree representations as instructive to bonsai design is not a particularly new idea. The only time I have ever spent with the Mustard Seed manual was during my study with Mr. Yoshimura, long ago. He had a copy of it and I would look through it when he took time out for a nap. Thank you for introducing it into the mix.

Randy - Thank you for sharing your efforts in developing a Pierneef form of bonsai. It looks to me like you are succeeding admirably in what you have undertaken! What I particularly like about it is that you are doing your own original work, expressing a different vision of idealized tree form through the bonsai medium, which I think is one of the most challenging and useful purposes a bonsai grower can pursue.

Khaimraj - Your methodology in combining drawing ability with designing a bonsai is intriguing to me, and completely outside of anything I would think to do. For me, to draw a tree is one thing and to design a bonsai is something else altogether. The one might influence the other, but they are distinctly separate activities, to be approached in completely different ways. The photos you posted are most impressive, and seem to prove you are indeed able to pull off the slow motion trick of growing a bonsai into a preconceived, and pre-drawn design. Amazing! Thank you for sharing these ideas.

Robert - I agree that your work in documenting a comprehensive history of bonsai is of vital and lasting importance, and will be valued more and more as time goes on. As for your over-generous assessment of my efforts, I think it best to simply say thank you.

It is time to look at the last few painted tree images, which have been up until now passed over for reasons that will soon be made clear. The first was done by a European at the start of the 19th century, but was clearly not of a kind with the other western paintings from that time period:


William Blake, 1808, British

In addition to being an artist, Blake was also a poet and visionary. Sometimes ridiculed but more often ignored during his lifetime, his work came to substantial fame and became influential after his death. But he was a man completely out of step with his times. Looking at the tree in this image, we can get an idea of the personal and idiosyncratic nature of Blake's artistic style, which drew heavily upon his religious beliefs, his hallucinatory visions and his love of Gothic art. The tree is clearly recognizable as a tree, but it is a fantastic tree, the likes of which is not to be found outside the gates of Eden. Of course bonsai can be done this way as well, but the reaction from others might be much of a kind to that which Blake received.


This next work was created approximately 100 years later:


Gustav Klimt, 1909, Austrian

Klimt was another highly idiosyncratic artist. He is usually categorized as a Symbolist, and this painting, titled "The Tree of Life" fits well with that identity. The purpose here is to create an icon, a symbol, and there is no intention to be realistic or naturalistic (this should strike a chord with most bonsai growers!) What we see is recognizable as a tree, but it has been reduced to its most basic elements - trunk and branches - reformed into a decorative pattern and then festooned with ornament and other symbols.


We now jump back in time and leave the European continent:


Unknown, 1770, Indian

The trees in this image are symbols as well, but I do not think they are meant to be symbolic of anything other than the idea of "trees". I think they are intended to be nothing more than attractive scenery. They have somewhat naturalistic shapes and can be viewed as fantasy trees, but not in the same sense as the tree in the painting by William Blake. I confess that I know next to nothing about Indian culture, which makes it almost impossible for me to derive any meaning from this painting. I suspect the 2 figures that form the focal point of the image - the woman in the red dress and the blue man - are characters from folklore or religion, and that the painting depicts a scene from a well known story. But these are merely guesses, because the image comes from a culture that is foreign to me and so I lack the context necessary for understanding. I can only appreciate this image for its surface effect... and it looks strange to me.


Which leads us, not coincidentally, to the last 2 images from the tree gallery:


Sakai Hoitsu, 1816, Japanese (www.metmuseum.org)


Nakabayashi Chikkei, mid-1800's, Japanese (www.metmuseum.org)

These are both Japanese paintings, the first being a folding screen shown in its entirety and the second being a detail from a larger image on a scroll. Having spent some time looking at western tree art, how different these images are! Analyzing them in a similar way to what was done previously with the other tree representations, we can say that both are highly stylized, decorative, not without some degree of naturalistic feeling, but certainly not realistic.

The first image I would guess to be depicting a persimmon tree, but when did a persimmon tree ever look like this? Judging by the size of the fruits, I would say this tree stands no more than 4 feet tall (1.2 m), but it is apparently mature and not a young seedling. Perhaps it is a tree growing at high elevations, dwarfed by its harsh environment? Or perhaps it is an artist's representation, shaped by a deeply rooted cultural system of style and not meant to be taken so literally.

The second image is even more distanced from reality, stylized to an even greater degree. Here is the full scroll:


(www.metmuseum.org)

Here we are dealing with symbols for mountains, symbols for waterfalls, symbols for houses, symbols for trees. These symbols might be taken apart and put together again in a different configuration, to create another beautiful picture, different yet somehow familiar, almost like modular components used to render a certain style of imagery. Take a look at those pine trees on the mountain tops, the ones most prominently seen in the originally posted detail version of this painting. Do they look familiar? They appear as bonsai trees, each a little different from the next but all very much the same. They have little or no individual identity.

At this point I feel the need to stop and make clear that I am not an authority on Japanese art, or Japanese culture, or Japanese anything. I am looking at these art works as an outsider. They do not come from my culture and they are foreign to me. Just as with the Indian art discussed earlier, I lack the knowledge of cultural context necessary for understanding them. I can read only their surface effect. Unlike with the Indian art, however, I cannot say these images look strange to me.

Over the course of the past 20+ years of my bonsai studies, such imagery has become very, very familiar.