American Bonsai at the NC Arboretum

beer city snake wrote:i'm afraid my attempts to use humor in an attempt to defuse may be a contributing factor

if so, i sincerely apologize to those i may have offended.

Hell Kevin it was more than likely me. You know,being off of my delusion medication I can't recall. Ha!
Maybe I said badass! Do it all of the time.
I think a lot of people can be too serious and full of themselves at times. It's just a hobby. And I believe hobbies are supposed to be fun. At least they used to be.
So Kevin,don't apologize for trying to defuse an argument with jocularity.

William N. Valavanis wrote:I'm out of here.

So long.

Bill

I hope not off the forum. Although I understand, but that would be a damn shame!

Yes it would be somewhat more than a shame. It would be an outrage. But I too hope that he was absenting himself from a long winded and repetitive tit for tat session. It is over already! The people worth reading (and some who are not) have posted.

I thought this was a dissussion about trees not a discussion about a discussion. Is anyone actually going to mention the trees??  The trees man the trees!! Or is that just the side issue now?

MichaelS wrote:I thought this was a dissussion about trees not a discussion about a discussion. Is anyone actually going to mention the trees??  The trees man the trees!! Or is that just the side issue now?

well, I discussed about trees and post only pictures of trees. lol

Dear Mr. Joura,

Thank you for sparking and gently stoking this discussion of naturalism in the art of container trees. In my opinion it is one of the best threads I’ve read yet on IBC because it digs into some central questions of the art. As the discussion has waned a bit, I wanted to try to encourage it to continue, not to run around in more circles, but to dig in deeper.

Flowing through the discussion thread (comment pages 28-38) are four distinct positions regarding the art of container trees, and I think it might help spur further discussion to pause for a moment and take stock of these positions. In the context of a forum people tend to play fast and loose, of course, so it can sometime be hard to follow the central arguments and distinct positions that arise, and then, once it gets complicated, the discussion can dissolve into bald opinions and even personal attacks. The commenters on this thread have managed to stay civil, which is a testament to the good people on IBC. Perhaps the key to pressing deeper is to return with some clarity to the alternative positions and compare them. But I want to do this not purely for the sake of general discussion. I want to formulate a question for you, Mr. Joura, that I hope will entice you to tell us more about your naturalism.

We might state the central question in this debate as follows: How should container tree artists guide their choices in the course of making a tree? When faced with the tens of thousands of options in how a tree could be developed, we must choose among them – do I prune this branch or that one? – do I bend the branch to this angle or that one? – do I inscribe shari here or there or nowhere? How do I know what to do? This is certainly a pressing question, not esoteric in the least. What is the standard of judgment I should use to guide the development of my art? Each of the four positions voiced previously in this discussion of naturalism offers a distinct answer to this vital question.

Before I begin the summary I should at least mention that my descriptions of the four answers are not pulled out of a hat. I have been a professor of art and architecture for the past 20 years, and research in this area of art theory is central to my work. Forums are too informal to cite sources in the literature, so I’ll just state in general that my summary leverages a fairly deep knowledge of the art theory literature. And then for the sake of full disclosure, I should also mention that I have only been a practitioner of container tree art for two years, a newbie for sure. So I have a simultaneously seasoned and naïve perspective on the art.

OPTION 1: IDEALISM. Idealism is the long standing heritage of container tree art, and still quite influential. When I first engaged the container tree community through club meetings, how-to books, regional conventions and on-line forums, I was struck immediately by the deep ties to Japanese tradition, which is the dominate form of idealism in container tree art. The distinctive feature of idealism is the belief that a standard of artistic judgment must be a universal truth, equally valid for all artists. The traditional Japanese standard of judgment includes such things as balance (whether symmetrical or asymmetrical), harmony of the parts, clarity and simplicity, just to name a few. These aspirations are held to be inherently good, unquestionable absolutes. To the extent a container tree lacks one of these qualities, it is a poor tree. End of discussion. Then, design principles are established to ensure the production of trees with these qualities: always put your tree on the center of the stand; always face the accent plant so that its main line points toward the tree; never cross the lines of trunks or major branches; always answer the first branch with a second branch on the opposite side of the truck. Etc. These rules do not exist in a vacuum; they are designed to bring about a set of allegedly universal aesthetic values, and when container tree artists accept these traditional Japanese rules, they implicitly accept and pursue the underlying values. It is a wonderful system: put your head down and follow the rules and then balance, harmony, clarity and simplicity will follow. Of course, if you aren’t too keen on those things, then you’re in trouble. If you thrive instead on struggle, precariousness, risk, tension, mystery or complexity and you believe these aspects of the world are worthy of contemplation, then according to the idealists there is something wrong with you.

OPTION 2: SUBJECTIVISM. The usual standard of judgment used by such artists is their own emotions. The subjectivist feels something as he works. His Spidey Sense tingles and he responds accordingly. Wary of cutting that branch? - then don’t cut it. In the mood for some exuberant styling? – then hack away with abandon. Live in the moment. If I feel that my tree is good, then it is good. If you feel that it isn’t, then for you it isn’t. “Art is in the eye of the beholder.” Thus, because emotions vary from one person to another, and alas even within a person from day to day, no fixed standard of judgment is possible, no compositional principles are possible, and the artistic process is instead characterized as a slow, intuitive groping. Any attempt to identify abstract principles or explicit rules meets with suspicion, since this kind of rationalization serves only to distract an artist from a sensitive connection to his emotional barometer. The single, shared standard of the idealists, which is so good at building a sense of community among artists, is replaced by personal preference. The subjectivists, each driven by idiosyncratic preference, lose common ground with each other, and each artist tends to retreat into the privacy of his own garden, engaged predominately in self-exploration. The meditative aspect of container tree art becomes central in this approach.

OPTION 3: PURE NATURALISM. You’ll notice that I’m splitting naturalism into two versions here (options 3 and 4), according to how it is often managed in art theory, which will eventually take me to my key question. In response to the idealist, the pure naturalist says no, we should not decide what to make based on some abstract human aspirations like harmony or simplicity. In response to the subjectivist, he also says no, we should not rely solely on our feelings. The pure naturalist holds that we should not rely on any human force to guide our art, and instead, we should use Nature as a model, using our art to emulate natural things. Through the container tree we capture and celebrate a moment of profound natural beauty. To do this we must get out of Nature’s way. The pure naturalist likes to say things like, “Nature is the mother of all artists, the ultimate giver of beauty.” The challenge of choosing what to make, in this view, is to silence oneself, to not choose, since as lessor artists working in the shadow of eminent Nature we can only really muck up its creations if we assert ourselves. As Walter Pall puts it, the (pure) naturalist strives to make little trees that “don’t show the hand of man at all.” But how do we do this? How do we silence our creative self, since we do still have to choose from all those options? The pure naturalist says we should mimic Nature, but how do we do that? We can’t just pick any aspect of Nature we might want to mimic, since that would still be to want. If we did that we would still be choosing, still asserting ourselves in the process. Instead, we fully put Nature in the driver’s seat by mimicking the typical condition. This is the defining feature of pure naturalism. A valid natural model is whatever condition is most prevalent in Nature, usually defined for a particular tree species and geographical region. We must dutifully adhere as closely as possible to this. The discussion of Dan Robinson’s maple brought out this standard of judgment in some of the comments. That maple is bad, some commenters said, because it does not look like a maple in nature. Then somebody said, “no, but, I’ve seen a maple like that a few miles from my house, and I saw another one years ago on a trip to such and such.” Alas, this kind of defense can never satisfy the pure naturalist. Just because it is possible for a maple to look that way, it has no persuasive force as a natural model because it is not the norm, the typical, the prevalent. And when photographs were offered to show particular examples of such maples in nature, the photographs were then picked apart, showing how Mr. Robinson’s maple deviates from the photographic examples. Pure naturalists are the journalists of Nature. Just the facts, mister - just document what is out there in Nature, as it typically is. The pure naturalist demands that we follow a prevailing natural model exactly, dutifully, without any personal sway from the artist.

OPTION 4: SOFT NATURALISM. For some naturalists, the complete negation of human influence in art seems too harsh, too impersonal, or maybe even impossible. So the soft naturalist tries to make a little room for some element of artistic preference, thus bringing back the artist’s expressive voice to some extent, but still within the general approach of mimicking a natural model. The distinctive feature of soft naturalism is that the artist chooses his natural model. He picks out any kind of natural condition he likes, no matter how rare it might be, and in fact, usually he will pick some exceptional case. For example, he walks along a forest trail on some exquisite Fall afternoon when the colors are blazing and the sun is warm, he rises up a swale and sees an ancient maple bathed in light. It so moves him that this one, special tree becomes his artistic leitmotif. He seeks to reproduce it in his container maples, to capture the identity of that tree in miniature so that he might contemplate and enjoy it every day of his life. Or maybe there is a tree, seemingly quite ordinary, except that it sits in his yard, a constant companion over many years, and he has studied this tree so closely, seen it in all of its varied lights, and he comes to cherish it. It might rightly act as his model, even if unexceptional but for his intimate relationship to it. The choice of models for the soft naturalist is intensely personal, and it is the primary means of self-expression – the one crucial choice. After the model is selected, he operates much as the pure naturalist does, devoting himself to the meticulous replication of the model, in as many of its nuances as he can muster. His loyalty to the details is itself an expression of his love for the model.

So after that lengthy lead-in, I can finally ask you a deeper question, Mr. Joura. Do either pure or soft naturalism resonate with you? Do you find yourself on either of these paths through the art of container trees, or perhaps there is another option that better captures your particular take on naturalism?

wow kyle !
leave it to "da perfesser" to present such a well thought out and reasonable summary of 4 salient points...

all with merit
all valid
and most importantly, all agreeable to open eyes and minds

as an aside, i did not know i am primarily a subjectivist until you defined it for me...
and without knowing i am a subjectivist, i didnt realize that is something i have been unconsciously trying to break free from (a bit).

thanks.

No, it is not over already, as you KyleT have succinctly proved. Just got annoyed and ahead of myself. As for the types you have brilliantly deliniated, well, I suppose that I will discover where I gravitate eventually.

George.

Kyle wrote:Dear Mr. Joura,

. . .

Nicely done.

KyleT

A fascinating and most thought provoking post!

I must say that based on your descriptions I would be inclined to see "Hard Naturalism" and "Soft Naturalism" as essentially examples of Idealism and Subjectivism respectively, rather than categories in their own right.

I am also left wondering why you characterise Subjectivism/Soft Naturalism as being quite so overwhelmingly introspective?

However, I am mindful that your post was a question directed specifically to Arthur rather than the forum more generally so I wont muddy the water by seeking to labour those points.

Not least because I'm as interested to hear Arthur's response as you are.

Regards

Richard

Interesting that Mr KyleT never once uses the Term Bonsai but only Containerized Trees, he does Wax Elegantly regards Ones views of the Endeavor FWIW...

Interesting...

or maybe I missed something of importance here...???

Should we rename this site the Internet Containerized Tree Club... ???

That what this really comes down to, isn't it? The use of the term "bonsai". I mean, no one really cares what Dan Robinson does in his backyard. If he wants to simply dig up trees and put them in containers and never touch them again, so what? If he works them using "bonsai techniques" but does so in order to make them look like they've never been worked, again - so what? If he wants to take trees with wild deadwood and top them with perfect green canopies, that's fine too. Same for any of us, we can do whatever we want.

The problems arise because some object to the use of the term "bonsai" to describe such trees. So how do we get past that? Is it enough to call them "naturalistic bonsai"? Is there some other term that would be satisfactory to all? Or is this just always going to be a point of contention?

Arthur Joura address's this very topical question very clearly and concisely in Forum pages 9-10-11-12 it is worth a read IMO, check it out...

Thanks for the reminder...had read that before but forgot it was in the thread. But...concise? Not really. I think my post pretty much summed up what took a bunch of people several pages to express.

That stuff was written almost 2 years ago and here we are...in the same place, it seems.

Anyway...carry on!

Dear Arthur and Walter,

Thank you for your discussion. I am enjoying your conversation and hope it continues. Looking forward to seeing you both in a few weeks.

Steve

Kyle, I thank you most sincerely for taking the time to write your excellent contribution to this thread. I wish I could do it justice by responding in way that equaled the thought and effort you invested in your post, but right now I cannot do it. I can only tell you I read what you wrote with great interest and real appreciation for your insights. You approach the subject matter in a much more academic way than I am capable of doing.

I will answer your question, though, however briefly. If I use the 4 options you provide, I would categorize myself as being inclined toward soft naturalism, but in a decidedly subjective vein. Here we encounter the problem with theory - it is always more neatly arranged than life as we know it. For me personally, creativity always functions best when it walks the tightrope between intellect and emotion.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a photograph taken this year of a tray landscape bonsai I put together 10 years ago:



I would feel comfortable having this piece stand as a representation of my work in its most naturalistic form. There is much more coming about all of this, by the way, but I have some pressing business to attend to first.

Thank you again for your post. And please, call me Arthur.

Hello Walter,

I had to laugh when I read in your last letter: "Arthur, you make me wary." Surely this is wrong? You have as much to be wary about with me as an elephant does with a mouse. Perhaps you mis-typed and meant to write "weary", as in, "Arthur, you make me weary." This I could understand, for I have heard it many times from many people.

The rest of your letter I understood very well and I much appreciate you taking your time to write those thoughts. Not so much of it was new to me because you have written about this topic numerous times before and I have read all of it I can find, but still I read this latest iteration several times over. You did not develop your ideas overnight and it is a fair assumption you are not entirely done developing them, and I think it is good for them to be aired out in public every so often. That way those of us who have been following you for some years now can see where you are currently at, and those who perhaps have never before encountered your disturbed and dangerous ideas can try them out for size. Personally, when I read some of these things I think to myself that I agree wholeheartedly with them, they are my thoughts too, but then I have to wonder if such viewpoints we share did not mostly originate with you. I have freely admitted that your views have been influential to my own, but at this point when looking back I can no longer discern where my own original ideas about naturalism leave off and those I picked up from you begin. Ultimately this does not matter so much to me. In the Bible we are told "there is nothing new under the sun", and I suspect that was already an old saying when it was written down. Besides, there are other ideas I have that I have never heard you advance (although I doubt they will much shock you) and these I will introduce to this discussion, but not just yet.

It has been interesting to read responses to our conversation, posted here on the IBC forum or on your blog. Some people are supportive of the views expressed and a few have made noteworthy contributions to the dialogue. Some other people have essentially shrugged and said 'There's nothing new here..." Of course there have also been varying degrees of antagonism expressed about the very idea of naturalistic bonsai, and I have to admit I am most curious about these responses, rereading them several times over in an attempt to understand these opinions and see things from their perspective. I think it is useless to react with hostility to disagreement, but it is also counterproductive to dismiss dissenting voices by simply concluding that these people do not understand the point being made. Unfortunately that is often how I genuinely feel, but I have learned it is best for me to try and get past that reaction. In order for any discussion in which the participants disagree to be worth the trouble of having, all parties must attempt to understand those views in opposition to their own.

As best as I can understand it, the views expressed in opposition to naturalism in bonsai fall into the following 2 categories:

1) There is no need to designate certain bonsai as naturalistic because all bonsai are inherently naturalistic. Nature is the inspiration and a piece of nature itself is the medium, so how can it be otherwise? In this view, naturalists are doing something that has always been done and attempting to pass it off as something new. The impetus is usually the self aggrandizing ego of certain individuals who are out to make a name for themselves. A variant of this view is that there really are not different styles of bonsai at all beyond the Japanese style and its predecessor, the crudely inferior Chinese style. In this scenario Chinese bonsai compares to Japanese bonsai as Neanderthal Man compares to Homo sapiens, and what is called naturalistic bonsai is just a misguided throwback to the old Neanderthal ways. All bonsai is naturalistic, but those practicing naturalism are simply less refined in their tastes.

2) Naturalistic bonsai is a title invented in an attempt to justify inferior work. Naturalists are too lazy to take the time and dedicate the tremendous effort necessary to produce genuine bonsai, or are simply not skilled enough to master the prerequisite techniques, or do not recognize the subtle artistry involved, or altogether do not understand what bonsai is all about. These people, having failed for whatever reason to make the grade, declare their work to belong in a separate but equal category which calls for a different standard by which to be judged. Along similar lines but worse, naturalists are attempting a ruse whereby they take naturally stunted trees from nature, plant them in a bonsai pot "as is" and try to pass them off as legitimate bonsai, or even superior to legitimate bonsai, in the vein of the old story "The Emperor's New Clothes".

(A third category might well be made for those whose response can be summed up as "Who cares?" These people find all the talk to be a waste of time, time they would rather spend pursuing their hobby. They readily admit that a hobby is all it is for them and they struggle just to keep their bonsai alive and hopefully someday it will be something worth looking at, and all this blather about what style it might be, beyond, you know, informal upright or something, is over the top and irrelevant to the level at which they operate. There is no reason to argue with this. If a person feels this way I say, go in peace. Perhaps one day your bonsai path will lead you to a point where such considerations matter and then maybe this discussion will take on meaning it does not presently have for you.)

The 2 categories of Naturalism denial I have identified above are not mutually exclusive. Some critics of naturalistic bonsai like to mix and match from either category and the more severe ones combine both categories into one expansive all-of-the-above condemnation. How to answer these doubts?

Well, maybe before that, why answer them at all? The why of it has to do with caring about bonsai as an art. If it is to be practiced as an art, then the matter of style becomes much more important, and the freedom of those who practice it to engage in a variety of styles, perhaps even seek out new stylistic territory, becomes critical. Differences in opinion are guaranteed. The existence of a multitude of stylistic possibilities, however, and the right to pursue any and all of them while still being firmly positioned within the parameters of what we call the art of bonsai should be beyond question. You can disagree with a style, even find it repulsive, but to deny it the right to exist or to say that a certain style needs to be called by some name other than bonsai is to put up a wall of separation that condemns bonsai to creative stagnation even as it attempts to keep it pure. To say that bonsai is done one certain way and should not be done any other is to admit that you do not actually think bonsai is an art.

But that is all too stuffy, I admit. I do not like to even dip my toe into that high-minded swamp of artistic debate. Here is another shot at it: It is worth trying to explain what naturalistic bonsai is and to stand up for its existence because it is a pathway to a potentially more meaningful bonsai experience for a greater number of people. Here again, though, I am getting ahead of myself. I will elaborate on this idea, but not just yet.

So, back to the question of how to answer the doubts of those who reject any notion of naturalistic bonsai, or think that bonsai as it is generally practiced is naturalistic enough already. As it is, the answers have all been given. You, Walter, have already provided them, over and over. Here is a link to an article you wrote, dated 2011, where you examine the question of styles and why it is useful to be able to identify them: http://walterpallbonsaiarticles.blogspot.com/2011/01/worthless-discussion-about-bonsai.html In what is perhaps your most comprehensive written examination of the whole question of bonsai as an art and the importance of distinguishing various styles, not to mention a thorough explanation of the difference between the terms "style" and "form", here is a link to an article you first wrote in 1998 and then updated in 2001: http://walterpallbonsaiarticles.blogspot.com/2009/10/styles-and-forms.html I would tell you that I think this is simply one of the most intelligent pieces of bonsai writing I have ever come across, but I do not want to swell your head any further than it already is. Do you know there are times we can see your head from this side of the Atlantic?

The problem is (how do I say this delicately?) that great piece of writing is rather long and dense. It is much longer and denser than this piece of writing, which means there are probably even fewer people who will labor all the way through it. If I may, then, I will ask you if you will please pare it down for us? As you have so far suffered my requests, will you once again produce a simpler, more concise treatment of this business of styles? Specifically I would appreciate hearing your summation of the identifying features of Classical, Neo-classical (or Western Classical), and Modern bonsai styles. You have already shared with us your pared down definition of Naturalistic bonsai, so that is not called for here, but any information you might see fit to include comparing the 3 styles mentioned above with the Naturalistic style would be appreciated. And as you have many excellent photographic bonsai images, I hope you might be able to show some examples of the different styles to make understanding easier.

I know you are a busy man and I have overtaxed your indulgence already, but I am busy too! That is why it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have a big show I am supposed to be getting ready for now, but I am writing this instead. It leads me to conclude that continuing this discussion must be worthwhile, so I hope you will think so too.

To thanks to all.
Regards,
Khaimraj

[quote="Arthur Joura"]

Arthur, I must admit I find it curious that you continue to voice your opinions and ideas about those expressing opposing views to Walter Pall rather than addressing directly those (me) who are actually expressing those views. But be that as it may, and as this is a forum, I hope you will not be too concerned if I take the liberty to answer you directly - rather than in a second hand way...

As best as I can understand it, the views expressed in opposition to naturalism in bonsai fall into the following 2 categories:
1) There is no need to designate certain bonsai as naturalistic because all bonsai are inherently naturalistic.
Nature is the inspiration and a piece of nature itself is the medium, so how can it be otherwise? In this view, naturalists are doing something that has always been done and attempting to pass it off as something new.

Certainly as far as I'm concerened, this is wrong. I do not believe that all bonsai are inherently naturalistic. Far from it. Further, I cannot even recall reading that idea anywhere.

The impetus is usually the self aggrandizing ego of certain individuals who are out to make a name for themselves.

Perhaps you have some evidence for this? I do agree that certain parties are ''out to make a name for themselves'' but as far as I can tell they do not belong to the those who are in the opposing camp.

2) Naturalistic bonsai is a title invented in an attempt to justify inferior work.

In some cases...yes!

Naturalists are too lazy to take the time and dedicate the tremendous effort necessary to produce genuine bonsai, or are simply not skilled enough to master the prerequisite techniques, or do not recognize the subtle artistry involved, or altogether do not understand what bonsai is all about.
These people, having failed for whatever reason to make the grade, declare their work to belong in a separate but equal category which calls for a different standard by which to be judged. Along similar lines but worse, naturalists are attempting a ruse whereby they take naturally stunted trees from nature, plant them in a bonsai pot "as is" and try to pass them off as legitimate bonsai, or even superior to legitimate bonsai, in the vein of the old story "The Emperor's New Clothes".

I could not have put it better. Except the ''as is'' part. Some work on these trees is inevitably done. Also I would add the word ''Some'' at the start of your quote.

The 2 categories of Naturalism denial I have identified above are not mutually exclusive. Some critics of naturalistic bonsai like to mix and match from either category and the more severe ones combine both categories into one expansive all-of-the-above condemnation.

Well no. A dissagreement or disacknowlegement of the validity of some concepts and attempts at naturalistic bonsai is NOT a condemnation of naturalistic bonsai.

The existence of a multitude of stylistic possibilities, however, and the right to pursue any and all of them while still being firmly positioned within the parameters of what we call the art of bonsai should be beyond question.

It is beyond question.

So, back to the question of how to answer the doubts of those who reject any notion of naturalistic bonsai, or think that bonsai as it is generally practiced is naturalistic enough already.

Once again Arthur, that particular question is not there to be answered as far as I can see. Who in fact is rejecting any notion of naturalism in the art?

I trust you will forgive my intrusion into your letter to Walter and my rather short point by point stlye which I prefer to a more long-winded approach. I look forward to Walter's pared down definition of bonsai styles.

Arthur Joura wrote:

1) There is no need to designate certain bonsai as naturalistic because all bonsai are inherently naturalistic. Nature is the inspiration and a piece of nature itself is the medium, so how can it be otherwise? In this view, naturalists are doing something that has always been done and attempting to pass it off as something new. The impetus is usually the self aggrandizing ego of certain individuals who are out to make a name for themselves. A variant of this view is that there really are not different styles of bonsai at all beyond the Japanese style and its predecessor, the crudely inferior Chinese style. In this scenario Chinese bonsai compares to Japanese bonsai as Neanderthal Man compares to Homo sapiens, and what is called naturalistic bonsai is just a misguided throwback to the old Neanderthal ways. All bonsai is naturalistic, but those practicing naturalism are simply less refined in their tastes.

These argumenbts I have read and heard so often. They seem to sound so true, so relaxed. Some famous bonsai artist does not cease to repeat 'there is no need for all this analyzing. There are either good bonsai or bad bonsai. And everybody can see the difference without this analysis'. This sounds like true Asian wisdom, superior over our inquisitive western minds. Let's see. OK, there is no need to analyze food. There is either good food or bad food and I know the difference. But isn't it sometimes good to know whether you want to go to an Italian restaurant or to a Chinese? And then – there is only good music or bad music and I know the difference. Well, when speaking about music do we not need words like 'classical', 'country', 'pop' etc.?  So this statement is just a non-statement. It tells you nothing about the matter bur a lot abot the speaker.
This kind of response comes from folks who hate what they call elitist discussions and analysis. I am afraid it often could be because they cannot follow or any analysis would weaken their agenda. So why should we lower our standards to let follow folks who don't want to follow anyway.

Arthur Joura wrote:
2) Naturalistic bonsai is a title invented in an attempt to justify inferior work. Naturalists are too lazy to take the time and dedicate the tremendous effort necessary to produce genuine bonsai, or are simply not skilled enough to master the prerequisite techniques, or do not recognize the subtle artistry involved, or altogether do not understand what bonsai is all about. These people, having failed for whatever reason to make the grade, declare their work to belong in a separate but equal category which calls for a different standard by which to be judged. Along similar lines but worse, naturalists are attempting a ruse whereby they take naturally stunted trees from nature, plant them in a bonsai pot "as is" and try to pass them off as legitimate bonsai, or even superior to legitimate bonsai, in the vein of the old story "The Emperor's New Clothes".

It is unfortunately true that too often someone makes this attempt to justify inferior work with the title 'naturalistic'. This disqualifies the person and not the idea, I think. How often do we see not so good, bad, outright atrocious attempts of doing 'classical' bonsai styling. Does that disqualify the Classic Style or the folks who fail miserably?
There is a school that tries to find trees in nature, put them in a container, change almost nothing and declare it 'naturalistic piece of art'. Well, if anything this can be called 'Natural Bonsai Style'. It is called 'naturalistic' because it is NOT 'natural'. Many believe that what nature does MUST be goog and certainly better than what humans create. Well, look yourself in the mirror.

Arthur Joura wrote:
A third category might well be made for those whose response can be summed up as "Who cares?" These people find all the talk to be a waste of time, time they would rather spend pursuing their hobby. They readily admit that a hobby is all it is for them and they struggle just to keep their bonsai alive and hopefully someday it will be something worth looking at, and all this blather about what style it might be, beyond, you know, informal upright or something, is over the top and irrelevant to the level at which they operate. There is no reason to argue with this. If a person feels this way I say, go in peace. Perhaps one day your bonsai path will lead you to a point where such considerations matter and then maybe this discussion will take on meaning it does not presently have for you.

Oh yes, I love the remarks like 'why all this – let's go back to bonsai'. While I don't  share their reasons for saying this I do do accept that some are bored and even annoyed about all this 'superfluous' discussion. Maybe they will understand one day.  But I do not think that they should show their contempt and how much they are above this. You don't want to know how often I see something on a forum, a blog or on facebook that I really hate or that I really think should not be there. Would I not make myself an arrogant bigot if I mentioned my dislike every time. It would be fifty times a day.
Dear Arthur,

Arthur Joura wrote:
Well, maybe before that, why answer them at all? The why of it has to do with caring about bonsai as an art. If it is to be practiced as an art, then the matter of style becomes much more important, and the freedom of those who practice it to engage in a variety of styles, perhaps even seek out new stylistic territory, becomes critical. Differences in opinion are guaranteed. The existence of a multitude of stylistic possibilities, however, and the right to pursue any and all of them while still being firmly positioned within the parameters of what we call the art of bonsai should be beyond question. You can disagree with a style, even find it repulsive, but to deny it the right to exist or to say that a certain style needs to be called by some name other than bonsai is to put up a wall of separation that condemns bonsai to creative stagnation even as it attempts to keep it pure. To say that bonsai is done one certain way and should not be done any other is to admit that you do not actually think bonsai is an art.

Too many confuse the bonsai style discussion with  religion or politics. The ensuing 'discussion' then gets ugly ever so often. Good moderation of forums often is necessary to avoid this getting totally out of control. I have come to the belief that it not at all like religion or politics. You can like and practice many bonsai styles in parallel and it is OK. It widens your possibilities, it gives variety to your collection, it makes bonsai life easier. Those who  insist that there is only one way to do bonsai right I call bonsai fundamentalists. And they are my special friends. Bless them! The battle with them will never change their minds, but sometimes the minds of those who watch it. And as Arthur has  pointed out, to watch the battle is entertaining.

Quote of the day:

Walter Pall wrote:You can like and practice many bonsai styles in parallel and it is OK. It widens your possibilities, it gives variety to your collection, it makes bonsai life [...]

[more enjoyable] : I wouldn't say easier

"L'ennui nait de l'uniformité"... (French saying, sthg like "standardisation creates monotony", or a more literal translation could be: "boredom is born out of uniformity")

Dear Arthur,

Arthur Joura wrote:
I
Specifically I would appreciate hearing your summation of the identifying features of Classical, Neo-classical (or Western Classical), and Modern bonsai styles. You have already shared with us your pared down definition of Naturalistic bonsai, so that is not called for here, but any information you might see fit to include comparing the 3 styles mentioned above with the Naturalistic style would be appreciated. And as you have many excellent photographic bonsai images, I hope you might be able to show some examples of the different styles to make understanding easier.

I could write a thick book about it. But you wanted a short note.

Classical Bonsai Style

Pro:
Ideal
Quiet
Less is more
Zen Buddhism
Wide acceptance
Static
Abstract
Soul more important than form
No holes in broadleaved trees except for Prunus
Deadwood  - less is more

Con:
look alike
No surprises
often not art but rather craft
Sometimes boring
No innovation
artificial









Neoclassical Bonsai Style
(Western Classical Bonsai Style)

Pro:
according to clear rules
Popular
Well designed
According to expectations
Everybody can be successful
Abstract
No deadwood on broadleaved trees
Deadwood mostly artificial

Con:
cookie-cutter
No soul
Misunderstood as 'classical', really retro
Old-fashioned












Modern Bonsai Style

Pro:
unique
Impressive
Dynamic
Extreme
abstract
Becoming very popular – mainstream
Great sculptures
Great deadwood
Impressive proportions

Con:
aggressive
Show-off
Hollywood
Egotistical
Artificial , 'licked‚
Artist more important than tree
For winning
Commercial
Grotesque
Form more important than soul

Thanks Walter. This will take some study. But it is great with examples. Safe journeys..

Walter
as a surfer, snowboarder and skateboarder (who still rides but is well past his prime),
i appreciate your use of the word "SOUL" in your brief descriptors...

i have always found parallels between surfing and bonsai as it applies to "soul".

and as a segue back to "American Bonsai at the Arboretum",
i am very excited about the "Main Event" at the NC Bonsai Expo in a few weeks...

hope to be front row.

like doug said: safe travels !

Walter

Nice concise synopsis of the three styles Arthur asked for. Well illustrated also. However for the sake of clarity would it be possible to add an illustration of the naturalistic style as well?

Having a direct visual comparison in the same post would be a useful addition to this discussion and a well chosen example might even help dispel the myth that naturalistic bonsai are just poor quality material, crudely worked, stuck in a pot and called art.

I'm sure you have a few suitable photos knocking about in your archive!

Regards

Richard