American Bonsai at the NC Arboretum

*bump*



I assume you realize
if you use this thing
it's going to dump pee
all over your Birkenstocks?

On the subject of DR's maple: Can someone show me where the branches are that created this scaffold to the stars? Can someone show an example of a temperate zone deciduous tree that grows straight up with out the need for branches?  If you can't see I can't help you. A real masterpiece needs no defending.

That applies to you as well Kevin. Mr. Joura implied both of those things. If you can't see it I can't help you.

mikeyeye wrote:
When studying, critiquing, or analyzing a tree I’ve found the quickest way to separate the wheat from the chaff is to ask the following two questions: [b]1) Is it
I don’t really keep up with the powers that be or the trends so I must plead ignorance here. I was somehow under the impression that one of the major precepts of this recently  formed school of bonsai is “Untouched By Human Hands”? It’s kind of the motto am I right? If so did you not just condemn Mr. Robinson’s work with:

I know because I have seen the trees in person and studied them up close using my personal knowledge, experience and professional training to evaluate what I was looking at. I could see evidence of work that had been done, despite Dan's rather impressive ability to mask the manipulation.

?? Or is that a ‘powers that be’ thing? It will fool the masses but we elitists will know Mr. Robinson owns branch cutters and wire.

Totally wrong!

'Untouched by Human Hand' is a natural Bonsai. It is a tree that was more or less found as it still is, placed in a pot and called bonsai. Some folks in California do or did this. This has nothing at all to do with naturalistic. Unfortunately often this is what folks think and more or less show their disrespect of it. Well, I would not show disrespect, but dislike. I think it is a mistake to leave a collected tree looking like material. Naturalistic bonsai can and should be worked on a lot. It is called naturalistic because it is not natural - it only seems natural. The best ones look more natural than nature.

The best compliment you can make is to call them 'taken out of nature as they are'. Some artists work hard for decades on a tree to make it look like that.

Looks like more reading has to be done.

You've misunderstood the question. That's my fault. I should not leave it to chance that my questions and opinions are seen for the obvious they imply. Let's start again:

I was somehow under the impression that one of the major precepts of this recently  formed school of bonsai is “The tree should appear Untouched By Human Hands”? It’s kind of the motto am I right? If so did you not just condemn Mr. Robinson’s work with:

   I know because I have seen the trees in person and studied them up close using my personal knowledge, experience and professional training to evaluate what I was looking at. I could see evidence of work that had been done, despite Dan's rather impressive ability to mask the manipulation.
?? Or is that a ‘powers that be’ thing? It will fool the masses but we elitists will know Mr. Robinson owns branch cutters and wire.

So you see. We do get it. We do understand this so-called school of bonsai effectively reiterates centuries of application.
But thanks for at least addressing one of the multitude of issues raised. Seems most of the true believers would rather engage in kill the messenger.
Good luck with that fellas!

A mountain maple in the 'Forgotten Valley` not so far from my home in southern Germany
What trained bonsaiists may call 'wrong' too thick and going up vertical branches are called subtrunks in naturalistic terminology. From the subtrunks then the smaller and thinner branches go out horizontally sort of or even downwards. Subtrunks often split into smaller subtrunks again.
This is a very natural way of broadleaved trees to grow, They grow much rather like this than in what is called 'informal upright' in classical bonsai terminology. 'Informal upright' is more the way conifers grow than broadleaved trees.

Trying to make a bonsai look like this mountain maple could be a worthwhile endeavor in my eyes. At least more worthwhile than to copy copies of copies of copies.

Thank you Mr. Pall. That is a gorgeous tree!

It bears scant resemblance to Mr. Robinson's maple however.  It has the branches to justify the size of the trunk. Dan's maple is devoid of evidence that the tree ever possessed the foliage to grow such a massive trunk. It's a deciduous tree representing an old growth spruce or fir. Not very likely. Or natural. I suppose one could make the case that the once massive branches rotted off and the wounds from their long ago attachment healed over leaving no evidence of their existence. A bit of a stretch though.

mikeyeye wrote:
On the subject of DR's maple: Can someone show me where the branches are that created this scaffold to the stars? Can someone show an example of a temperate zone deciduous tree that grows straight up with out the need for branches?  If you can't see I can't help you. A real masterpiece needs no defending.

That applies to you as well Kevin. Mr. Joura implied both of those things. If you can't see it I can't help you.

sorry mike, but you lost me there...

are you saying arthur "implied" that branches made a scaffold to the stars ?
and that he "implied" that "a temperate zone deciduous tree... grows straight up with out the need for branches" ?

but then again, you said if i cant see that then you cant help me...
which just leaves me wondering if i misunderstand what you feel was implied ?

you say that "Dan's maple is devoid of evidence that the tree ever possessed the foliage to grow such a massive trunk", but i see such evidence (again with novice eyes)... scars that look like they once were the base of a large branch and i am only looking at one side of the tree on a normal computer monitor, so... ?

but i agree with jim about the knee-jerk reactions... it seems that some delicate sensibilities were offended by one person (arthur) expounding on the work of another person (dan) and saying why some, but perhaps not all, of it appeals to him.

i just can't see why so much umbrage was taken...

Wow. Kevin! Really? Reading may be fundemantal but I'm wondering now about your comprehension skills. I should have used the quote thing I suppoose. Lets bog this down some more:

BeerCitySnake this a.m.: read how arthur referred to naturalistic bonsai as the "better vision of bonsai"
whoops... you might not be able to read that one because i don't believe he wrote that it is "better"... just more appealing to him.

read how arthur is telling everyone how naturalism is a "more enlightened was of viewing and creating bonsai"
whoops... my bad again... i dont believe i recall him writing that...

me a bit later: Mr. Joura implied both of those things. If you can't see it I can't help you.

If you can't see why Mr. Joura's pejoratives could be offensive to some invested in this centuries old art form ...
I can't help you
and I'm done trying to spell it out.
Carry on :)

except for this:

Mr. Joura made a title for his last missive. Do You Mr. Jones?
If you are not familiar with that song by B. Dylan. Google the lyrics and then tell me whom has taken undue umbrage.
Subtext: It's fundemental!

my comprehension is fine, but yeah man... actually quoting the 2 things you were referring to (which were well removed from your reply) would have been ALOT clearer than including 2 unrelated statements and saying mr. joura implied both things when you were not even referring to those things... sorry for not quite following that.

but now that is straight, i do not believe he was implying that... i could be wrong, but i think we all need to be careful when attempting to interpret that which is not said...

re the song, i believe you meant "ballad of a thin man"...
and if umbrage was taken at umbrage, then can you blame him ?
maybe we all need an umbragella to keep the rain and the sun off our necks...




and mikey i still respect your well informed opinion and i still think you're a swell guy so here is a big wet kiss

The urinal pic is taken from above; the viewpoint of the wall it would be attached to, rotated 180 degrees from what you would see if you were using it, looking down.

and if umbrage was taken at umbrage, then can you blame him ?

I absolutely do not blame him. I take it as a compliment. I also take it as complimentary that the faithful continue to nibble around on syntax and minutia while leaving alone the base issues raised by me and others. It's not a he said/she said deal although it's turning into that. The flaws pointed out re: this 'new way' are laying right there. Address them or don't but please stop personalizing this. When the guru is defended this way it's not looking good for that  side. Let him take care of himself please. I love you too K Dawg. *kiss kiss* (although, since I'm in a critical mood, that shade of lipstick does nothing for you man) :D

Dave Leppo - The urinal pic is taken from above; the viewpoint of the wall it would be attached to, rotated 180 degrees from what you would see if you were using it, looking down.

I beg to differ. In your configuration where does one stand to avoid drainage?

Dave Leppo - (Translation: if the tree needed branches it does not now have, they could have surely been in the part that's now gone to decay. And.. you can look at most bonsai and find a full-size example somewhere)

I've addressed that already.

me- I suppose one could make the case that the once massive branches rotted off and the wounds from their long ago attachment healed over leaving no evidence of their existence. A bit of a stretch though.

If you want to join in please read everything that came before. It's frustrating having to spell it all out over again. I'd be happy to look at an image of something similar in nature. Can you find such an image?

The pipes aren't there, only the porcelain.

mikeyeye wrote: When the guru is defended this way it's not looking good for that  side. Let him take care of himself please.

while i was only defending the misappropriation of what arthur actually wrote in order to make a point, i will gladly do as suggested...

mikeyeye wrote:since I'm in a critical mood, that shade of lipstick does nothing for you man)

with my skin tone ???
that is a laughable assertion and totally undermines any credibility you may have in this discussion.

good day, sir.

Mr. Joura implied both of those things. If you can't see it I can't help you.

Don't think he even hinted that you, we, all, or any of us should necessarily agree with him so why do people have their knickers in such a knot?

Like EVERYTHING else in this thread or, in fact, in the entire IBC website no one can tell anyone else what they should think or do . . . and enforce it. So please cool down.

the piece from the side:


flushing water enters from right, waste out to left

Walter Pall wrote:


A mountain maple in the 'Forgotten Valley` not so far from my home in southern Germany
What trained bonsaiists may call 'wrong' too thick and going up vertical branches are called subtrunks in naturalistic terminology. From the subtrunks then the smaller and thinner branches go out horizontally sort of or even downwards. Subtrunks often split into smaller subtrunks again.
This is a very natural way of broadleaved trees to grow, They grow much rather like this than in what is called 'informal upright' in classical bonsai terminology. 'Informal upright' is more the way conifers grow than broadleaved trees.

Trying to make a bonsai look like this mountain maple could be a worthwhile endeavor in my eyes. At least more worthwhile than to copy copies of copies of copies.

While I agree that striving for individualistic and unique styling is a very worthwhile thing, I think it is important to remember that if we keep the exact image of a full sized natural tree such as this wild maple and condense it down to the size of a bonsai, (say 15 metres down to 0.25-1 metre), the image can start to break down. What can be awe inspiring features in the full sized tree such as crossed branches, overly thick branches, many branches coming from one point, straight lines especially etc etc; can easily become a distraction in a potted tree. It is a question of scale. On a big tree the brain does not concentrate on these features simply because of the forceful power of the tree's size in relation to us. It is much bigger than us therefore it has more more ''power''. It overwhelms our senses. Dictates to us how we feel about it.

Bring it down to a size which is smaller than a man and suddenly the tables are turned. Now we have more power than the tree and all these previously stirring features become an irritaing focus of attention. They can no longer be ignored and are suddenly the first thing that hits the eye whenever we look at the tree. Our eye can no longer relax and wander about the branches. A focal point is desirable but it should be satisfying too.
This is one of the major reasons that the Japanese have come up with certain ''rules'' to help avoid this problem.
That is why we remove bar branches, or unharmonious branches. Simply beacuse they become unsatisfiying at a small scale. Every second year our club is visited by a quietly spoken Japanese practitioner of few words. When someone protested that it was ok to keep this or that feature on their tree because ''I see big trees like that in nature'', He replied ''In tree yes, in bonsai no''. Reading between the lines, I believe the above kind of concept is the reasoning behind his reply.

Some people may say ''to hell with the rules''. That is fine if that is how they feel however I think that many of them will eventually come to realize that they have to stick to at least some basic guideline if they are to keep enjoying the same tree for many years. It is also very true that many people will NEVER come to that realization because they just don't have the capacity no matter how long they study bonsai technique. We have people in our club which have not created anything good in forty years and never will. For example, some people can draw reasonably well and others can only draw people as stick figures and birds that look like a flying m even when they are adults. It's just the way it is.

I completely agree that to style a maple like a conifer for example is really just not acceptable anymore. I particularly hate now what I call ''Mount Fuji Trident Maple'' which looks like nothing on this planet. I hate them even more than a tree with a bar branch!

Dave Leppo wrote:the piece from the side:


flushing water enters from right, waste out to left

All I can say about this piece of ''art'' is that the problem stems from those who give the ''artist'' oxygen by commenting on it. (I guess that's a comment)

Fundamental truths?
Really?
And, who says Dan Robinson can't STILL stir up a bit of a kerfuffle within the cognoscenti?
Well okay....  and, since we're apparently quoting EVERYONE now?  
Alrighty then!
Let's just go there,

John Naka wrote:“The object is not to make the tree look like a bonsai, but to make the bonsai look like a tree."

Hmmmmmmmm.......  braver words were never spoken, John.  At least to THIS crowd!

Oh....  but, here we have the conundrum.  
Is it,
- THE IMPRESSION of the bonsai tree which moves you as art?
Or,
- The NATURALISTIC EXPRESSION of the bonsai tree which moves you as art?
-
The refinement and discipline of THE IMPRESSION will leave some with the idea that they have looked at 'broccoli'.
The dedication and application of concept of NATURALISTIC EXPRESSION will leave some jarred and upset with imperfections and the non-adherence to artistic rules and principles.

Oh well....  I identify with - and instinctively like - those artistic presentations in Bonsai I can understand and relate to my own personal experience.  So, deciduous trees with dead wood, sometimes weird branches and asymmetrical shapes reflect pretty well how I see actual trees growing naturally in the wild.

In my opinion......
I can appreciate the work that goes into powerful, Impressionistic Bonsai. But, I'm a Naturalist! Bonsai that have nearly attained absolute perfection and total refinement - in the end - just look cold and soulless to me.

MichaelS wrote:
Some people may say ''to hell with the rules''. That is fine if that is how they feel however I think that many of them will eventually come to realize that they have to stick to at least some basic guideline if they are to keep enjoying the same tree for many years.

true for me... i came into this with the former and as i learn, the latter has become clearly necessary...
(maybe not "guidelines" per se, but basic design principles while respecting the material at hand... but that is just semantics)

i find myself spending a lot of time correcting earlier efforts or simply just starting over with a piece of material...
however, i dont consider that as time lost... just lessons learned.

Unfortunately (but then maybe not – yeah on the fence) it seems that this most recent post of Arthur's journey to the PNW has stirred the pot and has stimulated a lot of response. Which, in turn makes it (for me) enjoyable reading and interesting discussion on a number of fronts/topics.
I myself look forward to Arthur’s posts on this thread as I find then very interesting and informative as I stumble along my path (my bonsai craft not art).
I can only offer that I’m with Jim ……as I have seen some very large, very old, mature Acer macrophyllum (Big leaf maple or Oregon maple) up here above the 49th that grew similar to Dan’s Japanese maple – they suffered through a monster micro (i.e. isolated) storm that hit us back in Feb/2012- where they lost the large outward and skyward reaching branches……….but that didn’t kill them and now 3 years later they have sprung back to life with secondary branches now reaching out… and I have also seen them fully rotted out with just a core of perimeter living sapwood.
As for the faults from large “trees in nature” not working with trees in pots……”is in the eye of the beholder”. I agree to a point but I’ve tried to train my eye to look past them and appreciate the overall beauty – perfection from all the imperfections.
Keep them coming Arthur.
Cheers Graham

JimLewis wrote:

MichaelS wrote:
While I agree that striving for individualistic and unique styling is a very worthwhile thing, I think it is important to remember that if we keep the exact image of a full sized natural tree such as this wild maple and condense it down to the size of a bonsai, (say 15 metres down to 0.25-1 metre), the image can start to break down. What can be awe inspiring features in the full sized tree such as crossed branches, overly thick branches, many branches coming from one point, straight lines especially etc etc; can easily become a distraction in a potted tree. It is a question of scale. On a big tree the brain does not concentrate on these features simply because of the forceful power of the tree's size in relation to us. It is much bigger than us therefore it has more more ''power''. It overwhelms our senses. Dictates to us how we feel about it.

Bring it down to a size which is smaller than a man and suddenly the tables are turned. Now we have more power than the tree and all these previously stirring features become an irritaing focus of attention. They can no longer be ignored and are suddenly the first thing that hits the eye whenever we look at the tree. Our eye can no longer relax and wander about the branches. A focal point is desirable but it should be satisfying too.
This is one of the major reasons that the Japanese have come up with certain ''rules'' to help avoid this problem.
That is why we remove bar branches, or unharmonious branches. Simply beacuse they become unsatisfiying at a small scale. Every second year our club is visited by a quietly spoken Japanese practitioner of few words. When someone protested that it was ok to keep this or that feature on their tree because ''I see big trees like that in nature'', He replied ''In tree yes, in bonsai no''. Reading between the lines, I believe the above kind of concept is the reasoning behind his reply.

Some people may say ''to hell with the rules''. That is fine if that is how they feel however I think that many of them will eventually come to realize that they have to stick to at least some basic guideline if they are to keep enjoying the same tree for many years. It is also very true that many people will NEVER come to that realization because they just don't have the capacity no matter how long they study bonsai technique. We have people in our club which have not created anything good in forty years and never will. For example, some people can draw reasonably well and others can only draw people as stick figures and birds that look like a flying m even when they are adults. It's just the way it is.

I completely agree that to style a maple like a conifer for example is really just not acceptable anymore. I particularly hate now what I call ''Mount Fuji Trident Maple'' which looks like nothing on this planet. I hate them even more than a tree with a bar branch!

Spot on. Thank you for the clear cut analysis. Great job Mike!

I imagine Google image search got quite the workout since we asked for an image of a real tree looking remotely like Dan Robinson's maple. Saying it's possible or saying we've seen them just has no weight. Pics or it didn't happen ... as they say.

I didn't think it necessary; I thought everyone could envision such a tree. I think there's one near my house (no pic. though)

Dave Leppo wrote:I didn't think it necessary; I thought everyone could envision such a tree.

To which I would point out; those trees all have branches and scars that were once branches to justify the size of the trunks. This one does not:


... but we all have our different visions.

It is hair splitting to be sure but when a bonsai is declared a masterpiece it's all about the hairs.