Ancient Pinus mugo styling - Weekend with Kevin Willson

More here: http://sandevbonsai.blogspot.com/2009/09/mugo-constrictor.html

sebastian

you selected the best possible stylist to work on this beautiful, complex tree. the results speak for themselves.

best wishes, sam

Kevin is real master of carving. Great looking tree. Thanks for sharing Sebastijan.

Wow! Looks Great.
Joedes3

Beautiful piece of work with a piece of material most people, who would be considered sane, would not touch. I would really like to know how the process of selecting what areas of the tree could and could not be carved. I also know that sometimes one has to be careful not to reduce the top of the tree too much at one time.

What an ox! Very beautiful tree. I do think has too much of an idealized appeance for me, but to each there own, and I my self have not seen them in there natural habbitat. Is this a form they may achieve in the wild? I really like the growth pattern it had going on, very flat and cool. I know that was A LOT of work, and do believe it came out splendidly. Respect for all of yall from this part of the appy mounts!

appalachianOwl wrote:What an ox! Very beautiful tree. I do think has too much of an idealized appeance for me, but to each there own, and I my self have not seen them in there natural habbitat. Is this a form they may achieve in the wild? I really like the growth pattern it had going on, very flat and cool. I know that was A LOT of work, and do believe it came out splendidly. Respect for all of yall from this part of the appy mounts!

I don't mean to sound like I am picking at your opinion of the artistry on this tree but I am, none the less curious, about how you define an "Idealized Appearnace"?  Would you mind shedding light on what you expect a tree like this should have turned out?

There is also something else to consider. If you notice the trunk from the original tree you can see how it is. No one over the years would have forced this tree into this shape except God, it is a natural shape and I understand that forms like this are existent with Mugos in the wild.

If I can say a word or two...
The tree was designed very naturally...as material was dictating...only thing was...we choose a different position..a different inclination because, otherwise the lines were too horizontal..and that was wrong regarding dynamics. Shari that was made was already deadwood...just cleaned and shaped according to the overall dynamics of the new position...and green mass was put in the only place that was possible...so that also was very natural choice.
I would say...the tree is designed in the best possible way material was dictating.
Possible options were...different inclination which would lead to different deadwood part choice and..only a bit different green mass position..cause you cannot bend those live branches without limits or they will be dead

Sebastijan Sandev wrote:If I can say a word or two...
The tree was designed very naturally...as material was dictating...only thing was...we choose a different position..a different inclination because, otherwise the lines were too horizontal..and that was wrong regarding dynamics. Shari that was made was already deadwood...just cleaned and shaped according to the overall dynamics of the new position...and green mass was put in the only place that was possible...so that also was very natural choice.
I would say...the tree is designed in the best possible way  material was dictating.
Possible options were...different inclination  which would lead to different deadwood part choice and..only a bit different green mass position..cause you cannot bend those live branches without limits or they will be dead

Thank You very much for your detailed response. It is pretty much as I suspected except the existence of the natural dead wood. The photograph in the beginning did not clearly point that detail out.

Vance Wood wrote:

Sebastijan Sandev wrote:If I can say a word or two...
The tree was designed very naturally...as material was dictating...only thing was...we choose a different position..a different inclination because, otherwise the lines were too horizontal..and that was wrong regarding dynamics. Shari that was made was already deadwood...just cleaned and shaped according to the overall dynamics of the new position...and green mass was put in the only place that was possible...so that also was very natural choice.
I would say...the tree is designed in the best possible way  material was dictating.
Possible options were...different inclination  which would lead to different deadwood part choice and..only a bit different green mass position..cause you cannot bend those live branches without limits or they will be dead

Thank You very much for your detailed response.  It is pretty much as I suspected except the existence of the natural dead wood.  The photograph in the beginning did not clearly point that detail out.

Vance,
Maybe I have used wrong expression...on first few photos you can see dead parts of trunk and branches...not deadwood in form of shari...but there were already dead branches and parts of the trunk and...we have only followed those dead areas and turned them into shari...I mean..Kevin did that. So...I just wanted to say that...in that way we were guided where shari or sabamiki should be...where there were already dead parts of the tree. On first photos you can see them but the bark is still on

Thanks for the interest

a big WOW!.
is all I can say.
nice job kevin.
thanks for sharing.
I am so curious to see the carving tools u used.
  

Thanks for the elaboartion Sabastian. I didnt mean to come across as questioning the nature/path of design. As I said I have not had the pleasure of seeing such trees in the wild. I feel I was just in shock with the tilting and radical change from its natural growth habbit. I believe upon further ponderance it was deadwood that was offsetting to me, while elaborate and beautiful, is just that to me, it dose not seem consistant with the knarly ruggedness of the rest of the tree. I have no quarle with branch placement, it is superb. Simply offering conversation/discussion. I would rather respect you by being honest than just telling you something you want to hear.

I don't mean to sound like I am picking at your opinion of the artistry on this tree but I am, none the less curious, about how you define an "Idealized Appearnace"? Would you mind shedding light on what you expect a tree like this should have turned out? wrote:

Kind of expected this response from some one. I hope the above statment may shed some light.

There is also something else to consider. If you notice the trunk from the original tree you can see how it is. No one over the years would have forced this tree into this shape except God, it is a natural shape and I understand that forms like this are existent with Mugos in the wild. wrote:

I dont know were this came from though.

I really like the growth pattern it had going on wrote:

I understand how this tree was formed, and would have left it more be. I dont know what you know about the creator, and you dont know what I know.

AppalachianOwl,

No, no...dont get me wrong...I have no problem with discussion and different oppinions, different views. I think that is what this kind of forum is all about.
On the other hand...I am just trying to explain my own...and in this case Kevin Willsons decisions, but in the light of your thoughts...questioning them again and again.
And thats good. Do not worry.
Sometimes I dont have explanation...it just turned out that way
Thanks for your honesty and sharing of your way of thinking. I respect that
Thanks

Sebastijan Sandev wrote:AppalachianOwl,

No, no...dont get me wrong...I have no problem with discussion and different oppinions, different views. I think that is what this kind of forum is all about.
On the other hand...I am just trying to explain my own...and in this case Kevin Willsons decisions, but in the light of your thoughts...questioning them again and again.
And thats good. Do not worry.
Sometimes I dont have explanation...it just turned out that way
Thanks for your honesty and sharing of your way of thinking. I respect that
Thanks

Sometimes you cannot explain the artistic process, and you should not be required to defend it. It is what it is. The more important question is how did you come about this image, if you truly can define it?

Good to hear Sabastijan, I appreciate your time and input regarding my relatively inexperienced thaughts. The more I am learning, I acually have questions to ask, a thanks to you aswell. Please keep us posted; I really do like the tree over all, and would love to see when it has filled back in! - Jacob

appalachianOwl wrote:Good to hear Sabastijan, I appreciate your time and input regarding my relatively inexperienced thaughts. The more I am learning, I acually have questions to ask, a thanks to you aswell. Please keep us posted; I really do like the tree over all, and would love to see when it has filled back in! - Jacob

Filled back in? I am very curious as to what you think this tree should look like?

I really dont get where you are coming from Vance. I simply stated that I will be excited to see this tree with a fuller foliage mass, a bit sparse right now.

appalachianOwl wrote:I really dont get where you are coming from Vance. I simply stated that I will be excited to see this tree with a fuller foliage mass, a bit sparse right now.

OK..You seemed to indicate earlier that you thought the tree might be better off as it was or words to that effect, so I was looking for your definition and understanding.