pots by Mateusz Grobelny

Here a couple more of these:
two mugo pines
silver birch and European larch
all pots by Mateusz Grobelny

This is a great thread with many valid points both for and against the choice of pot and tree.
Walter's choice of pots and trees, to me, seems too controversial for everyone to agree on. Is this not a good thing though?

I'd like to ask Walter if his combination of pots and trees he has posted here are a result of being involved in quality bonsai for too long?
Maybe there comes a point when you have styled and repotted so many good trees into quality traditional pots that you become bored and look for something different? If this is the case then I think Walter is right to try something different, to keep himself interested if nothing else.

Paul

Every so often somebody changes something and people dont like the change , its happened in many things i do ; there are people who go fishing with traditional split cane rods and nothing else and decry the us of carbon fibre and the other way round , they still all catch fish but will never agree ; there are people who shoot nothing but English side by side shotguns (walnut and steel , very nice and very expensive) and those who shoot semi autos with plastic camo stocks and barrels , they both shoot game but look different and are equaly hated by the people who use them ; some people who used to go foxhunting(when it wasnt banned) allways liked to see the huntsman in a red coat because it was traditional , now its banned and we have to drag hunt and some huntsmen are weaing plain tweed or god forbid fleece , then that is wrong because it not traditional and so on


personally , to hell with tradition if you want to do something different do it , i use carbon fibre rods out of preference , i use a semi auto camo shotgun because its practical , i hunt in fleeces because its comfortable and practical and if i could i would change to Mateusz Grobelny pots because I LIKE them.

.....very simple and eternal truth in this that maybe we might benefit from remembering.

That's a very BIG POINT fiona stated here!
.....and that also meens that people get upset if something "can't be remembered"!

These "remembering" IMO is not only based on a continuously viewing of trees in pots but also on the everyones natural feeling for a "visual balance"....for the "golden ratio".
Some of Walter's trees are really out of that!
Look at the trees you DON'T like....what if the sizes change....if the pot is bigger or shallower.....?


If I may bring it down to two points (...which also show my personal opion/feelings/thoughts)

You have to like these rough pots of Matheus....well I do.
BUT I don't like the combinations that are out of a visual balance.

If you compare these combinations with the tree/stone-combinations in the other thread it is quite apparently.

Kind regards
Martin


.......and I can see a big smile behind a computer down in Bavaria

Walter Pall wrote:I find it enlightening that the majority of the bonsai establishement finds this pot atrocious but a lady who professionally has to select art on the highest level picks exacty this one from my collection to show it in an art exhibit. She has no clue about bonsai, yes, so she DOES NOT KNOW THAT THIS SHOULD BE UGLY. She just follows her very well trained artistic taste.

Hi Walter & all,

I have read this thread with interest, I loved this pot & tree from the first time I saw it. However, I could see that it would (and has) upset many who are stuck in the mud & that for it to be a good bonsai/penjing it has to be planted in a boring pot so as not to distract from the tree..I think the tree & pot meld together better than most attempts to "do something different". And far better than it looked in the original pot!

As for well trained artistic taste... that to me is someone who isnt truly an artist but rather someone who has learnt it, just as some (like yourself Walter) are true bonsai artists, others have to learn it & will never reach the same level of self fulfillment.

I am also a visual artist & have upset many in the local art & bonsai circles with some of my work. The following piece was decried at my local club when shown, ignored on the australian bonsai forums and caused offence when I used it as part of my portfolio for art school (i decided I didnt need to be 'trained' to know what I wanted to do). None of which concerns me as I am the one who has to look at it everyday on my bench beside more traditional bonsai suiseki & saikei. I have many other compositions using materials that have been discarded & nature is reclaiming, this one has remained my favorite.

'Lost Dolly' consisting of a japanese made tray, jogger, foam, galvanised pipe connecter, plastic dolls leg and local stone, all being slowly consumed by moss, lichen & decay.



Matt

Jim Lewis had previously another signature for his posts which he has changed for the present one.

His previous signature (as far as I can remember..., please correct me if I'm wrong) was something like this:

"If bonsai is merely art use some aluminum cans and make bonsai"

Perhaps he would better keep on using this instead.....

MattA wrote:

Walter Pall wrote:I find it enlightening that the majority of the bonsai establishement finds this pot atrocious but a lady who professionally has to select art on the highest level picks exacty this one from my collection to show it in an art exhibit. She has no clue about bonsai, yes, so she DOES NOT KNOW THAT THIS SHOULD BE UGLY. She just follows her very well trained artistic taste.

Hi Walter & all,

I have read this thread with interest, I loved this pot & tree from the first time I saw it. However, I could see that it would (and has) upset many who are stuck in the mud & that for it to be a good bonsai/penjing it has to be planted in a boring pot so as not to distract from the tree..I think the tree & pot meld together better than most attempts to "do something different". And far better than it looked in the original pot!

As for well trained artistic taste... that to me is someone who isnt truly an artist but rather someone who has learnt it, just as some (like yourself Walter) are true bonsai artists, others have to learn it & will never reach the same level of self fulfillment.

I am also a visual artist & have upset many in the local art & bonsai circles with some of my work. The following piece was decried at my local club when shown, ignored on the australian bonsai forums and caused offence when I used it as part of my portfolio for art school (i decided I didnt need to be 'trained' to know what I wanted to do). None of which concerns me as I am the one who has to look at it everyday on my bench beside more traditional bonsai suiseki & saikei. I have many other compositions using materials that have been discarded & nature is reclaiming, this one has remained my favorite.

'Lost Dolly' consisting of a japanese made tray, jogger, foam, galvanised pipe connecter, plastic dolls leg and local stone, all being slowly consumed by moss, lichen & decay.



Matt

Hi MAtt,

This may be art, but it definitely is NOT bonsai......

Stavros

I have read this thread with interest, I loved this pot & tree from the first time I saw it. However, I could see that it would (and has) upset many who are stuck in the mud & that for it to be a good bonsai/penjing it has to be planted in a boring pot so as not to distract from the tree..I think the tree & pot meld together better than most attempts to "do something different". And far better than it looked in the original pot!

Attention please! That’s what strikes me most in this discussion. The need of some artists to seek attention more than anything. I really see no other reason to create “bonsai” that are so far away from the essence of bonsai. If you really are an artist, you cope with the quality needed and work dedicated to achieve your goal. Or you choose to express yourself using an art form that fits your goal.

I actually do not believe that Walther e.g. does not know the bonsai art and culture in its original state, but I do think Walter (correct me if I am wrong Walter), do reject the traditional bonsai art in its true nature.
Either this or a strong need to seek attention. This is seen in many other art forms too. The lack of talent can cause this, or simply a need of drawing attention in order to be known and sell the product. The latter is often the case.

Bonsai is an art form that demands skills and long termed dedicated and detailed work.
If you do not want to go that path, you can try making a shortcut. You can use odd material, style it lightly or in a provocative manner, and next calling it something. Naturalistic for example. And say it is art.
Next, when someone like me say “look twice at this and use your sound judgment”, the answer is always calling me/us for “traditionalist” or “stuck in the mud”. Another label put on “explaining” why we are wrong or dull.
I assume this will go to for Kimura, Kato, Yamada, Kobayashi and more?

I do see some of this bonsai work, and others for that sake, called naturalistic, because then you have an explanation of why it is so. Typical for bonsai artists that do not cope, or don’t have the patience to finish the work. They put a label on explaining why it is so, and it is then accepted as (good) art. Seen in te art world in general too.

“Western bonsai” is also a label put on unfinished bonsai lacking quality and refinement. Another way to get around it, still believing it is bonsai art. We just don’t want to do it the Japanese way because it is boring (or too demanding perhaps?).

I went to an art exhibition called “Wild Things” yesterday. Nature expressed in paintings and installations at an art museum. There was very good art works there, both paintings and installations. And there was some very weird works lacking quality, technique and with no history. Art exhibitions contain good and bad art, as do the bonsai art world. We just have to judge for ourselfes what we wan´t.

What strikes me most is the artist that seeks attention this easy way. Their works, in my opinion, are short cuts and easy attention trackers. Pop-bonsai or kitsch-bonsai I could label them. As it goes on in the art world in general. But I´m sure it will be defended as progressive and forward looking evolution of the art so it doesn’t stagnate and die? Right or wrong? Good or bad art?

I am just happy that I am in no need of seeking attention and being popular, because I do not need to sell anything. I just pay attention to doing bonsai the old fashioned boring way with details and dedicated work, trying to cope with the beauty of bonsai and come as far as I manage to do the classic bonsai. Bonsai that might also keep their artistic value on a long termed basis. That’s art for me.

Or I can go this way. Introducing the bonsai hat as at the above photo. Keeping bonsai from stagnation and lead it in to a new era. I may even sell them this way (but I won’t), or just catch your attention.


Best regards
Morten Albek

Morten Albek wrote:
Attention please! That’s what strikes me most in this discussion. The need of some artists to seek attention more than anything.

This is good! Mr. Albek, read it again please!

Morten Albek wrote:
Bonsai is an art form that demands skills and long termed dedicated and detailed work.
If you do not want to go that path, you can try making a shortcut. You can use odd material, style it lightly or in a provocative manner, and next calling it something. Naturalistic for example. And say it is art.

I will now put me (and Marija) as example, because I can only speak about what we are doing. I consider my work something like naturalistic. Especially last year I worked so much with bonsai - every day I was stink from sweat. I an not sure that I have understud what are you saying. Do you underestimate my sweat?

Andrija

I hope I do not offend you in any way, although I know my words might do so to some. It is very difficult to say things clear without being misunderstood. I hope you take this as an open minded discussion.
I don't know your work and what you put in the frame `naturalistic´. I just see it used as an excuse to expose poor material or raw material being presented as bonsai art, with only poor work done to it. Seen in this thread too. I think that is a petty for the bonsai art.
My large typed "attention" was precisely to point out that by being loud you get the attention wanted. The rest I hope is understood by the what I wrote.

Best regards
Morten

Morten Albek wrote:Andrija
I don't know your work and what you put in the frame `naturalistic´.

One of main characteristics of naturalistic style is that it looks like never been touched by man. Matheusz's pots have whiff of naturalistic in itself.
I am not insulted, but I was concerned that you have misunderstand something.

I have seen very detailed Japanese bonsai tthat doesnt look like touched by man. But they are detailed worked on, and have great naturalism too. The bonsai I have seen in the west so far, labelled naturalistic, are far from that image. I think the word naturalistic is not covering what I try to point out here, and I will leave it to the readers to make their own judgement.

Best regards
Morten Albek

Morten Albek wrote:I have seen very detailed Japanese bonsai tthat doesnt look like touched by man. But they are detailed worked on, and have great naturalism too.

And I agree with you ..., but they are long, long time in development, sometimes generations are working on it.

Klaudia & Martin wrote: ... not only based on a continuously viewing of trees in pots but also on the everyones natural feeling for a "visual balance"....for the "golden ratio". Some of Walter's trees are really out of that! Look at the trees you DON'T like....what if the sizes change....if the pot is bigger or shallower.....?

If I may bring it down to two points (...which also show my personal opion/feelings/thoughts)

You have to like these rough pots of Matheus....well I do.
BUT I don't like the combinations that are out of a visual balance.

If you compare these combinations with the tree/stone-combinations in the other thread it is quite apparently.

We're getting quite a bit away from the original post which was principally about Walter's trees (which quite clearly are bonsai) in Mateusz's pots (which is where the "traditional" vs "modern" debate came in). Martin's points above strike a chord with me. If you take the statement "Look at the trees you DON'T like....what if the sizes change....if the pot is bigger or shallower.....?" then you would need to admit that this is true of all bonsai containers whether traditional or otherwise. How often have we stood at an exhibition and stated things along the lines of "oh that's a lovely tree, but I don't think the pot is right". It matters not whether it is a mass-produced pot, a John Pitt, a Dale Cochoy or one of Mateusz's - a wrong "pot" is a wrong pot, and usually for the very reason Martin cites.

His second point about the slabs and stone pots on Walter's other threads gives rise to the issue of is any tree in such a container "not bonsai"? I think we'd all agree that trees on slabs, rock pots, moon pots etc. are all valid as bonsai nowadays. There is no difference - apart from the artistic approach - between those slabs etc and Mateusz's pots.

Essentially it is all a matter of what Martin calls visual balance? And that's where I think an open mind is needed - just in case we have to stop and think a bit more about whether that balance has been achieved.

But it still doesn't mean you have to like it.

Morten you are pure inspiration to read!!! Beginners like my self need someone like you to pull us back into line and stay true to the cause. To remember who and what we are and what we are doing. I certainly needed to read this. There is much wisdom and merrit in your writings. Thank you also for taking the time to put your side forward.

anttal63 wrote:Morten you are pure inspiration to read!!! Beginners like my self need someone like you to pull us back into line and stay true to the cause. To remember who and what we are and what we are doing. I certainly needed to read this. There is much wisdom and merrit in your writings. Thank you also for taking the time to put your side forward.

True to what cause ?? the cause of blindly following instructions on what a tree should look like and what sort of container its in and it must be as written down by some one in old Korea/China/Japan , would anyone have said anything if this was one of Kimura's ideas ?doubt it

fiona wrote:

Essentially it is all a matter of what Martin calls visual balance? And that's where I think an open mind is needed - just in case we have to stop and think a bit more about whether that balance has been achieved.

But it still doesn't mean you have to like it.

Traditional bonsai pots reminiscent me on furniture or some part of the furniture, if I look at them just like objects. Some pots looks like part of some engine e.g. drum pot looks like part of the chimney on old locomotive.
In any case, it is obvious that they are made by man. I wonder in what moment mankind have reached consensus that balance between something obviously artificial and vivid old tree exist?

Matheusz's pots for my opinion have much better harmony with tree. They look more like they have come from the same source from were the tree have come.
It is always easier to find "beauty" in something already excepted by majority ... or in something that your mother taugtht you as beautiful, when you have first time opened eyes.

tim stubbs wrote:

anttal63 wrote:Morten you are pure inspiration to read!!! Beginners like my self need someone like you to pull us back into line and stay true to the cause. To remember who and what we are and what we are doing. I certainly needed to read this. There is much wisdom and merrit in your writings. Thank you also for taking the time to put your side forward.

True to what cause ?? the cause of blindly following instructions on what a tree should look like and what sort of container its in and it must be as written down by some one in old Korea/China/Japan , would anyone have said anything if this was one of Kimura's ideas ?doubt it

Hi tim i support both sides. I dont think there is blindness when listening or reading two people of this calibre's opinions. Just a case of where its at for you...

anttal63 wrote:
Hi tim i support both sides.

Just for information. I`am not on any side. I like Japanese and Western traditional art very much.

tim stubbs wrote:

anttal63 wrote:Morten you are pure inspiration to read!!! Beginners like my self need someone like you to pull us back into line and stay true to the cause. To remember who and what we are and what we are doing. I certainly needed to read this. There is much wisdom and merrit in your writings. Thank you also for taking the time to put your side forward.

True to what cause ?? the cause of blindly following instructions on what a tree should look like and what sort of container its in and it must be as written down by some one in old Korea/China/Japan , would anyone have said anything if this was one of Kimura's ideas ?doubt it

Yes, I would tell Kimura I do not like it.
Who said to follow the old instructions blindly?
There is room for experimenting in the bonsaiscene, however ugly is ugly.
Experiment but keep the traditions in mind, if you want to make the art completely european/western call it something else, not bonsai.

Walter did achieve one thing with this post though, a lott of discusion (witch is good)

Kind regards
Peter

Hi there,
I read carefully the whole post and one thing came to my poor mind : maybe Walter wants us to think about the "harmony" between pots and trees and also about our vision of bonsai today but...... in a kind of "brutal" way I admit !
Also concerning Morten vision of naturalistic bonsai (that we called "naturalistic" unfinished bonsai), how can we call bonsaikas like Walter (him again!) who takes distances with the traditional japanese bonsai or french François Jeker and Thierry Font. They learned everything with japanse senseis, but they take distances from the traditional art of bonsai. And it's still called bonsai and really don't look like an unfinished tree.
Kind Regards

P.S. : I like Mateusz pots, I like the trees, but I don't like the combination between them.

Morten Albek wrote:
Attention please! That’s what strikes me most in this discussion. The need of some artists to seek attention more than anything. I really see no other reason to create “bonsai” that are so far away from the essence of bonsai. If you really are an artist, you cope with the quality needed and work dedicated to achieve your goal. Or you choose to express yourself using an art form that fits your goal.

Morten, I do not make my compositions & I dont think Walter styles his trees to get attention. If I was wanting attention I would not have been slaving at my art or my bonsai for over 20yrs without ever sharing them. Why would I not share them? Because of the responses that are received due to the majorities inability to see a concept & thought that does not fit within there realm of consiousness.

Kimura has been mentioned several times thruout this thread... do you question the mans abilities to make magnificent "traditional" bonsai as well as the stunning "art sculpture" that he is so renowned for? If you look at his first book, along side creations like Coiling dragon and Ressurection sits an absolutely perfect formal upright white pine that has been created due to his understanding and application of traditional techniques over a 20+year term. Maybe his bonsai are ok but his 'sculpture are not'? I see no difference between the 2. Just as I do not see any divergance between bonsai and penjing, they are simply styled from a different perspective however both are equally 'art' and 'bonsai'.

You cannot create works of 'art' that do not fit the 'traditional' label if you first do not understand the tradition. I have heard many beginners over the years say they dont need to know the "rules" they can just do what they like and call it 'Bonsai' and 'Art'. Sometimes they succeed but more often they fail due to a lack of grasp of the fundamentals.

When you understand the fundamentals in anything you can then take it to your own place and create true works of art, not to sell & not to attract attention as you state, but because it is our own vision and interpretation of them. Noone has to look at my saikei compositions made from naturally decaying materials only I do.

I am firmly rooted in tradition but see no point in slavishly following it & not using my own mind or sight just to appease those who do not like what i do or want to try and label/delabel it. My compositions with reclaimed materials is using an art form that fits my goal.

This definition of Wabi-Sabi from nobleharbour.com "Pared down to its barest essence, wabi-sabi is the Japanese art of finding beauty in imperfection and profundity in nature, of accepting the natural cycle of growth, decay, and death. It's simple, slow, and uncluttered-and it reveres authenticity above all. Wabi-sabi is flea markets, not warehouse stores; aged wood, not Pergo; rice paper, not glass. It celebrates cracks and crevices and all the other marks that time, weather, and loving use leave behind. It reminds us that we are all but transient beings on this planet-that our bodies as well as the material world around us are in the process of returning to the dust from which we came. Through wabi-sabi, we learn to embrace liver spots, rust, and frayed edges, and the march of time they represent."

The rest of the article makes extremely interesting reading if anyone is interested in one of the underlying fundamentals of this great art we call Bonsai and all that it encompasses, not just the trees but the pots, stands, soe and scrolls that complete a traditional display.


Nothing is permanent, should we try and hold bonsai to a standard that was set at some point in the past. Even 'traditional' bonsai have evolved and changed over the decades/centuries. Trees that were once quite acceptable in exhibitions such as Kokufu 30+yrs ago would no longer even get in the door to be considered for display.

Do you think you are doing the art justice to try and stay in that past?

The japanese moved on why cannot many westerners?

Matt

Matt

I will like to repeat my first post:

"Well.... everything is possible, and I am glad some dares to try new things.... but personally I certainly prefers the traditional bonsai aesthetics. I miss both the simplicity and the beauty with this piece. But taste is not a subject you can discuss - just like colours its just about - taste.
Best regards
Morten"

Do you really think I stay in the past doing bonsai with the classical approach? Well, that´s your opinion.

Best regards
Morten

Hello everybody

Fiona said....
then you would need to admit that this is true of all bonsai containers whether traditional or otherwise. How often have we stood at an exhibition and stated things along the lines of "oh that's a lovely tree, but I don't think the pot is right".

Essentially it is all a matter of what Martin calls visual balance? And that's where I think an open mind is needed - just in case we have to stop and think a bit more about whether that balance has been achieved.

That's what it is IMO Fiona.....but I personally would say/describe it as "...., but I don't FEEL the pot is right". The visual balance can't be measured at all. To many other influences change the purely sizing of a pot or tree or the combination....BUT it is a roughly guideline.

But it still doesn't mean you have to like it.

ABSOLUTELY....


@Andrija

Traditional bonsai pots reminiscent me on furniture or some part of the furniture, if I look at them just like objects. Some pots looks like part of some engine e.g. drum pot looks like part of the chimney on old locomotive.In any case, it is obvious that they are made by man.

Yes you are right....but thats only a question of your personal taste. I like both ways.

I wonder in what moment mankind have reached consensus that balance between something obviously artificial and vivid old tree exist?

That is not invented by mankind only discovered. It is a basic "code/rule" of nature! Here are a few links that will show better than I can describe it.

Golden Ratio

Fibonacci Numbers in Nature & the Golden Ratio

It is always easier to find "beauty" in something already excepted by majority ... or in something that your mother taugtht you as beautiful, when you have first time opened eyes.

You are right Andrija....to some point....but the innate feeling is ever there.




IMO nowadays the feeling has changed a little bit.....where we come back to what Fiona said....REMEMBERENCE is important!
A lot of things today are sized at a ratio of 1.5....or 2/3....for example pictures, magazines newspapers... .
Thats a lot easier to use than the Golden Ratio which is 1,6180 .
Some time ago I personally have made a pot that has the golden ratio....length by square....AND it FELT wrong to my surprise! A sizing 3 by 2 ....length by square would have been better!

For example in photography you now use The rule of thirds


Kind regards
Martin

Klaudia & Martin wrote:
@Andrija

Traditional bonsai pots reminiscent me on furniture or some part of the furniture, if I look at them just like objects. Some pots looks like part of some engine e.g. drum pot looks like part of the chimney on old locomotive.In any case, it is obvious that they are made by man.

Yes you are right....but thats only a question of your personal taste. I like both ways.

I also like both kind of pots. I said that before.