styles and forms
Walter Pall
Von: "Walter Pall" <Walte...@t-online.de>
An: "Internet Bonsai Club" <bon...@home.ease.lsoft.com>; "Ernie Kuo"
<erni...@AOL.COM>
Betreff: Re: Re: styles and forms (very long and philosophic)
Datum: Montag, 18. Dezember 2000 11:21
Ernie Kuo wrote:
> Your usage of the word "form" equals "style" in most bonsai literature.
> Your word usage creates un-necessary confusion to the average readers like
> myself. It might be easier to use only the word style with several
> adjectives for specification, for example:
Ernie,
I want to avoid exactly this confusion with my paper. Yes, the word styl is
used in literture where it is confusing, but we got used to it.
here my third attempt (ideas, comments, especially controversal ones most
welcome):
Styles and forms (version 3)
According to Walter Pall
If we look at traditional styles in art history we can see e.g. the roman,
the gothic, the renaissance, and the baroque style. In all these styles
churches, official buildings, private homes etc were built, paintings were
done, sculptures were made. All these can clearly be seen to belong to one
category, but they were made in different styles. A church could be built in
the gothic style or in the Renaissance style, but it was always a church.
There is no "church style". In bonsai it is not different, but the common
terminology mixes styles and forms. It gests really problematic when a
bonsai shows signs of several "styles". The art of bonsai has spread all
over the world now, new species are introduced which are not traditional
yet. So what "style" is a slim tree which has a small crown, which is
one-sided, which sits with a few other slim trees with similar crowns not on
a rock, but on a steel barrel? What if all the trees have blossoms? What if
some have a lot of deadwood? What if the trunks are very much contorted,
some look like snakes? Here we have a mixture of styles and forms and while
this is an extreme example, a mixture is quite common.
Someone who sees a bonsai wants to categorize it. Traditionally we want to
classify it in just one "style". With many bonsai we are having problems.
These problems have increased in the past decade with the up rise of new
"styles" or variations of "styles". People from different cultures are
practicing the art of bonsai and bring in new details and even new "styles"
for which we don't even have a name yet. Often we stand in front of a bonsai
and find that it is very difficult to impossible to give it one "style". Is
this a poor bonsai, or is it that our scheme of classification is poor and
needs improvement?
One has to differentiate between styles and forms in the bonsai art. Both
are commonly used as if they were the same.
A form is the principal characteristic of a bonsai. The form is decided by
the movement of the trunk, the number of trunks, the slimness vs. fatness of
trunk, the dominant use of deadwood, different appearance in seasons, and
the potting medium. Forms can be differentiated in the following form
categories:
1. according to trunk direction: formal upright, formal broom (a sub form of
formal upright), informal upright, informal broom, slanting, cascade (full
and semi).
2. according to number of trunks: single trunk, multitrunk or group.
3. according to tendency of crown: one-sided (called windswept so far),
branches on both sides.
4. according to planting medium: in pots or on a stone. On a stone slab, a
rock or over a rock, with roots in soil of pot.
5. according to seasonal appearance: winter tree (without foliage) and a
summer tree, it can be a blooming or a fruiting tree.
6. according to thickness of trunk compared with height of the tree: slim
trunks (called literati style so far), normal trunks or fat trunks.
7. according to amount of deadwood used in design: lot (called driftwood
style so far), little or no deadwood.
Different from the form is the style. There are four style categories:
Category 1: The counterpart to classic is contemporary.
Classic: this is the style which is commonly associated with "good" bonsai.
These are trees which stick to the rules. They are usually slightly
expressionistic and abstract. This means, the designer does not try to give
the impression of a real tree but rather he has an inner felling for the
ideal tree which he expresses. Classic can either be seen in the sense of
leading because of proven value or it can be seen as old-fashioned compared
to contemporary. A good classical artist is seen as one who uses (copies)
the classical forms and conforms to the classical rules as far as possible.
There are early-classic bonsai, which can only be in the forms which were
accepted before the 19th century: formal upright, informal upright,
slanting, cascade, single trunk multitrunk, group, and on rock. In the 19th
century the literati form was introduced in Japan. In the 20th century the
formal broom form was developed. The late-classical forms are the literati
and the formal broom form.
Contemporary: This is the style which is used by the most progressive
artists at the moment. It could also be called modern style. A typical
artist is Kimura. The breaking of classical rules is getting widespread. The
trees are much more expressionistic or more impressionistic. The forms are
mostly fat trunk, slim trunk with a strong tendency towards the driftwood
form. The usage of pots is going in new directions. All sorts of "weird"
pots and plantings are being tried out. The trend is going away from display
in tokonoma, and new ways are being found. The classical accent objects are
more and more often being replaced by other things. A good contemporary
artist is seen as one who is creative and dares to break new grounds, who
uses old rules only if he sees fit.
Category 2: The counterpart to impressionistic is expressionistic
Impressionistic: In this style were the artist tries to design the tree so
that the impression of what he sees in natural trees is reflected. Typical
are branch forms which are close to natural vs. the stiff and over manicured
look of classical branches. Also uncommon trunk forms, features like holes,
kinks, upward growing branches would be found in this style. Trees are
formed in the way the species grows in nature. A spruce looks like a spruce.
The new style is especially conspicuous with deciduous trees. They are never
formed to look like a conifer. The impressionistic trees want to give the
impression of a real tree and not the impression of a bonsai. The
impressionistic trees are usually also naturalistic trees, but not
necessarily.
Expressionistic: This is the style where the artist has an inner image of an
ideal tree in general (mostly a pine tree), an ideal tree concerning a
certain species. The design follows this ideal rather than what many trees
in nature really look like. An expressionistic tree wants to look as much as
a good bonsai as possible. Classical trees usually are expressionistic.
Deciduous trees that look like a conifer are typical examples of
expressionistic styles. Regardless of the material the artist styles a fixed
image.
Category 3: The counterpart of naturalistic is abstract.
Naturalistic: This is the style where trees are formed so that they look as
close as possible like real trees. This means that many classical rules have
to be broken. Often these trees are looked at as "weeds" or raw material by
the audience who is not yet used to them. A sub-category of the naturalistic
style is the romantic style. Designs in this style drive the naturalistic
side to the extreme, try to achieve a lovely tree or scenery also with
inclusion of accessories like rocks and figurines. Examples are the
water-and-land penjings of Qingquan Zhao and some creations of Nick Lenz.
Abstract: This is the style where the design has given up trying to follow
natural forms. Although it is always a live tree it looks like a tree from
another planet. The deadwood looks more like a sculpture than natural
deadwood. Crowns are styled just to show that the tree is alive. The
uniform, small crowns that Kimura often uses, go in this direction.
Category 4: The counterpart of spiritual is mundane.
Spiritual: This is the style which sees more in a tree than a tree. It can
be a human being, an animal. The whole tree can be viewed as a human or
animal or only parts of the tree. Often penjings were made to look like an
animal or a human being or to at least give the impression. Nick Lenz has
created some bonsai which he calls "anthropomorphic".
Mundane: This is the common way of styling a tree to look like a tree.
Styles can be mixed among the categories. And most forms can come under most
styles.
So where is the literati style? There is the late-classical literati style,
which is a slim trunk in the naturalistic and impressionistic style. It can
sometimes also be in the abstract style if the trunk is very much contorted,
and/or if the crown is just a symbolic patch of green. There are also
contemporary literati trees.
With this categorization it becomes obvious that a tree can have various
different styles and various different forms at one and the same time. This
is not a contradiction, but clarification. One tree usually has only one
style or form out of one category. E.g. a bonsai is not impressionistic and
expressionistic, formal and informal upright at the same time. So a tree is
either classical or contemporary, but not both. It is a cascade or formal
upright, it is as slim-trunk of fat-trunk tree, it has little or a lot of
deadwood etc. But it can be described as belonging to many different style
and form categories. A bonsai may be in the contemporary, naturalistic,
impressionistic style with the informal upright and lots-of deadwood form.
In addition it might even be a flowering tree like a prune. Formerly one
would have just said that this tree is in the "informal upright style".