Clean Sweep - Show Us Your Brooms

Artistic liscence is a wonderful thing. Is it a cop out or just a misunderstanding of guide lines assuming there are guide lines in which in this case there are. As one gets involved in the many crafts and professions in this World who or what do we respect the most? What or who holds the highest esteem. The work of a maverich that follows his own accord or the stalwart that crosses every 't' and respects the standard method of procedure?

Q

pine queen wrote:Artistic liscence is a wonderful thing. Is it a cop out or just a misunderstanding of guide lines assuming there are guide lines in which in this case there are. As one gets involved in the many crafts and professions in this World who or what do we respect the most? What or who holds the highest esteem. The work of a maverich that follows his own accord or the stalwart that crosses every 't' and respects the standard method of procedure?

Q

A tree on a bench doesn't know if its a broom or an IFU. It's humans that categorize and pigeon hole things. Arguing about what is one style or another is really pointless as styles are on a continuum and there are interpretations to match parts of everyone's anatomy. The point is to appreciate the visual impact of the tree. Plus I don't like getting into discussion with those that hide behind pseudonyms. If you really wanted to be taken seriously, please identify yourself ( and maybe your art.)

Rob Kempinski wrote:

Rick Moquin wrote:The devil made me do it
Some very nice trees posted. When I look at brooms, I see the Zelkova. Many trees may have a similar outline/silhouette, which is fine also, but a broom is a broom.

But Rick, open up a bit. There are many kinds of brooms.

thats the wifes transport! wondered where it went

bigsteve wrote: thats the wifes transport! wondered where it went

You don't mean ex-wife do you?

Rob Kempinski wrote:

bigsteve wrote: thats the wifes transport! wondered where it went

You don't mean ex-wife do you?

S**t she will be if she reads this!

AlainK said:

There's a good example of what some might call a cross between a "broom" and a "clump", or a "broom without a handle" on Esprits de Goshin.

It's a tree posted by a new member, from Brazil, and the species is Patagonula americana L.

Patagonula americana L.

Hello, its me, and this is my Guajuvira:






I dont know if its a "broom", or a "clump", or even a nice bonsai. Open for critics.

Rob started this thread to display broom style trees. If you wish to have an eristic argument about what is and isn't broom style please start your own thread.

Get stuck on definitions and miss the art methinks.....

Arzivenko wrote:

AlainK said:

There's a good example of what some might call a cross between a "broom" and a "clump", or a "broom without a handle" on Esprits de Goshin.

It's a tree posted by a new member, from Brazil, and the species is Patagonula americana L.

Patagonula americana L.

I dont know if its a "broom", or a "clump", or even a nice bonsai. Open for critics.

It has the potential to be a nice bonsai. But the thing that turns me off immediately is weeds in the pot. For a variety of both aesthetic and horticultural reasons bonsai trees should not have weeds in their pots. If you are intending to use this plant as ground cover I would get rid of it ASAP. It is really detracting from the tree.

Second you have the makings of a nice clump style that really only needs some ramification. I am not familiar with the species so I don't know its tendency is to develop dense branching but if it does it will be nice.

BTW If you were to use this as a broom what trunk would you grab?

This will be a triple-broom form, of course. Like the following Lonicera xylostemum is a twin-broom form.
They are all informal broom forms. It should have leaked through in the meanwhile that what is known as 'classical broom style' is a very specific form which copies the natural growth pattern of zelkova and is not really appropriate for most other species. The informal broom form is the natural growth pattern of the overwhelming number of broadleaved trees all around the world. That there is no 'classical' style for this growth pattern should not hinder us to just invent one. It is the informal broom form. It can be a single trunk, twin trunk, literati broom cascade broom or anything. You will have to get used it.
That this all aggravates and annoys the bonsai fundamentalists is a welcome plus.


url=https://servimg.com/view/13440372/183][/url]

Art, like any other expression or endeavor, changes. Even the "Classical Japanese" forms, aesthetic, etc, changes over time. Remember, if a tree "takes you someplace else", then its role has achieved its purpose. Very interesting thread. Lot's more to learn for everyone. Thank you.

but Forum etiquette would suggest a new thread is warranted.

Um, why? If people post what some consider to be "non-broom" trees in a "broom" category, I think it is legitimate to discuss that.

I don't really think much of labels, but if there is an accepted traditional shape for a "broom style" it seems to me we should limit it to that shape (and it would apply to the natural shape of all elms and relatives, including the Zelkova) -- if only to avoid this kind of confusion.

And, if, as Walter says, "The informal broom form is the natural growth pattern of the overwhelming number of broadleaved trees all around the world" perhaps we need a more innovative term for it, to lessen the confusion.

But, it really doesn't matter whether you call it "broom" or "informal upright" or the awkward "informal broom" or "basic deciduous tree shape" if the trees are attractive.

Does that means that the maple I started to work on almost ten years ago could one day become a broom?

I thought at that time that two branches were enough to start a broom, and then everybody told me : "Nahh, it's a slingshot, not a broom..." with a sorry look on their face.

Walter Pall wrote:This will be a triple-broom form, of course. Like the following Lonicera xylostemum is a twin-broom form.
They are all informal broom forms. It should have leaked through in the meanwhile that what is known as 'classical broom style' is a very specific form which copies the natural growth pattern of zelkova and is not really appropriate for most other species. The informal broom form is the natural growth pattern of the overwhelming number of broadleaved trees all around the world. That there is no 'classical' style for this growth pattern should not hinder us to just invent one. It is the informal broom form. It can be a single trunk, twin trunk, literati broom cascade broom or anything. You will have to get used it.
That this all aggravates and annoys the bonsai fundamentalists is a welcome plus.

I have to agree with Walter on this one. By far, the majority of deciduous trees branches, grow in an upwards direction. Very old trees will have primary branches that " hang ", but the secondary and tertiary branches are more often than not, heading in an upward direction.

RyanFrye wrote:

pine queen wrote:OK, I give, nice broom style.

LOL Some on here would apparently think your little joke is a serious comment given that their broad definition of "broom style" would include a tree like this. One in particular is using this broad definition to attribute himself with being an innovator in the art of bonsai. If innovation in the art only requires redefining the definitions that you deem fit and not actually doing anything we could all be self proclaimed innovators at the stroke of our computer keys couldn't we? Rules are there for a reason. Not to restrain expression but to help others understand your expression.

(How's that Kev?)

Ryan,

You need to let it go! You are starting to sound like Chris and Will!!

To me there is only one "broom style" and we have seen the classic example of what "a broom" is.

will baddeley wrote:I have to agree with Walter on this one. By far, the majority of deciduous trees branches, grow in an upwards direction. Very old trees will have primary branches that " hang ", but the secondary and tertiary branches are more often than not, heading in an upward direction.

... and you are absolutely right.

Let's take the "exposed root" style for an instance, cherished by some loathe by others. The shortest definition for such form is "bonsai on stilts". Yet we see many trees that are being developed that way. Not the right way but the cop out for an untangled mess of exposed and sometime fused roots. The latter should never be mistaken for a "exposed root" style but rather a poor attempt at developing proper nebari.

I remember a tree from the late "Taipan" if I recall correctly it was a "Tiger Bark Ficus" developed like a fir tree. The artistic value (if we can call it that) was phenomenal, at a distance it looked like a Christmas tree. We all know ficus does not grow that way in nature.

I like when Walter states I don't grow bonsai, I grow trees. I can live with that. I like the naturalistic style, not all mind you, but if we are going to live in a different convention, please let's not cross those conventions to suit our needs.

As someone else said we as humans need to pigeon hole everything. There is absolutely nothing wrong in developing a tree that looks like a tree.

Does it really need a classification?

Rick Moquin wrote:

I like when Walter states I don't grow bonsai, I grow trees. I can live with that. I like the naturalistic style, not all mind you, but if we are going to live in a different convention, please let's not cross those conventions to suit our needs.

Well said. I actually read this after posting my comment above.

My interpretation of what Walter is saying,is along the lines of a freer expression of bonsai. A western style of bonsai? Something he has been doing for a very long time and is admired all over the world for. What about this one. Semi cascade, or "broom style"

will baddeley wrote:My interpretation of what Walter is saying,is along the lines of a freer expression of bonsai. A western style of bonsai? Something he has been doing for a very long time and is admired all over the world for. What about this one. Semi cascade, or "broom style"

Will,

U bad I did get a good chuckle though. Thank god I wasn't taking a sip of coffee.

will baddeley wrote:My interpretation of what Walter is saying,is along the lines of a freer expression of bonsai. A western style of bonsai? Something he has been doing for a very long time and is admired all over the world for. What about this one. Semi cascade, or "broom style"

Will, whatever you want to call it... it's a very nice tree.

Jay Wilson wrote:

will baddeley wrote:My interpretation of what Walter is saying,is along the lines of a freer expression of bonsai. A western style of bonsai? Something he has been doing for a very long time and is admired all over the world for. What about this one. Semi cascade, or "broom style"

Will, whatever you want to call it... it's a very nice tree.

I'll second that opinion!

Lest we not forget as well that Walter's day is not complete if he hasn't challenged convention and set himself squarely against anything he views as mainstream. He clearly rather thrives on it.

"That this all aggravates and annoys the bonsai fundamentalists is a welcome plus. "

I'm getting fed up with this thread as it has a. got too far away from what Rob asked us to do in the first instance and b. run its course down whatever new direction it went off in. There are a couple of observations however:

1. can anyone give me a copy of this magic "rule book" that says a broom style must be just like so or like that? I have taken the time over the few days this thread has been meandering off down the road often of personal abuse, wilful misinterpretation of quotations and other nonsense to read various articles - in books and online - and most of them state quite clearly that there are no "styles" set in stone - what we have is guidelines. In fact, if you cast your eyes back over Rob's original post, this is precisely what he said in his words "There are so many variations to the broom style..."

2. it seems to me that a very significant point is being missed for whatever reason: If you actually read what Walter has said, you will have noticed that nowhere, but nowhere does he use the word "style". He uses the term "form". If you take the time to read some of his other insights into the difference between the two instead of denigrating him for daring to be different then you might find that this is something he has come to through a process of study, thought and rational consideration - all aspects that have moved the world forward in its thinking. Without such "innovators of thought" (and to this extent he surely is an innovator) we'd still all be of the opinion that the world was flat - an opinion arrived at through little process other than having been told that it is so by someone professing to "know the rules". Take time to consider this form vs style aspect and maybe, just maybe we will see at the very least a little truth in what Walter is saying.

In the meantime, could we maybe just all crawl back down from however far up our own a**es it is we've gone and get back to posting pictures of broom forms. Just like Rob asked us to a gazillion years ago.

Thank you, Fiona.

Dear Mods I thankyou for allowing this thread to get this far. I have found it most interesting and learnt alot. Walter once again thankyou for opening my eyes and answering some much needed questions in my mind. It was only a couple of years ago, that i wasn't ready to accept such suggestions but now i appreciate exactly where you are coming from.

@Fiona:

But... the world is flat!



If it weren't, and if it turned around itself as some pretend, we would all fall into an endless vacuum. The world needs to be flat to allow us to try to jump higher than the others. Otherwise, when high up, we would certainly be very wise, but the next minute, we wouldn't even be able to rise again, having learned the lesson, we would become part of the universal void, nothing, nada, nichts, rien, nihil...



Come on, brush off that feeling of annoyance. Brooooom it off...

I believe this shot was taken in Tomio Yamada's nursery (2001)