American Bonsai at the NC Arboretum

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 .

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.  

Van wrote: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.

beer city snake wrote:

Van wrote: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.

as mikey pointed out, there is this thread:
https://ibonsaiclub.forumotion.com/t16671-don-t-make-a-tree-looked-like-a-bonsai-but-make-a-bonsai-looked-like-a-tree-revisit

virtually the same debate, with equally disparate positions, but with less aggression and far more palatable...

HEY SAM !
was wondering where you gone off to...

Sam Ogranaja wrote: I'm pretty sure Austrians don't hug Albanians

Maros Belan wrote:

Sam Ogranaja wrote: I'm pretty sure Austrians don't hug Albanians

I'm pretty sure they do.

Walter Pall wrote: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.

Arthur Joura wrote:
("What is bonsai?")

In Asia, more and more bonsai people practicing naturalistic design for the art.

and we use our natural environment for inspiration both for regular "bonsai" in a pot and for Landscape/forest or penjing bonsai.

unlike templated bonsai designs.

And it is not so easy to make. We need to focus on the ramification and branch trunk ratio/proportion, for this we need more time to create convincing bonsai, and we do not hide our works under the thick foliage.

Bonsai should look good both with leaves and without leaves. this way the maturity of the bonsai can be revealed.