American Bonsai at the NC Arboretum

When I checked in on my IBC forum thread tonight I could not believe my eyes. I read words I never hoped to see, never thought I would see. They shook me to my core and left me forlorn and full of remorse and self-loathing....

fiona wrote:John is my very favourite on here...

Oh Fiona! How could you???

Michael - I have read your message several times through and feel as though I am not understanding you, or perhaps you are laboring under an erroneous idea about naturalistic styling. There is nothing I can think of about shaping a bonsai in a naturalistic way that should cause any particular problem in maintaining it over time for good health. All the same concerns about maintaining interior foliage and avoiding leggy branches, especially with needle evergreens, still apply. The same elementary techniques of controlling the vigorous growth on the branch extremities while promoting openness for the sake of allowing light to penetrate to the plant's interior are still employed. All that is different is the model used to guide the shaping of the tree.

While it is true that following the basic patterns used in neoclassical (or conventional) bonsai design will produce what you referred to as a layered shape that allows for more equal distribution of light to all the foliage, in naturalistic design we are emulating the growth patterns of trees in nature, which as a matter of survival assume shapes that produce the same effect. Let me state something here for the sake of clarity: the conventional forms of bonsai design are, or at least originally were, based on the study of trees in nature. Over time, however, they have become highly stylized. I think this has happened because the reference point for the accepted bonsai forms has shifted away from observation of nature and toward observation of bonsai. Put as simply as I can manage it, in neoclassical bonsai the model is other bonsai, while in naturalistic bonsai the model is trees in nature.

Let me here address the issue of fullness and openness in bonsai design. Over the course of time, whether a person grows neoclassical bonsai, or naturalistic bonsai, or modern bonsai, a continuing cycle of tight control followed by a period of relaxation and less restrained growth is inevitable if the grower wants to keep the specimen healthy. Anyone who has attempted to keep a bonsai fully under control, that is, looking like you would have it look for a show, for a period of years at a time knows that this inevitably leads to the declining health of the plant. When we see a bonsai like Dan Robinson's juniper, we understand we are looking at it in a certain moment of time. At other times it will have fuller foliage and perhaps at other times it will have even less. By the way, what you identified as a look of "are you going to live or are you going to die" in Dan's tree is exactly what he is going for. He likes that look in nature and he seeks to reproduce it in his bonsai, believe it or not. Most of us are not trying for so severe an image, although generally a more open look is considered desirable in naturalistic bonsai. Still, sometimes it will be more full and sometimes less, as we follow the standard procedure for promoting good health in our trees.

As for Walter's naturalistic Scots Pine, the one in the photo you posted, if he wants to more or less maintain its current appearance he will do so by employing all the same techniques he would use on one of his modernistic pines. That is, he will be pruning excess growth, chasing back the vigorous growing branch tips, promoting interior growth when it occurs in favorable locations and wiring repeatedly to keep the tree's various parts where he wants them to be. In the natural course of events the tree will sometimes look more full than it does in the photograph and at other times it will look more sparse. After a few years he may redesign it because he comes up with a better idea, or he may sell it because he has 50 other pines that do not have such clunky branching in the upper third of the tree. You never know with Walter - he is mercurial.

As much as I love words I am acutely aware that they can have a numbing effect when unloaded in large numbers. So here are a couple of images relating to all this:





This is a Japanese Black Pine (Pinus thunbergii) that was part of the original donation that started the NC Arboretum's bonsai collection. Ten years ago it looked like the first image, and now it is being redesigned in a more naturalistic style. It looks very sparsely foliated now, but that is because it was just thoroughly cleaned out after being allowed to grow more or less unrestrained for a year. It will fill in quickly. Then I will go about simultaneously maintaining its health and its form, just as I have done for the past 22 years.

Eric - In answer to your question about working with the roots of Acer rubrum, I have experienced no difficulty at all in that regard. I prune them hard when repotting, and I bare-root them when I collect them out of the field. They air-layer well, too. In terms of the horticultural handling of them, I do not see them as being very different from A. palmatum or A. buergerianum. I have to admit they do not possess all the fine qualities for bonsai as those two excellent species, but they are still completely good to use. One thing I recommend with them is to be aware of the great variability of foliage type from one individual to the next. Not only in terms of autumn color, but also of size and shape:



Some individual Red Maples have very large leaves:



Others are smaller to begin with, and with proper handling will reduce even further:



Again with proper technique, they will ramify to an agreeable degree:



All in all I think they are well worth using.

Alain - When I was shaping the twin-trunk Red Maple I actually did debate the best placement of that lowest branch on the smaller trunk. Like you, I thought both looks were acceptable but I concluded the lower positioning looked better.

[quote="Arthur Joura"]

This is a Japanese Black Pine (Pinus thunbergii) that was part of the original donation that started the NC Arboretum's bonsai collection. Ten years ago it looked like the first image, and now it is being redesigned in a more naturalistic style. It looks very sparsely foliated now, but that is because it was just thoroughly cleaned out after being allowed to grow more or less unrestrained for a year. It will fill in quickly. Then I will go about simultaneously maintaining its health and its form, just as I have done for the past 22 years.

I shall watch the elvolution of this tree with interest. While you have imparted much more interest into the branches than the original design, please forgive me if I say it appears aimless to me at the moment. That is; I understand what you have done to it and your reasons for doing it but I find myself wondering about it's future direction. That is what I meant about having a plan at the outset. Don't you agree that we need to have a fairly rigid end image in mind? In other words, if we just shape the branches as we go according to what pleases us at that moment without regard to the final evolution, we will be stuck with ongoing disorder. There needs to be a concrete reason for everything we do to the tree. In that respect, the branches are the road to the final destination. This is not my tree of course and may very well have a plan for it.

Here are a few images of old pines I find interesting. achieving any of these forms would surely take lots of planning from the start and not simple wiring branches until you think they look nice. (not that you have done that!) Thoughts?

Arthur Joura wrote: the conventional forms of bonsai design are, or at least originally were, based on the study of trees in nature. Over time, however, they have become highly stylized. I think this has happened because the reference point for the accepted bonsai forms has shifted away from observation of nature and toward observation of bonsai. Put as simply as I can manage it, in neoclassical bonsai the model is other bonsai, while in naturalistic bonsai the model is trees in nature.

This for me is the absolute core of the issue here - what the artist is trying to make the tree look like. To produce a good example in either style, there is no reason that there should be any difference in techniques, technical expertise, planning, quality of material, or any other factors. Both styles can be beautiful, both styles can be done badly.

michael, i know your question was directed at arthur, but i wanted to add a thought... hope you don't mind:

MichaelS wrote:...if we just shape the branches as we go according to what pleases us at that moment without regard to the final evolution, we will be stuck with ongoing disorder.

that would assume the one shaping the branches is giving no thought to the future, in which case you would be right...
but for folks who know what they are doing, i doubt that would be the case regardless of style

MichaelS wrote:Don't you agree that we need to have a fairly rigid end image in mind?

i would hope for more flexible fluidity rather than rigidity as the tree reacts, or doesn't, to what we would like it to do... i think at the outset we will have a good idea if a certain species will or will not do what we would like, but i think we need to make some allowances for what the tree might wish to do (which might also lead to what bob ross calls a "happy tree")...

and there-in may be one of the differences in the development of naturalistic and conventional bonsai:
future fluidity or rigidity

AJ - it is not unnoticed that you always bring it back on topic... cheers !



gotta love bob !!!

These were the points I was trying to get at when things went south. However; it seems to me, rightly or wrongly, there really are three schools of thought about the style of bonsai. One is the highly stylized by the book Japanese model, the other the naturalistic style and the last is the the Chaos style. The point I have trying to get at is that unless you fall into that last catagory where you should just not worry about anything other than keeping the tree alive, there has to be some sort of goal in design work or all we have is chaos, the third style.

Ok Vance and Michael...

Can either of you please explain where the notion that "Chaos" styling or just random styling came from with regards to this thread? From my perspective this seems to be only a figment of your imaginations. I have looked several times and no one in this thread other than the two of you and a member that is no longer around have mentioned this at all....???

Both of you seem bent on the idea that chaos or randomness is a foundational characteristic of naturalistic styling... When in actuality, both Walter and Arthur have repeatedly stated that it takes more planning, better technique, and effort to create an effective naturalistic style (a natural looking image created by man's invisible hand).

Sam Ogranaja wrote:

Vance Wood wrote:

jgeanangel wrote:Unbelievable!  SO much more to say but Fiona already asked us to stay on track.............................................................................................................................

That statement must mean you have something more to say that is not about bonsai so I am left to think it is about me?  You have my PM and you know how to get in touch with me on Bnut I don't hide behind a pseudonym.  I will talk to you anytime about anything you wish.

In this instance you assume John's talking about you.

Vance Wood wrote:

Sam Ogranaja wrote:

beer city snake wrote:

jgeanangel wrote:Unbelievable!  SO much more to say but Fiona already asked us to stay on track.............................................................................................................................

fiona - permission requested for john to stray off track.
everyone else has...

I too hope that John Geanangel would unleash a can of unrestrained whoop-ass, I mean knowledge. He probably knows Arthur better than Arthur knows Arthur

Bring it on Sam, you have your own mind and you know where to reach me.

In this instance you assume I'm talking about you as well. You're not that important, regardless of what your ego tells you.

No. Vance is more important than you think. The man knows as much about bonsai as anyone you can name. Maybe more. 50 plus years in the hobby. His work with mugo pine.
The man doesn't have an inflated ego. Just the exact opposite really. He goes out of his way to help others and asks for nothing in return.

Just when you thought it safe to go back in the water ...

fiona wrote:Just when you thought it safe to go back in the water ...

Sorry Fiona.

jgeanangel wrote:Ok Vance and Michael...

Can either of you please explain where the notion that "Chaos" styling or just random styling came from with regards to this thread?  From my perspective this seems to be only a figment of your imaginations.  I have looked several times and no one in this thread other than the two of you and a member that is no longer around have mentioned this at all....???

Both of you seem bent on the idea that chaos or randomness is a foundational characteristic of naturalistic styling...  When in actuality, both Walter and Arthur have repeatedly stated that it takes more planning, better technique, and effort to create an effective naturalistic style (a natural looking image created by man's invisible hand).

The term Chaos style comes from me as far as I know and it is a term that just evolved out of the conversation with Walter Pall and several others and their remarks.  Before continueing I have to ask:  Is this a forbidden subject or is it OK to discuss it?  I would really like to know this before I get accused of starting another flame war. It is not my desire to demean anyone or cause anyone an occasion to an irritated ulcer.

and the last is the the Chaos style. The point I have trying to get at is that unless you fall into that last catagory where you should just not worry about anything other than keeping the tree alive, there has to be some sort of goal in design work or all we have is chaos, the third style.

I suspect that the above, by Vance Wood, was a very clear "Tongue in Cheek" description of any individual that plays around with little Bonsai trees but not expecting to be a Bonsai Master or even a Bonsai Gardener, just having fun and hopefully keeping his little tree alive...

There is obviously no Chaos Style in Bonsai Gardening except for a few of mine...

well I can't wait to read and see more about Acer Rubrum, as i have collected some, and have my eye on several more around the neighborhood. I especially look forward to seeing you, Arthur, at Nature's Way for our Susquehanna club meeting later this month, for this very topic. Maybe I'll bring my better surviving specimen.

MichaelS wrote:While you have imparted much more interest into the branches than the original design, please forgive me if I say it appears aimless to me at the moment. That is; I understand what you have done to it and your reasons for doing it but I find myself wondering about it's future direction.

I think Arthur has made it quite clear what the future direction is... to maintain the form:

Then I will go about simultaneously maintaining its health and its form, just as I have done for the past 22 years.

Maintain: to keep in an existing state (as of repair, efficiency, or validity) :  preserve from failure or decline.

If it appears aimless to you now, it's probably not going to change.

MichaelS wrote:Here are a few images of old pines I find interesting. achieving any of these forms would surely take lots of planning from the start and not simple wiring branches until you think they look nice. (not that you have done that!) Thoughts?

I think that achieving any of those forms would take lots of planning, yes, and you're limited in the amount of planning that you can do in advance.  You can plan every branch right down to the nth level of ramification before you ever plant a seed.  However, the tree decides where buds are ultimately formed, not you.  They're formed every year, and needles are generally good for three years at the most.  So there is a limit to the amount of planning that you can do in advance.  You will always be recreating the canopy.  That's systematic to the medium, regardless of the style.

Here is a conclusion I have come to concerning this discussion is one simple but not so easy to understand reason:  Walter Pall is an artist.  He has spent a lot of time demonstrating what the Naturalistic Style but he cannot tell you how to go forward and produce a tree in the Naturalistic style.  Because he is an artist he does what he does because it looks right to him but I would bet he cannot tell you why this tree is Naturalistic and this tree is not.  I know and have heard it is the visible evidence of the intervention of man.  OK; this is the crux, and when we get there, and how we get there, is still an open discussion.  When I hear other people describe their version of the Naturalistic Style I get the Chaos Style instead.  The Chaos Style in my mind is a tree planted in a pot that is watered and fertilized and allowed to grow as much and however it is moved to do so.  

This is not meant to challenge Walter or Arthur, I guess it challenges me to come to an understanding of what is meant here.

Vance Wood wrote:However;  it seems to me, rightly or wrongly, there really are three schools of thought about the style of bonsai.  One is the highly stylized by the book Japanese model, the other the naturalistic style and the last is the the Chaos style.  The point I have trying to get at is that unless you fall into that last catagory where you should just not worry about anything other than keeping the tree alive, there has to be some sort of goal in design work or all we have is chaos, the third style.

I would say wrongly.  That's analogous to saying there are three types of painting: Realism, Abstract, and Throwing Sh*t Against The Canvas Blindfolded.  Anything that isn't Realism or Abstract is Throwing Sh*t Against The Canvas Blindfolded.

How many painters simply start by making a single stroke on the canvas and build from there based on what inspires them, changing direction as they go?  There isn't always a blueprint detailing what will be created, the way I think MichaelS is hoping to see.  Sometimes a visual feedback loop is the only design work and inspiration/exploration is the only goal of the artist.  That limit on planning does not equate to chaos (a state in which behaviour and events are not controlled by anything).  There will be a composition (the way in which something is put together or arranged), even if nature itself is the composer.  It's only by exerting deliberate intent that you can create a style (a particular way in which something is done, created, or performed), but the alternative is natural (existing in nature and not made or caused by people), not chaos, and not locked into a convenient category for you to judge it against.

Whether or not it appeals to you personally, and the artist, are all that matters.

[quote="kingsnake"]

How many painters simply start by making a single stroke on the canvas and build from there based on what inspires them, changing direction as they go?

Probably many. But that is analogous to putting the first couple of bends into a tree before planting it the ground and letting it go. I'm a big believer of allowing the tree to ''tell'' you what to do with it. Certainly being over intrusive always shows in the final design. Especially when it comes to secondary branch placement. The reason I was so heavily influenced by Kyuzu Murata is that he tended to avoid this kind of very forceful work on his trees. The end result is that these days many of his trees would most likely be passed by because they don't conform to the new standard of ''perfection''.

Later on in the trees' development though (as for example in the case of Arthur's pine) there comes a time where we need to keep some kind of final image in mind. It is always flexible to some degree but it must have direction. There needs to be a final goal. If you don't have some kind of idea what the tree is evolving into, then it won't evolve into anything except more of the same. This is NOT a criticism of Arthur's intention for this tree....just a point of view being put forward which I personally believe has not been answered yet. I do however see that in Dan Robinsons juniper. It seems shaped for the present without much regard for it's evolution.

If we take a look at the pine in question.
We all know (or should know) that a mature pine tree always have areas of dense foliage. Especially the crown but also many other areas lower down. This is what ''makes'' a pine tree look like a pine tree. Have another look at the mature trees above to see what I mean. Now, the scale of  Arthur's tree (trunk diameter's balance with the full extention of the silhouette) has more or less reached it's maximum. This dictates that immediate and aggressive reduction of internode length takes place. If not it will end up with more of the same. (as below)



Obviously that is an aimless exercise which will lead nowhere.

It would be great if you could achieve very fine ramification NOW so as to not have to extend the branches/silhouette out too far. (green circles)
In reality, knowing how long it takes to ramify black pine well it is more likely that by the time you have a reasonable density you may have gone out past the desirable limit (red)
Ideally, you need to start your ramification much earlier (yellow)

I see exactly the same problem with the Red Maple further up. In my mind it has already reached the limit of it's desirable extention and the only way to fix that is to cut the branches way back and start again.  (a waste of precious time!) There are countless articles in Bonsai Today which address this very problem. The authors are constantly trying to pound it into our heads that the ramification of trees (bonsai) starts with the first sets of buds on the branch and that is where we must cut (for non conifers), that wiring is to position branches not to shape them, yet for some reason the same mistake made over and over again. We have people in our club which are still making that fundamental error 30 years on. This is the impotance of early planning. Of course if you are happy to have very sparse branching then disregard all of the above but in my view one of the most  important feautes in bonsai is density which conveys the illusion of age.




And so along with the above planning for the final size and ramification of the tree, it follows that the final design must also be taken into consideration very early on in it's development because you cannot have one without the other. One eye in the present and one eye firmly in the future.

This is the problem with your maple as I see it Arthur. As you can see you have already reached the outer limits with some branches on the tree according to scale. The rest are also on the way as they have not been forced to ramify. The only way forward from here is backwards. I notice you have used wire to give shape to some branches. This is a mistake. These branches will eventually need to be cut back beyond the point which was shaped by the wire. In effect, doing things this way is wasting time which could have been better spent cutting back earlier the previous year. It's a very common problem and is caused by a lack of forward planning and rushing to make an image for today. IMO we need to always work for tomorrow (which will become today only too soon). I hope I'm not being too blunt but I'm at the stage where I call it as I see it. Particularly because this is one of the most common faults with western bonsai design.



Same problem with Walters rather overated  (by others not by Walter) maple.
All the ramification at the tips:

but do deciduous trees in nature typically have much inner ramification ?
(i'm not asking in a cheeky manner - i have been learning alot by paying attention to the "meat and potatoes" of this thread)

Well not as fine as the tips obviously. But you can't just take the primary branches out close to the extremity and then all of a sudden realize you need to ramify to fit the scale of the tree.
If you google ''decidous tree in winter'' you will see what I mean. Most of them have branched 6 to 8 times by that stage. (the stage BEFORE the fine stuff)

beer city snake wrote:but do deciduous trees in nature typically have much inner ramification ?
(i'm not asking in a cheeky manner - i have been learning alot by paying attention to the "meat and potatoes" of this thread)

I suppose some of them do but just due to the nature of things, availabiility of light and the tendency for these living organisms to be light hogs, it is unlikely that many of them have a good deal of inner ramification. These are the kind of things we tend to think about in order to keep a tree within boundaries because Chaos does not make good bonsai. I know Mike was finding some sort of fault with Walter's tree but I find a degree of fault with his analysis. On one hand we want ramification to stay close but on the other we desire to see the design of the trunk. After all; a deciduous tree spends more time without leaves than with them, so-- it should look good nude.

MichaelS wrote:Well not as fine as the tips obviously. But you can't just take the primary branches out close to the extremity and then all of a sudden realize you need to ramify to fit the scale of the tree.
If you google ''decidous tree in winter'' you will see what I mean. Most of them have branched 6 to 8 times by that stage. (the stage BEFORE the fine stuff)

That's true but if you attempt to have a dense ramification all of the way into the trunk you miss the beauty of the branching when the tree is in leaf, if I understand what you are saying.

[quote="Vance Wood"]

That's true but if you attempt to have a dense ramification all of the way into the trunk you miss the beauty of the branching when the tree is in leaf, if I understand what you are saying.

You should not worry too much about the summer appearence of deciduous trees. They all just look like big green domes anyway. The quality is really only seen in winter. That's another common difference btween the west and the east. ie; all the work done on these trees in Japan is for the winter viewing. The summer is for growing mainly. However, yes a conjested inner area is unwanted but more than that impossible to maintain as fine ramification under the canopy invariably dies off. (which reminds me - leaf thinning is yet another technique which is neglected here in the west) What I mean is that the branches should have divided at least five times before you reach the detailed exterior of the tree.

MichaelS wrote:If you google ''decidous tree in winter'' you will see what I mean. Most of them have branched 6 to 8 times by that stage. (the stage BEFORE the fine stuff)

it was dark outside when i posted that and i was relying on mental pictures... it is light outside now and there are a good many varieties of bare deciduous trees outside my office window and it appears that the majority of the branching takes place further out on the main branches and limbs...

this might be attributable to the lack of light penetration as the tree grows, thus discouraging inner branching as it continuously reaches skyward in it quest for survival... if i understand how a tree thrives, it needs as much photo reception exposed to the sun as possible (VERY generally speaking), so how would these inner ramifications and divisions take place in its youth as it is busy stretching its arms with all the solar panels on its finger tips (so to speak)...

perhaps this is not at the core of, but possible a large part of, naturalistic design ?
(i would be particularly curious if arthur or walter would agree, or not, that i am on to something there)

again, no cheek intended... even in non-agreement, i am learning things in what i am being encouraged to really look at.

this is typical of what i see outside my window (from the suggested google search)

beer city snake wrote:

MichaelS wrote:If you google ''decidous tree in winter'' you will see what I mean. Most of them have branched 6 to 8 times by that stage. (the stage BEFORE the fine stuff)

it was dark outside when i posted that and i was relying on mental pictures... it is light outside now and there are a good many varieties of bare deciduous trees outside my office window and it appears that the majority of the branching takes place further out on the main branches and limbs...

this might be attributable to the lack of light penetration as the tree grows, thus discouraging inner branching as it continuously reaches skyward in it quest for survival... if i understand how a tree thrives, it needs as much photo reception exposed to the sun as possible (VERY generally speaking), so how would these inner ramifications and divisions take place in its youth as it is busy stretching its arms with all the solar panels on its finger tips (so to speak)...

perhaps this is not at the core of, but possible a large part of, naturalistic design ?
(i would be particularly curious if arthur or walter would agree, or not, that i am on to something there)

again, no cheek intended... even in non-agreement, i am learning things in what i am being encouraged to really look at.

I agree;--- I think.  But what seems to happen;  looking too close and asking too many questions in this area,  is akin to trying to peek up some lady's skirts,--- you are libel to get your face slapped, or arrested.  It is not because it is a deep dark secret, that no one wants to reveal; it is actually a question no one can  answer, and, rather than admit they do not have a real answer themselves on the subject, they might accuse you harping on the same thing. I think they call that circular reasoning?   This does bring up some points that suggest, as Walter seems to indicate, that the naturalistic style is supposed to look like  man has not been involved.  The hand of God touch, to put a finer point on it.  

The truth being, it takes a good deal of human intervention to make one of these trees look this way, while not allowing it to decline, stylistically, by growing beyond control and ruining the hidden design.  Thus we get the chaos style (My description) where the only style acceptable is in some people's minds that style the tree takes on by itself.  

So as I understand it; the Naturalistic style is still a contrived form, more or less imposed on a tree in such a way the tree looks like it did it to itself.  As I said in a previous paragraph, The hand of God touch.  What I mean by this, is the suspicion that some sort of divine intervention has taken place.   How could a design so divine be an accident of random growth,  with no real evidence to prove it that it did or did not?

The truth of bonsai remains. The small tree in a pot must look like a large tree in the woods. Assumming this to be axiomatic, we are left with having to intervene in the growth and history of the tree from time to time if we are to preserve this illusion.

beer city snake wrote:
this might be attributable to the lack of light penetration as the tree grows, thus discouraging inner branching as it continuously reaches skyward in it quest for survival... if i understand how a tree thrives, it needs as much photo reception exposed to the sun as possible (VERY generally speaking), so how would these inner ramifications and divisions take place in its youth as it is busy stretching its arms with all the solar panels on its finger tips (so to speak)...

perhaps this is not at the core of, but possible a large part of, naturalistic design ?
(i would be particularly curious if arthur or walter would agree, or not, that i am on to something there)

One has to understand that quite often very dense looking trees, which seem to have lots of inner growth only have lots of fine ramification at the outer shell, so to speak. This is due to lack of light inside. If done well on a bonsai it APPEARS to be dense inside, but is not . Here a more recent picture of the tree that Michael showed. I assume Michael wanted to show how dense it is inside. The truth is it is NOT dense inside. Only with the design chosen it does look very much so. But the way to develop a tree like this is NOT to let the shoots grow until the ideal silhouette is reached and then ramify it at the end. The way is to cut back several times, wire and bend it for many years with a crown which is smaller than the ideal silhouette. Then in the very end you have a lot of good ramification inside and very fine one at the outer shell and you have reached the ideal silhouette. If you are in a hurry you will never again get the interesting branch structure inside. I think that is what Michael wanted to say.

On this image you can see how much I work on a tree which has already been more than 70 years in training. All this to take the guy wires off in a year and it will look like never touched by humans. Or so I try. So far to the 'Chaos Style' - Very well designed and planned chaos that is.