American Bonsai at the NC Arboretum

Perhaps it IS time that everyone re-read our Acceptable Use Policy ( https://ibonsaiclub.forumotion.com/t1061-a-acceptable-use-policy-aup ). This thread has come close to tangling with the first item.

So far, however, while we have strayed FAR from the N.C. Arboretum, we're OK. And Arthur himself has extended this debate a couple of times.

Just stay nice. Please.

MichaelS wrote:
It's becoming quite obvious that this discussion is headed nowhere so not really much more to say other than if anyone wants discuss these concepts in a detailed way (tree by tree) rather than a dissmisive, general or historical way, I would be happy as I still feel as if some ideas (on both sides) have failed to penetrate. But personalities being what they are it is probably impossible without people taking offence. A pity.

Is it a pity Mike? Can there be a free and open exchange of ideas when the sycophants are running around wringing their hands and wetting themselves over the very idea that their guru is being challenged? Rather than try to address the issues raised they prefer to whine about etiquette. How is that ever going to go anywhere?

It’s been suggested this miasma be moved. Actually there is a thread that begins to examine the naturalistic fallacy. It’s just here:

https://ibonsaiclub.forumotion.com/t16671-don-t-make-a-tree-looked-like-a-bonsai-but-make-a-bonsai-looked-like-a-tree-revisit

There you’ll find such tidbits as:

beer city snake wrote:which is exactly why i believe far too much emphasis is placed on deciding what the "front" of a tree is...
of course when you stick a tree in "the contest" you want the best side forward, but beyond that it should be pleasing from all sides
(which of course can be more difficult than just getting one side to look good)

arthur joura came to milwaukee for a talk and workshop with carolina hornbeams - all young and small -
and he got quite the kick out of how everyone already had their "front" picked out :lol:

he is one of my main eye-openers to many aspects of this banzai world

I mean, come on. Really? Here’s a guy going around selling his pov and in the process instructing the newbies that their trees needn’t have fronts? Wow.

Whatever. If there is someone out there who has yet to make up their minds regarding which path to follow I would highly recommend at least a basic understanding of artistic design concepts. One can read all about it here:

Artistic Foundations of Bonsai Design by Andy Rutledge

Here’s a quote to consider:
“Bonsai is defined in all kinds of ways by all kinds of people. One popular and effective definition of bonsai is as a means of self-expression. Your individual working concept of bonsai will drive your bonsai stylings and surely your own particular idiom will embody your artistic attempts. But if you are ignoring the conventions of artistry, your work will come up short in its ability to communicate with those who see it — other than yourself. Self-expression is impotent and largely irrelevant without a common reference for conceptualizing your communication."

mikeyeye wrote:Here’s a guy going around selling his pov and in the process instructing the newbies that their trees needn’t have fronts? Wow.

in case you miss it, you have a PM regarding this silly, spun statement...
no more tit-for-tat from me on this thread...

This thread has reached the Outer Limits anyway. Remember the theme song? I hope you hear it in your heads all frigging day!
As for Jackson P., I remember some ignorant remark dismissing the body of work of an American master as "throwing cans of paint": or some such drivel! Stick to your trees, your conservative styling, and don't bother us with your pathetic comments about painters. Sorry, Jim, not nice. But we have been putting up with a lot in this thread, and it is time to stop throwing BASURA around.

beer city snake wrote:

mikeyeye wrote:Here’s a guy going around selling his pov and in the process instructing the newbies that their trees needn’t have fronts? Wow.

in case you miss it, you have a PM regarding this silly, spun statement...
no more tit-for-tat from me on this thread...  

What in god's name are you on about? That quote has nothing to do with you b.s.s. I'm referring to Joura traveling around. Not you.

Whatever. R.O. is right. Bonsai and the internet is a horrible combination. Enjoy your coffee klatsch ladies.

~ Guest

And now we hand you back to the studio... Arthur? What's the latest from the arboretum?

I just want to say that…As I read the many arguments (I’m still not sure what the disagreement was) that I learned a great deal about the philosophies of the bonsai enthusiast. I bought my first plant with the intention of shaping it and making it fit into a small pot last December. I know that I know nothing. However, these last few months I have been reading what I originally thought was going to be a bout a bonsai exhibit at the NC Arboretum and turned out to be a great lecture on the differing schools of what a Bonsai is. Although the debate did seem to get intense it opened my eyes to the many possibilities (perhaps because it was a passionate debate) of bonsai. I truly loved reading everybody’s ideas because I was able to learn from each one.

Fiona, sorry I brought the thread back away from the Arboretum, but I truly felt compelled to say that I learned things you can’t get from books, and "how to" websites by reading all these people’s ideas via short statements.

In conclusion, I truly and warmly say thank you to all who participated in this debate (which to me seemed a debate about defining contemporary bonsai). My mind was awakened and I can see things a lot more clearly now.

Arthur, she’s all yours.

Hello Walter,

Thank you for responding to my open letter. As usual, what you have written is worth the reading and prompts further discussion.

Although I think of it as a sidebar to the topic at hand, I want to take the time to comment on the business of Internet bonsai forums, especially as this conversation is taking place on one. It is well understood and not surprising that you have had your fill of on-line arguments. There is not much use in them, I think. Still, I remain a proponent of the forum concept and think they offer a valuable service in providing a platform for the free and open exchange of ideas. As with many other things, there is a discouraging gulf between the ideal and the reality in the way forums typically function. In defense of using personal blogs and Facebook pages as an alternative to forums, you point out that while they may not be democratic they are effective. This is no doubt true. However, the same can be said of dictatorship governments over democratically elected ones and for mostly the same reasons. Democracy is cumbersome, slow, frustrating and all too often ineffective, but I think freedom of speech and the ability to have a multitude of differing viewpoints contributing to a larger dialogue is worth the trouble. I do not agree that democracy means we are all the same. It means only that we have the same right to express ourselves and participate, and in the competition of ideas better ideas should emerge. There is no guarantee they will, but they can.

Let us take, as an example, those ferocious on-line debates in which you used to engage. You had some alternative ideas to offer the bonsai world so you put them out there in the various bonsai forums. Many people disagreed with your perspective and they voiced their opinions in response to yours. Some of these opponents reacted viscerally and made their responses into personal attacks on you for daring to disturb the perfect balance of their bonsai concept, and you battled back against them, often in-kind. All over the world people were reading these forums and absorbing the various ideas being offered for consideration, and I was one of those people. Your ideas influenced my thinking. I read what you had to say and I read what others said in response and I weighed the arguments and decided what you said made sense. It did not matter that at that time I had never heard of you. All that mattered was that you had something to offer and you put your ideas out there in a well articulated manner, where they could be accessed and evaluated against other ideas. Some of those other ideas were espoused by people I had heard of and regarded as authorities, at least to the degree that I supposed them to know more than I did. In a democratic competition of ideas, yours won me over.

Now, the parts where these conversations went off the rails and burst into flames was grand entertainment, not unlike the good old days of gladiators beating each other to death in the arena, and the on-line bonsai community gathered around in their virtual togas and cheered lustily and offered thumbs up or down when a combatant was knocked to the ground. You were spectacular in that arena Walter! But the verbal bludgeoning part of it was not what changed my thinking. I do not know that it changed anyone's thinking, it was just blood sport. So I think it is fair to conclude that the ugly (but entertaining) part of it is unnecessary. It is the sharing of minds that matters. That is how I see it, anyway.

That is why, in my thread on the IBC forum, I do not choose to engage in debate with people who hold obviously opposing viewpoints. I post my thoughts and ideas and pictures of my work so that anyone who is interested can access them and make up their own minds about them. I take it as a given that my views will not appeal to everyone, and if anyone is so inclined they can voice their opposing opinion because it is a public forum and that is why public forums exist. If such a person raises a worthwhile point or asks a question for some reason other than attempting to start a fight, I will answer them. But if someone approaches me painted up like Mel Gibson in "Braveheart", beating their naked chest and waiving a sharp stick at me while shouting OOGA! OOGA! OOGA! or something roughly equivalent, I will just ignore them. Likewise, if a person chooses to reply in a more respectful manner but all they have to offer is a reiteration of conventional thinking that is already out there and I already know and have rejected, I do not feel any need to reply. The idea they espouse can sit there next to mine in the marketplace of ideas and shoppers can choose what they like.

But enough about forums. You approach them your way and I mine, and we have our differences in that regard. In other regards our thinking is similar, and an appreciation of Naturalistic bonsai is certainly an area of agreement. Thank you for providing the concise definition I requested. If you will forgive me, I repeat it here with a slight modification made for the sake of allowing it to be more usable as a standalone statement:

"Naturalistic bonsai compared to what generally is known as bonsai is like the difference between realistic and abstract painting. Naturalists try to create something that looks like a genuine tree. General bonsaiists try to create something that looks like a bonsai. And they are not aware of it."

It is curious to me that this statement of yours has provoked no response from the people who have previously voiced their opinion of naturalistic bonsai as a dubious concept if not an outright fraud. Perhaps they are simply content to let your point of view stand unchallenged next to theirs in the marketplace of ideas, or maybe they are afraid of crossing you on a public forum. (Who dares step into the ring with Walter Pall - The Munich Masher, The Austrian Annihilator, The Tyrolean Terror!) I have noticed, Walter, that the bonsai community seems to divide itself into 2 camps regarding you. Some love you and the rest fear you. Machiavelli would be proud.

I have a response to your statement, Walter. I want to know why. Why are so many people in bonsai seemingly not aware that their bonsai creations do not look like genuine trees?

I enjoyed reading your account of how you came to recognize for yourself that the bonsai you commonly saw and those you were originally making yourself did not look like the trees that you could observe everyday growing in nature all around you. I had never heard you speak of that moment of recognition before, but it was more or less exactly as I would have guessed it to have happened. I had a similar awakening. You had to grope your way along in the dark, piecing together information gathered from your fortunate encounter with Dan Robinson and some inquisitive reading of John Naka, coupled with your intuition and a lifelong love of trees in nature, to arrive at an expanded level of awareness as to certain forces at work in the conventional ideas about bonsai styling. I had the lifelong love of trees in nature as well, but I also had the benefit of some rudimentary fine art education and exposure to the ideas you were putting out on the Internet. But in both our cases there came a time when we first recognized the disconnect between the natural example of trees as we knew them to be and the way they were represented in bonsai form, and in both our cases we found this to be both puzzling and troubling.

So, here I finally arrive at the primary point I wished to explore today and suddenly find I have already buried you under an avalanche of words, and used up all the time I have at present, too. Perhaps this is just as well. I will gladly step back from the keyboard for now and allow you to take the lead in carrying the discussion forward, should you be inclined to do so. You are the recognized authority in this matter, and although it is well understood that you enjoy and produce other styles of bonsai "in parallel" with naturalistic style, still I think there is no one better than you to discourse on the subject. Let me offer this: Do you think many other people in bonsai recognize the difference between conventionally designed bonsai trees and real trees in nature? Your definition quote suggests you think they do not, but perhaps they do and they do not care. Why should they? If indeed they do not recognize the difference then why do you suppose they do not? Is it not obvious? I hope you will humor me Walter and share your thoughts. I think these questions are useful keys to unlocking the box so many people have built around bonsai as we know it today in the Western culture.

Walter Pall wrote:Dear Arthur,

Oh yes, I remember so well and don't feel like I am longing for it again. Guess why I am absent from bonsai forums by and large.

Dear Mr. Pall,

This is what I thought long and hard before jumping in this conversation because the last thing I want to do is drown out the important voices from you and Mr. Joura. I wish everyone understand and obey the Golden Rule, the one has the gold make the rule. If you don't have the gold then better just shut up and listen and learn something to turn fools gold into real gold. Please don't discourage with all the chatters, you are a teacher not only to the ones that have the mean and fortunate to attend your lectures in personal level, but your teaching have also reached millions of people around the world that never fortunate enough to meet you, and I am one of those. You have left a profound effect not only my trees but also my perspective about existence of things.

Dear Mr. Joura,
I have read every single word on this post and just in awe with your gentle, humanity, and humility. You have a gentle soul, and your trees show that. It's still a long way for me to reach the plateau of your emotion, until then my only hope is my trees can speak for me. Sincerely.

van

[quote="geo"]

As for Jackson P., I remember some ignorant remark dismissing the body of work of an American master as "throwing cans of paint": or some such drivel! Stick to your trees, your conservative styling, and don't bother us with your pathetic comments about painters.

Excellent! Thanks geo for helping me to illustrate my point!

Arthur Joura wrote:quote] I take it as a given that my views will not appeal to everyone, and if anyone is so inclined they can voice their opposing opinion because it is a public forum and that is why public forums exist. If such a person raises a worthwhile point or asks a question for some reason other than attempting to start a fight, I will answer them.

Good to know Arthur. I have a couple of questions if I may. What was your reason of posting a picture of a dead tree trunk? Is it inspiring to you? If so what does it inspire?

So have we decided what is right or wrong yet?
Is bonsai art? Or something more?
Are naturalistic bonsai a real form or style?
Am I an artist because I can say I have a bonsai I built from the ground up?
I don't consider bonsai art. I like to call it horticultural manipulation. The real artist here is Mother Nature and all we are trying to do is emulate her works.
Walter Pall,Arthur Joura,Dan W,and Vance Wood are on a whole different planet than I am. They all have trees that the rest of us wish we had. Are they artists? Close. They just know how to manipulate trees better than the rest of us to get what they want.
As for the different styles,naturalistic,stylized or fairy tale I like them all. Stylized or Japanese style trees are what got us all into this hobby. Mr. Myagi.
Naturistic style. Anyone who has seen Walters Japanese maple number 1 is blown away. I know I was when I first saw a picture of it. Who wouldn't want something like that?
And fairy tale style. My personal favorite. A take on big old beat up trees that live on the fringes,out in the open getting struck by lightning repeatedly, big gnary limbs in the wrong places which seem right for some reason. Broken trunks. The Whomping willow from Harry Potter or the apple trees from The Wizard of Oz.
All of these styles have a place on my benches. They are just trees in pots after all is said and done. One style isn't better than the other. Or worse.
Bonsai is a perceptual thing. To one guy a tree may look like a masterpiece. To another crap. Who is right? Who is wrong?
Probably me.

No, not you, M.Frary. What you have written here is on my behalf,too. I would guess it strikes a chord with a lot of "small tree" enthusiasts, most of whom will never be the best but all of whom want to be the best they can. Having said that, I do like to listen in on knowledgeable and experienced people expressing their views. (I like to hear discussions about Quantum Mechanics - I just wish I understood all that was being said - still fascinating, though.) And now, back to my small charges........

Walter wrote this in 2009 and I think he explains the differences between traditional/Japanese bonsai and the naturalistic style he practices. If bonsai is an art and I think it can be if practiced at a high level, then surely like all art it will progress through various styles,movements or whatever. Saying we should work in one particular style is like saying painters should only paint in the style of the Impressionists. No style will fit everyone's aesthetic, so go off and do your thing,in the way you choose

Dear Arthur,

Arthur Joura wrote:
"Naturalistic bonsai compared to what generally is known as bonsai is like the difference between realistic and abstract painting. Naturalists try to create something that looks like a genuine tree. General bonsaiists try to create something that looks like a bonsai. And they are not aware of it."

It is curious to me that this statement of yours has provoked no response from the people who have previously voiced their opinion of naturalistic bonsai as a dubious concept if not an outright fraud. Perhaps they are simply content to let your point of view stand unchallenged next to theirs in the marketplace of ideas, or maybe they are afraid of crossing you on a public forum. (Who dares step into the ring with Walter Pall - The Munich Masher, The Austrian Annihilator, The Tyrolean Terror!) I have noticed, Walter, that the bonsai community seems to divide itself into 2 camps regarding you. Some love you and the rest fear you. Machiavelli would be proud.
...
I have a response to your statement, Walter. I want to know why. Why are so many people in bonsai seemingly not aware that their bonsai creations do not look like genuine trees?

I think they don't question what they are doing. They are doing it as a craft. While nowadays most will agree that bonsai is an art form they don't practice it like one. (btw, fifteen years ago many if not the majority were of the opinion that bonsai was NOT an art form). So what is the difference? In a nutshell the craftsman has learned what he is doing and just does it. He does not question it, it's not his job to innovate, but to produce. The artist questions what he does, he questions everything. If something was not done before that's a good reason to do it. This is the western understanding of art by and large. The eastern art concept is more as we see craft. So this is one of the keys to understand the present bonsai scene: bonsai is seen and practiced as an Asian, namely a Japanese art form. And that means that it is practiced as a craft in western understanding. We praise an artist as a rebel, who rocks the boat. In Japan a rebel is a bad person, who rocks the boat. And that is not done. So it is not questioned what we produce as long as it looks like a good bonsai. And a good bonsai looks like a tree - everybody knows this. Or does it?

Arthur Joura wrote:Let me offer this: Do you think many other people in bonsai recognize the difference between conventionally designed bonsai trees and real trees in nature? Your definition quote suggests you think they do not, but perhaps they do and they do not care. Why should they? If indeed they do not recognize the difference then why do you suppose they do not? Is it not obvious? I hope you will humor me Walter and share your thoughts. I think these questions are useful keys to unlocking the box so many people have built around bonsai as we know it today in the Western culture.

Arthur, you make me wary. Let me tell you a story around this.

In February of 2002 I went skiing and had a small camera with me. I made a couple of shots of the mountains and trees at the timberline. At this time it was quite something to be able to make good photographs with such a small camera which would not bother you while skiing. I was quite active on the Internet Bonsai Club Forum and showed these photographs. I showed this particular larch and asked what folks though about it. While today I neither think it was a great photograph nor that the larch was great in particular, at that time folks said it was a great tree, a nice tree, a good shot - no disagreement. So then I asked: 'can we not take this larch as an example to style our trees?'.  Only a few thought that it could be worth a try. The majority said no. One in particular, Rainer Goebel, was absolutely against it. Rainer at that time was the big man on the forum, he had the last word and he knew it. But it would not have been me if  I had not insisted that we should look for new ways and this would be one to consider. Rainer answered along the lines: 'Walter, I know you are not stupid, but you sound very stupid in your stubbornness. You insist that this should be an example for bonsai. It must not be and cannot be. Because it does not look like a bonsai.



BECAUSE IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A BONSAI.  What a monstrous statement! I was tempted to answer right away, but fortunately did not. I went skiing instead. On the lift I thought a lot about this. How could it be that a reasonable person in general who has seen a university from inside would say this? How was it possible that practically everybody felt that the tree was great - and most could not see it as example for bonsai? It's like having a good looking lady sitting on a chair in front of you and everybody agrees that she is good looking. I ask 'can we not paint her?' and the answer is 'You cannot paint her, she does not look like a painting'. You would be offered  treatment for such a statement.

While I was aggravated and irritated I came to the conclusion that it was not the intention of Rainer to make me mad, while he did. The answer was: he sincerely believed that this was the truth. And I came to realize that he was not the only one to think that way. It was normal to think so - it was what we were lead to believe the art of bonsai is all about: It is about creating a beautiful bonsai. Period. And it was my task to question that and find a way to create something that looked like this larch and not like a bonsai. While I had done this already for a couple of years At this point my thinking became clear about it.

So this larch as silly as it may be marked a great turning point in my thinking and possibly later on in the thinking of by now quite a few people.
This pathetic larch is like the urinal of Duchamp I would dare to say if this statement were not megalomania.

So I am aware that I am tuning in a circle here. You are correct Arthur, folks do realize that their bonsai don't look like real trees and they don't question this, they don't care. For them it is as it is supposed to be. This is what makes my  ideas so irritating - they feel disturbed in their cozy world. And at the same time many think that their bonsai obviously look like real trees. They have gotten so used to the caricatures of real trees that they mistake them for the real thing.

This is like at the turning point of classical painting vs. impressionist around 140 years ago. Mainstream was clearly classical 'realistic' painting. The proponents of the classical way were absolutely under the impression that they were producing or looking at what the world really looked like. Then came the Impressionists and showed them what realism really was. They painted in sketches, mostly outside instead of inside with real colors ass they saw them. These paintings were so strange in the beginning for the proponents of the old 'right' way that they seriously thought that Impressionists were suffering from eye disease if not from some sort of mental disorder. In hindsight the Impressionists really at least tried to show the world as it is while the classical ones tried to show the world the way it should be and like it was always shown, like they wre taught to see it.

So to answer this question, Arthur, I believe in bonsai today we are at the turning point still at which the painting world was around 140 years ago. You are 'officially' trained in this, I am only a dilettante student who once thought about studying this 'officially'. So you be the judge whether it is so. The classical school believes that they are showing the trees like they are while they only show them in a mostly stereotype way as they THINK they are, as they were taught to see them. And the new wave shows the trees as they really are and still meet a lot of opposition for their blasphemy. Traditional bonsaiists think that they make trees to look like trees while they make them to look like bonsai.

So it is still not clear what the bonsai crowd thinks about this issue. Whenever I mention something like 'the overwhelming majority of bonsai don't look like trees but like bonsai' I get the impression that I am not understood. Most really don't see it. They really think I am speaking nonsense. Well, maybe I am. But they don't smell their own scent. So I insist: `General bonsaiists try to create something that looks like a bonsai. And they are not aware of it'.

Anyway, it is very important at this point to repeat that it is not necessary to like the naturalistic way. You can hate it, that's OK. But one should respect it and not resort to personal attacks against the proponents. And it is also important to note that this is not an either-or situation. One can well do several styles and be an integer artist. Also one can enjoy many styles and be an integer bonsai connoisseur. And one can like a person while being radically against his ideas. Yes, it is OK to like Naturalists and not like their work.

I've been away from this forum for a while but on my return I was pleased to see that Arthur was still posting informative and thought provoking articles in this thread and that they continue to elicit a spirited debate. That this debate has also persuaded Walter to contribute is an added bonus. I'm sure most of us are extremely grateful for these contributions, I know I am, so thank you gents!

Of course the only problem is that in this company it can feel a little intimidating for an ignorant, uneducated hobbyist like myself to contribute but as this thread has caused me to give the subject of art & bonsai some considerable thought I suppose that for what it is worth I might as well share my thoughts. Whether they're of any value to the wider debate is for you to decide .

Anyway, it seems to me that the ultimate objective of all art is to express something of the emotional relationship between the artist and their subject. But what, in bonsai terms, is the subject?

The obvious and intuitive answer of course is trees, which to some extent I suppose must be true but I think that for most of us it goes a little deeper than that.

I would argue that the tree is in fact the medium not the subject! The subject is in fact nature or perhaps even man's relationship with nature. Of course as a subject for art this is not new, original or in any way exclusive to bonsai but I digress.

If the objective of art is to express an emotional response to some aspect of human experience then it follows that the only way to judge the success or failure of the artistic endeavour is to ask whether the finished work succeeds in evoking or provoking an equivalent emotional response in the audience.

Of course such a judgement is problematic because it is highly subjective and dependent on many variables, not least the audiences experience and expectations. This is why two people can have a wildly different response to a single piece of work. Or indeed why the same person (Arthur for example) can have a radically different response to essentially the same work (Dan Robinson's bonsai) but viewed years later. The nature and character of the work may not have changed but Arthurs experience and expectations obviously have.

The "urinal" is a good example of this subjectivity. I "don't get it" by which of course I mean "I don't understand it". I don't hate it and I don't have any problem accepting that it is (or at least could be) art but I have no emotional response to it at all. It leaves me cold but then again perhaps that's not surprising. I expect that it was very definitely aimed at a narrow and specific audience (the art establishment of the time) not the general public. I'm also fairly sure that the urinal was the medium NOT the subject. And I don't suppose the subject was "plumbing" or "the state of public conveniences in late 19th C Europe" or whatever.

Anyway, to bring it back to bonsai, the point I am trying to make is that if the tree is the medium NOT the subject then the actual form or style of the tree in question (classical, neo-classical, modern, abstract, grotesque, fairy tale or naturalistic etc) is of little importance. What matters is that it succeeds in communicating the emotional message to the audience that the artist intended (or at least that it elicits a positive emotional response, I guess the audience can never really be sure whether they are seeing what the artist intended them to see or not).

This doesn't mean that all works are equal, some are still objectively "better" than others but simply that the worth or value of a piece can't in anyway be determined solely by it's form or style. To say that one form or style is good and another bad or that one is right and another wrong is therefore nonsense!

Unless of course, my assumption that the "subject" of ALL bonsai artist is Nature is incorrect?

Suppose I'm wrong and in fact the subject for some artists/audiences really is Trees? In this case an argument can be made that the Naturalistic style being more literal is better (although literal interpretations aren't always more emotionally powerful than abstract ones hopefully you see my point).

Then again, perhaps for some the subject isn't Nature or Trees? Perhaps it's Orientalism or Japanese art & culture? In this case even the most magnificent naturalistic bonsai will "fail" to provoke the correct emotional response because Japanese-ness is the overriding artistic requirement and as Walter has often pointed out, the most common natural tree style, the informal broom doesn't appear in the Japanese bonsai rule book.

Anyhow, I'm exceeding my station thinking about these lofty subjects (especially in this company) so I'll close simply by saying that for me at least the tree is the medium not the subject and the subject is Nature. So, the arguments about the relative merits of different styles and forms is of little consequence to my enjoyment of other peoples work and is of only limited relevance to my own ham fisted attempts to produce something that says what I want to say about my experience of the natural world.

Richard S wrote:
Of course the only problem is that in this company it can feel a little intimidating for an ignorant, uneducated hobbyist like myself to contribute but as this thread has caused me to give the subject of art & bonsai some considerable thought I suppose that for what it is worth I might as well share my thoughts. Whether they're of any value to the wider debate is for you to decide .

 

For an ignorant, uneducated hobbyist you gave a profound great answer. I really like what you are writing. It adds a lot of insight to the discussion.

Thank you, Richard.

Thank you Walter, that is appreciated.

Regards

Richard

XXXX

And artist shouldnt have to care wether it exist in nature or not,
He just tries to make something beautifull, he is not bound by rules
Personally i do not care at all what the style is called, i have read a lot about them but if i look at a tree i never think, does this really exist in nature or not, do the rules apply do thos tree..i do not care.
Only 1 thing matters, does it look good or not,

So, does that make bonsai art? Its no different from painting. Both are crafts . In the hands of an artist is when they can become art.

A while ago o was in this demo performed by an old guy doing satsuki bonsai for about 40 years. You. Can bet he knew what he was doing, Was he an artist? Hell no and he knew it too. If you had to give him a name it would be "farmer" and a pretty good one too.


Its also about the setting, how it is displayed, i once went to an ehibition and it was in a japanese castle,
The bonsai displayed were offcourse traditional, though top class ones, it was a perfect match, it was like every part in the different rooms (tatami, furniture, bonsai,..) enhances each other. It creates a special atmosphere hard to describe, a feeling of perfectionism almost, it makes you give respect to the rules(i dont mean bonsai rules) but also cery calming.

In a similar atmosphere  would a tree in the fairy style work?, not to the same extent i believe

trees that look like reall trees  is what i like most though, wether this is styled in traditional way or naturalistic way doesnt matter. Yes i do think both ways can create this.

Tommy

[quote="Walter Pall"]

I think they don't question what they are doing. They are doing it as a craft. While nowadays most will agree that bonsai is an art form they don't practice it like one. (btw, fifteen years ago many if not the majority were of the opinion that bonsai was NOT an art form). So what is the difference? In a nutshell the craftsman has learned what he is doing and just does it. He does not question it, it's not his job to innovate, but to produce. The artist questions what he does, he questions everything. If something was not done before that's a good reason to do it. This is the western understanding of art by and large. The eastern art concept is more as we see craft.

The fact that many western bonsai practitioners practice as a ''craft'' (that is that they may just follow a set of rigid instructions from a book or a teacher without thinking or questioning) does not mean that bonsai is practiced as a craft in Japan. It simply means that they do not possess (or have not yet aquired) an aesthetic sensibility, OR that they have failed to understand the eastern concept. The Japanese idea of bonsai (at least the traditional concept) has been given extremely profound contemplation and discussion and dissagreement (MUCH more than in the west) by many scholars and philosiphers starting with the Chinese.
The original (and ongoing) eastern (and especially Japanese) concept of bonsai was to create a work which deeply moves the viewer in such a way as to convey a sense of the wild and the natural, exactly what the ''new'' western idea of the ''naturalistic'' style seeks to achieve. The argument, eastern AND western, is about how to achieve it. That many attemps (both western and eastern) to do this fail, has nothing to do with western verses eastern concepts of art. It has everything to do with individual artistic ability.

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A BONSAI.  What a monstrous statement! I was tempted to answer right away, but fortunately did not. I went skiing instead. On the lift I thought a lot about this. How could it be that a reasonable person in general who has seen a university from inside would say this? How was it possible that practically everybody felt that the tree was great - and most could not see it as example for bonsai?

It's very simple. If you condense the exact image of this tree to the size of a bonsai, it would look like a shrub in a pot not a 20 metre tree.  The kind of thing you would buy at a nursery to plant in your garden.
I suspect that when someone like Rainer Goebel say ''because it does not look like a bonsai'' What they mean is ''it will not give you a satifactory impression of a tree when it is in a bonsai pot.

It's like having a good looking lady sitting on a chair in front of you and everybody agrees that she is good looking. I ask 'can we not paint her?' and the answer is 'You cannot paint her, she does not look like a painting'. You would be offered  treatment for such a statement.

It's not like that at all. It is a question of perception. A two dimentional painting of a lady can still be percieved by us as a full sized figure in our minds because we are ''looking into'' a scene. Usually you have a reference for size - a room, a chair in the picture. The same with a painting of the Larch. It would also look like a full sized tree...even if the painting was just 3cm. Looking at the same image as a 3 dimentional bonsai, we can no longer ''look into a scene'' we have nothing for size reference and we need to construct the scene in our minds. That's why we need to use all the bonsai ''tricks'' to make the illusion. And that is a very important point which many people don't understand. BONSAI IS AN ILLUSION.... NOT THE REAL THING. And that is why we need to manipulate, alter, change and refine from the natural to get the same feeling. The problem, (and I completely agree with you on this point) is that it is extremely difficult to achieve a ''naturalistic'' and a convincing image.

The classical school believes that they are showing the trees like they are while they only show them in a mostly stereotype way as they THINK they are, as they were taught to see them. And the new wave shows the trees as they really are and still meet a lot of opposition for their blasphemy.

There is no ''classical'' school. Everybody wants to achieve the same thing.....the image of a tree..Not many succeed. Why? Well one of the reasons is as you say because they just follow the basic rules again and again without thinking about what the REAL objective is: (to create a believable image of a tree) and more people just copy what they do. Another reason could be that they do not have the sensibility to observe and interperate what they see in nature. The ''new wave'' is simply the westerners who are just starting to claim that they question what they are doing. It is very important to question. We need it to develop, but it's something that the Japanese have already done. (and are still doing) The fact that many of them fail has nothing to do with new concepts or theories. The concept is already there and it is extremely simple. The discussion should be 'how do we use the concept? ''What is the best way to achieve it?''

Anyway, it is very important at this point to repeat that it is not necessary to like the naturalistic way. You can hate it, that's OK.

Nobody hates it. How can you hate a desire to recreate the natural in bonsai? What they dislike are many of the attemps made so far and even worse, when some of those examples are held to be masterpeices.

[quote="Richard S"]

Anyway, it seems to me that the ultimate objective of all art is to express something of the emotional relationship between the artist and their subject. But what, in bonsai terms, is the subject?

The obvious and intuitive answer of course is trees, which to some extent I suppose must be true but I think that for most of us it goes a little deeper than that.

I would argue that the tree is in fact the medium not the subject! The subject is in fact nature or perhaps even man's relationship with nature. Of course as a subject for art this is not new, original or in any way exclusive to bonsai but I digress.

Richard, I would argue that the tree (is both subject and medium) If the tree is all we have to manipulate then of course it is the medium but with the tree being an integral part of a natural scene we are attempting to convey it also must be considered the subject. Therin lies the difference between say painting (where the subject can be a natural scene or a tree and the paint and canvas the media) and bonsai.

This doesn't mean that all works are equal, some are still objectively "better" than others but simply that the worth or value of a piece can't in anyway be determined solely by it's form or style. To say that one form or style is good and another bad or that one is right and another wrong is therefore nonsense!

I don't think anyone is really saying that. (certainly not me) In fact I don't even like the word ''style'' as it brings up pre-concieved ideas. What I'm saying is that what others have been calling the ''new'' ''naturalistic style'' (their term not mine but I use it for the sake of argument) is nothing more than an attempt or concept to produce a natural looking work AND that many of these works fall short of their claims. That the said works are to use your word not ''objectively better'' than what has already come before.

as Walter has often pointed out, the most common natural tree style, the informal broom doesn't appear in the Japanese bonsai rule book.

No because the rule books are simplified for those just beginning. However the informal broom appears abundently in the Japanese albums and shows. So what's new?

Hi MichealS,

I have to politely asking you to retire this debate in respect for Mr. Joura's original intention of this thread, and that is the bonsai at N.C. arboretum.  You can create another thread for this debate to continue, if other people would like to continue this seemingly endless conversation, about what is natural and what is bonsai. Respectfully yours.

van

By the way, Mr. Pall also posted the responses to Mr. Joura's open letters on his personal blog. I wonder if anyone can evoke the conversation with him directly there of the natural movements.

Actually, Arthur has requested that we, the Moderators, DO NOT remove anything from the thread for the reasons he has already given on the thread.

fiona wrote:Actually, Arthur has requested that we, the Moderators, DO NOT remove anything from the thread for the reasons he has already given on the thread.  

Arthur, You're awesome!!!!