Cookie cutter bonsai
Reiner Goebel
bonsai is, he did reveal what he considers 'cookie cutter' bonsai.
The sorry specimens can be viewed at the Gallery. See
http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/agora/view.php?key=1005200625&bn=internetbonsaiclub_ibcgallery&site=internetbonsaiclub
Reiner Goebel
Toronto, Canada
http://www.tbs.game2.com/
********************************************************************************
++++With deep sadness for those who lost family and friends ++++
********************************************************************************
>>-->> The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ <<--<<
To leave the list, send SIGNOFF BONSAI to: LIST...@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Edzard Teubert
> bonsai is, he did reveal what he considers 'cookie cutter' bonsai.
>
> The sorry specimens can be viewed at the Gallery. See
>
http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/agora/view.php?key=1005200625&bn=internet
bonsaiclu
> b_ibcgallery&site=internetbonsaiclub
>
> Reiner Goebel
appropriately cautious. I'd have to agree in some ways, though to coin them
as cookie-cutter, one needs to know something of the influences of the
artist,.. methinks.
And Reiner, the bole on the maple reminds me that I had started an excess
Amur maple [ginnalian] with your 'shoots from trunk' problem that needs
photographing since in leaving it alone the main branches have died back to
the new growth emerging from the bole. Nope, no solution on that problem.
Previously I had removed any adventious growth, this spring in leaving it
on, the branches have died completely reducing the tree to the bole or
trunkring... we'll see what the future brings on either a new design or
reconstructing the tree. Currently the old growth does not seem to be
renewable and it will be one h--l of a stubby broom style.
d--n another cookie-cutter, ;).
naturally.
edzard
wsallen
Reiner Goebel wrote in message <3BEA29D5...@interlog.com>...
>While I was not able to pin down Ron on what a 'non cookie cutter'
>bonsai is, he did reveal what he considers 'cookie cutter' bonsai.
>The sorry specimens can be viewed at the Gallery. See
>http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/agora/view.php?key=1005200625&bn=internet
bonsaiclub_ibcgallery&site=internetbonsaiclub
Hi all :+)
Mmmm I can see what Ron is getting at IF he is refering to the appearance of
the mass of foliage each tree is displaying. Whilst that type of foliage
cover may indeed be appropriate for some trees, in these trees it is
inappropriate as all the viewer sees in a solid block of foliage. FWIW the
crab apple seems to be either growning out of or being groomed to a state of
separation of the foliage pads.
Of course these particular trees could be being grown for the winter effect;
ie. a tracery of branches and no leaves. So the cookie cutter look could
only apply in summer.
Whose trees are they Reiner/Ron and what is the artist aiming to achieve?
Are there winter pics of these trees?
Cheers,
Heidi Aussie
Jim Lewis
cutter'
> bonsai is, he did reveal what he considers 'cookie cutter'
bonsai.
>
> The sorry specimens can be viewed at the Gallery. See
>
http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/agora/view.php?key=1005200625&b
n=internetbonsaiclub_ibcgallery&site=internetbonsaiclub
Well, I don't have anything that equals any of these, but ("I
know what I like!") . . .
The apple is the best of the bunch there. I'm not sure it would
fit the "cookie cutter" mold. It is a quite "applish" tree, and
as Craig said on the gallery, very much worth having.
The hornbeam does, and the maple. If trees are supposed to evoke
trees in nature, the hornbeam bears no relationship to what a
hornbeam looks like in nature. Despite our recent thread, nature
avoids anything so precisely regular as a triangle. It could be
made more natural (and less cookie cutterish) by opening up
(hornbeam are understory trees) and flattening the crown a bit.
The maple is nice, but it IS like the last 2001 nice maples we've
all seen.
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - Not at all
certain what all this proves.
Lisa Kanis
> The maple is nice, but it IS like the last 2001 nice maples we've
> all seen.
>
> Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - Not at all
> certain what all this proves.
I tried to post the following on the Interactive Gallery, but for some reason my password is
suddenly invalid. My message is mainly in reply to what Walter Pall wrote, but is partially in
answer to Jim as well.
> .........Take a look at Patrick's long list of real deciduous trees that he has posted today. How
many different
> ways are there? Milliions! Most of us are just not ready yet to admit this.
(snip)
> Walter Pall
Walter,
What is new under the sun?
Quite by chance I just found second-hand a little book titled "Kamuti -- A New Way in Bonsai", by
Willi E. Bollman, written in 1974, i.e. 25 years ago (Ed. Hippocrene Books Inc., New York, NY).
"Kamuti" means "small tree" in Shona, the language of Mashonaland in SE Africa. Mr Bollman
describes the Kamuti way of growing minature trees in a natural manner. (Whatever "natural" may
mean!) This results in dwarf trees that look pretty much like the ones shown by Patrick Alexander on
the Gallery.
Because of the copyright obstacles, I cannot scan any of the photos in the book.
It does not appear that Mr Bollman's advocacy of the Kamuti method met with great enthusiasm.
Frankly, I think it is no wonder. The Kamuti trees just have very little appeal. To miniaturize a
tree, especially in such a way that it is beautiful, while yet being more or less a copy of what is
observable "in nature", is an art that very few have discovered yet. As far as deciduous trees are
concerned, I can in fact think of no-one.
And to Jim e.a., may I just add, no doubt superfluously, that it is a very different matter to see
2001 photographs of perfect trees, or to see the trees themselves, just one at a time, properly
displayed. They are awesome, and not meant to be judged wholesale, especially not on the basis of ph
otographs only. In real life, a cookie cutter is about the last thing that would come to my mind.
Lisa
Lisa Kanis
between 1974 and 2001 is not 25 but 27 years.... that's right, isn't it?
Lisa
Lisa Kanis <lis...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:7GPG7.44422$8x1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Jim Lewis
it is a very different matter to see
> 2001 photographs of perfect trees, or to see the trees
themselves, just one at a time, properly
> displayed. They are awesome, and not meant to be judged
wholesale, especially not on the basis of ph
> otographs only. In real life, a cookie cutter is about the last
thing that would come to my mind.
>
Sure it's different, and the trees WILL look better in 3-D, but
cookie cutter is cookie cutter. In my mind, these are designed
to look like "bonsai." Not like trees.
Someone here said that he thought many of us had stopped trying
to represent nature and were copying other bonsai. I think
that's pretty close to the mark.
Oh, well. There is no way for either "side" to win this
argument. Bonsai are in the eye of the beholder.
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - He who sets
an apple tree will live to see it end. He who sets a pear tree,
sets it for a friend. - Anon.
John Biel
> > And to Jim e.a., may I just add, no doubt superfluously, that
> it is a very different matter to see
> > 2001 photographs of perfect trees, or to see the trees
> themselves, just one at a time, properly
> > displayed. They are awesome, and not meant to be judged
> wholesale, especially not on the basis of ph
> > otographs only. In real life, a cookie cutter is about the last
> thing that would come to my mind.
> >
>
> Sure it's different, and the trees WILL look better in 3-D, but
> cookie cutter is cookie cutter. In my mind, these are designed
> to look like "bonsai." Not like trees.
Jim, I'm getting confused here. Isn't that supposed to be the case and not about
trees as such?
Also, I think a good case can be made that Nature is the best cookie cutter stylist
of all, wouldn't you agree? For example, if the calendar tree you referred to in an
earlier post is styled like a REAL tree, well, then, there have to be at least
thousands - OK, millions ;-) - of real maple trees just like that in nature.
I guess my point is that, if a "style" or "look", is repeated often enough and
displayed in abundance - for example, if 100 calendar like maples were displayed in
a row - one could say they are cookie cutters. They might be of different sizes,
some even in blue pots, but because they will all have the same design features,
they are cookie cutters. Right?
>
> Someone here said that he thought many of us had stopped trying
> to represent nature and were copying other bonsai. I think
> that's pretty close to the mark.
Again, maybe I'm missing something: how does one represent nature in our hobby? It
seems to me nature does a pretty good job of representing itself without our
interference. So I would imagine that, if somebody wanted to just represent nature
in bonsai, the simplest way would be to take any plant out of one's back 40 and put
it into a container. Instant results. (If the material is too neat because it
might have come out of a pruned hedge, leave it alone, Nature will, in short order,
represent itself.)
>
> Oh, well. There is no way for either "side" to win this
> argument.
You may be right, Jim, but once terms like "cookie cutter" and the most recent one I
heard "green doughnut", are used, I think a chill will set in. Certainly I would
expect that some owners of "cookie cutters" will become reluctant to show their
trees (on the Gallery) or even give styling advice for fear of being disparaged
because of the way they do their bonsai. I hope I'm wrong.
John Biel
Toronto ON Canada
http://www.tbs.game2.com
Craig Cowing
> <snip>
>
> You may be right, Jim, but once terms like "cookie cutter" and the most recent one I
> heard "green doughnut", are used, I think a chill will set in. Certainly I would
> expect that some owners of "cookie cutters" will become reluctant to show their
> trees (on the Gallery) or even give styling advice for fear of being disparaged
> because of the way they do their bonsai. I hope I'm wrong.
>
> John Biel
> Toronto ON Canada
> http://www.tbs.game2.com
>
>
The term "pile of green doughnuts" is not mine. It was used on the list about a year
ago and attributed, I believe, to Peter Adams. "Lampshade" and "bike helmet" you can
attribute to me.
Craig Cowing
Monmouth ME
Zone 4b/5 sunset 38
Craig Cowing
> <snip>
> Again, maybe I'm missing something: how does one represent nature in our hobby? It
> seems to me nature does a pretty good job of representing itself without our
> interference. So I would imagine that, if somebody wanted to just represent nature
> in bonsai, the simplest way would be to take any plant out of one's back 40 and put
> it into a container. Instant results. (If the material is too neat because it
> might have come out of a pruned hedge, leave it alone, Nature will, in short order,
> represent itself.)
>
> >
> > Oh, well. There is no way for either "side" to win this
> > argument.
>
> You may be right, Jim, but once terms like "cookie cutter" and the most recent one I
> heard "green doughnut", are used, I think a chill will set in. Certainly I would
> expect that some owners of "cookie cutters" will become reluctant to show their
> trees (on the Gallery) or even give styling advice for fear of being disparaged
> because of the way they do their bonsai. I hope I'm wrong.
>
> John Biel
> Toronto ON Canada
> http://www.tbs.game2.com
>
>
One significant factor must be considered, which is the difference between seeing a
photograph of a tree, digital or otherwise, and actually seeing a tree in person. A few
of the trees at the National Arboretum are a case in point. The pines they have there
have closely maintained canopies that are perfect in shape. I wouldn't call them
"cookie cutter" bonsai, but some might. The beauty of looking at a tree closeup is
that you can see into the canopy, giving the tree depth. Another example is some of
the marvelous junipers at Bonsai West, priced at thousands of dollars, and undoubtedly
worth it. It's worth it to go there just to see the specimen trees, even if you don't
buy anything. They too have closely maintained canopies, and again, when you examine
them in person you see the depth. I still remember seeing a large shimpaku juniper
there just when I was getting started and was enthralled by a nicely shaped canopy,
with the depth I mentioned, and a density of tiny bright green buds. This was
obviously the result of years of pinching. Not a thing to put down lightly IMHO. I
can only aspire to the skill it takes to produce such a specimen.
Craig Cowing
Monmouth ME
Zone 4b/5 sunset 38
********************************************************************************
Jim Lewis
> >
> > Sure it's different, and the trees WILL look better in 3-D,
but
> > cookie cutter is cookie cutter. In my mind, these are
designed
> > to look like "bonsai." Not like trees.
>
> Jim, I'm getting confused here. Isn't that supposed to be the
case and not about
> trees as such?
Well, I dunno. _I_ have never wanted to make bonsai that look
like BONSAI. My trees need to look at least something like
little maples or little oaks, or little whatever. Not like some
generic called "bonsai." That calendar tree I cited was a fine
bonsai, but it also was a great maple.
>
> Also, I think a good case can be made that Nature is the best
cookie cutter stylist
> of all, wouldn't you agree? For example, if the calendar tree
you referred to in an
> earlier post is styled like a REAL tree, well, then, there have
to be at least
> thousands - OK, millions ;-) - of real maple trees just like
that in nature.
Oh no. EVERY tree (of the same species or of varied species) out
in the woods or standing alone in a field is much more of an
individual than a cookie cutter bonsai. Ma Nature seldom repeats
herself.
The broad outlines of a basic shape for each species will be
there, but within that she is a marvelous designer. With cookie
cutter trees you can line up 6 maples, a beech a few hornbeam,
etc., and they ALL have the same shape -- basically a pyramid --
which is a shape that the Ol' Lady doesn't use very often.
>
> I guess my point is that, if a "style" or "look", is repeated
often enough and
> displayed in abundance - for example, if 100 calendar like
maples were displayed in
> a row - one could say they are cookie cutters. They might be of
different sizes,
> some even in blue pots, but because they will all have the same
design features,
> they are cookie cutters. Right?
If someone (or a group of someones) decided he or she really
liked that tree on the calendar and set out to imitate that tree
a hundred times you are certainly right. My point is, however, t
hat it was quite obvious that the tree in question was NOT
designed to look like another bonsai but to be an idealized
represenation of what that maple might look like sitting out in a
field.
>
> >
> > Someone here said that he thought many of us had stopped
trying
> > to represent nature and were copying other bonsai. I think
> > that's pretty close to the mark.
>
> Again, maybe I'm missing something: how does one represent
nature in our hobby?
Huh? And here for nearly 30 years I thought that was what we
were TRYING to do. What ARE we trying to represent?
>It seems to me nature does a pretty good job of representing
itself without our
> interference.
Well, none of our trees are "interfereing" with nature. As I
(and, as someone reminded us here a few day ago, folks like John
Naka) said we're trying to represent nature -- to distill it, if
you will, into one tree or landscape.
>So I would imagine that, if somebody wanted to just represent
nature
> in bonsai, the simplest way would be to take any plant out of
one's back 40 and put
> it into a container. Instant results. (If the material is too
neat because it
> might have come out of a pruned hedge, leave it alone, Nature
will, in short order,
> represent itself.)
>
Lawyers have a term for that kind of argument. It's Latin and
ends in "absurdum." Of course we would not do that, but we WOULD
(or should) try to produce the _essense_ of nature and infuse it
into our trees.
> >
> > Oh, well. There is no way for either "side" to win this
> > argument.
>
> You may be right, Jim, but once terms like "cookie cutter" and
the most recent one I
> heard "green doughnut", are used, I think a chill will set in.
Certainly I would
> expect that some owners of "cookie cutters" will become
reluctant to show their
> trees (on the Gallery) or even give styling advice for fear of
being disparaged
> because of the way they do their bonsai. I hope I'm wrong.
Well, it shouldn't; they're certainly in the majority among the
prize-winning crew. But maybe it'll make them think about other
ways of making bonsai other than making trees that all look
pretty much alike.
In the end it certainly won't be me who makes the decision as to
the route bonsai design takes. However, I do feel it is
something that is worth discussing here and elsewhere without
getting all riled up about it.
I've done bonsai for a long time, but have only be trying to do
it seriously for about 10 years now, so I am a long way from
having any trees that anyone would rave about -- cookie cutter or
otherwise -- one or two "tiny trees" excepted, perhaps.
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - He who sets
an apple tree will live to see it end. He who sets a pear tree,
sets it for a friend. - Anon.
********************************************************************************
Andy Rutledge
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lewis" <jkl...@NETTALLY.COM>
<snip>
> Oh no. EVERY tree (of the same species or of varied species) out
> in the woods or standing alone in a field is much more of an
> individual than a cookie cutter bonsai. Ma Nature seldom repeats
> herself.
------------------
Bunk. I don't think you know what you mean by "cookie-cutter" and I sure as
heck don't know what you mean. However, if you care to look at nearly all
trees within the same species/variety in nature and most trees in nature as
a whole, you will find that they are strikingly similar in design. How on
earth can you suggest otherwise?? Is this merely to try and support your
vacuous argument or do you really believe this?
Yes, there are individual examples of trees that got stepped on by a deer
when they were seedlings or got struck by lightning in its mid-years or got
whipped by the wind and grew a certain way, but trees tend to grow virtually
the same as every other tree in its species - and all have to find a way to
get sunlight to all of the leaves - this means that they grow either in a
pyramid or a broom or with flat tops. Virtually every tree on earth HAS to
follow this template.
BUT, we bonsai growers are supposed to work counter to nature? Why? How?
What are you saying?
-------------------
> The broad outlines of a basic shape for each species will be
> there, but within that she is a marvelous designer. With cookie
> cutter trees you can line up 6 maples, a beech a few hornbeam,
> etc., and they ALL have the same shape -- basically a pyramid --
> which is a shape that the Ol' Lady doesn't use very often.
-------------------
Well, then you don't pay the O'l Lady much attention. What are commonly
characterised as the broom-style and what you refer to here as the "pyramid"
are the most common forms of trees in the world. This is why most bonsai
fall into these two categories.
If you're going to rip bonsai produced by others, at least be accurate in
your arguments as to what O'l Ma Nature produces as your counter-example.
And, let's all stop with the silly little generalizations. If you
(general - anyone) think someone's bonsai is crap, have the courage of your
convictions and have your say and say why specifically - support your claims
instead of hiding behind the skirttails of these kinds of ludicrous
generalizations.
OR
If you have better examples of what bonsai "should" be, then out with it.
Show us pictures, describe specific characteristics, do something other than
rip the efforts of others.
--------------------
<snip>
> Lawyers have a term for that kind of argument. It's Latin and
> ends in "absurdum." Of course we would not do that, but we WOULD
> (or should) try to produce the _essense_ of nature and infuse it
> into our trees.
<snip>
> Jim Lewis
--------------------
While I agree with your characterization of this argument, I (and everyone
else in this discussion) have no idea what you mean by the last part without
your providing concrete examples and explanations as to specifically what
makes them different from the rest of the cookie-cutter bonsai.
Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas
Jim Lewis
> From: "Jim Lewis" <jkl...@NETTALLY.COM>
> <snip>
> > Oh no. EVERY tree (of the same species or of varied species)
out
> > in the woods or standing alone in a field is much more of an
> > individual than a cookie cutter bonsai. Ma Nature seldom
repeats
> > herself.
> ------------------
>
> Bunk. I don't think you know what you mean by "cookie-cutter"
and I sure as
> heck don't know what you mean. However, if you care to look at
nearly all
> trees within the same species/variety in nature and most trees
in nature as
> a whole, you will find that they are strikingly similar in
design. How on
> earth can you suggest otherwise?? Is this merely to try and
support your
> vacuous argument or do you really believe this?
I'll try to be a little less snotty than this reply was, but you
really need to walk in the woods and LOOK at trees. I said they
all had the same general form (the problem with quoting out of
context) but that they were infintitely variable within that
form. And here we're talking of trees in the same species.
"Cookie cutter" (I didn't invent this term) bonsai look the same,
no matter the species.
"Cookie cutter" bonsai all are triangular (the recent examples on
the gallery -- with the possible exception of the apple -- are
prima facie evidence. You can't see through them when in leaf
(although, as someone said, as deciduous trees they may have been
been designed for their winter sillhouette, and that they DO look
better "in person"). They, in effect, seem all to be the same
tree -- no matter the species.
>
> Yes, there are individual examples of trees that got stepped on
by a deer
> when they were seedlings or got struck by lightning in its
mid-years or got
> whipped by the wind and grew a certain way, but trees tend to
grow virtually
> the same as every other tree in its species - and all have to
find a way to
> get sunlight to all of the leaves - this means that they grow
either in a
> pyramid or a broom or with flat tops. Virtually every tree on
earth HAS to
> follow this template.
This is another of those "legal" arguments. We design bonsai to
look like like this, too.
>
> BUT, we bonsai growers are supposed to work counter to nature?
Why? How?
> What are you saying?
I never used the term "counter to nature." The opposite, in
fact.
> -------------------
>
> > The broad outlines of a basic shape for each species will be
> > there, but within that she is a marvelous designer. With
cookie
> > cutter trees you can line up 6 maples, a beech a few
hornbeam,
> > etc., and they ALL have the same shape -- basically a
pyramid --
> > which is a shape that the Ol' Lady doesn't use very often.
> -------------------
>
> Well, then you don't pay the O'l Lady much attention. What are
commonly
> characterised as the broom-style and what you refer to here as
the "pyramid"
> are the most common forms of trees in the world. This is why
most bonsai
> fall into these two categories.
NUTZ! I defy you to produce a maple tree in nature that is
shaped like that maple on the gallery. Same with the hornbeam.
>
> If you're going to rip bonsai produced by others, at least be
accurate in
> your arguments as to what O'l Ma Nature produces as your
counter-example.
Well, I've spent a good deal of my life working with Ma Nature in
one way or another. I think we're on pretty good terms.
>
> And, let's all stop with the silly little generalizations. If
you
> (general - anyone) think someone's bonsai is crap, have the
courage of your
> convictions and have your say and say why specifically -
support your claims
> instead of hiding behind the skirttails of these kinds of
ludicrous
> generalizations.
>
1. I haven't generalized.
2. I never, ever said any of those bonsai were (in your most
delicate word) "crap." In fact, I recall saying that I'd
probably never have trees as nice. I DO feel that they do NOT
represent "real" trees. They are copies of other bonsai. They
are "type specimen" bonsai. I am a bit disappointed in their
makers (whoever they are) because I KNOW they can do better. I
also said that these are the kinds of trees that are winning the
awards these days. I, most definately, am in the minority here.
However, I don't think my views on what makes good bonsai deserve
the "attack mentality" that I got here.
> OR
>
> If you have better examples of what bonsai "should" be, then
out with it.
> Show us pictures, describe specific characteristics, do
something other than
> rip the efforts of others.
I did. I suggested that folks who have the Takagi caleandar take
a look at the maple that's in the November calendar. It is
copyright, so I can't reproduce it, and _I_ certainly don't have
anything to offer. They can also take a look at many of the
other bonsai in the calendar. I have the 67th Kokufu catalog.
There are very few "cookie cutters" in there -- even in winter
silhouette as these deciduous trees are. Page 89. Page 90. Page
74. Page 96. Page 108. Page 114. Page 125. Page 130. Page
132. ETC.
> --------------------
> <snip>
> > Lawyers have a term for that kind of argument. It's Latin
and
> > ends in "absurdum." Of course we would not do that, but we
WOULD
> > (or should) try to produce the _essense_ of nature and infuse
it
> > into our trees.
>
> While I agree with your characterization of this argument, I
(and everyone
> else in this discussion) have no idea what you mean by the last
part without
> your providing concrete examples and explanations as to
specifically what
> makes them different from the rest of the cookie-cutter bonsai.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andy Rutledge
Well, Andy, your regards weren't very "kind" were they? I
suspect that if you had sat and thought for a moment before
typing that diatribe you MIGHT have managed to understand.
Note: I will be happy to continue this discussion. As I said
before, I think it is worth discussing the value of designing our
trees to REPRESENT what happens "in the wild" -- if we can do it
rationally. This is the LAST response I will make to a response
like this one, however.
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - He who sets
an apple tree will live to see it end. He who sets a pear tree,
sets it for a friend. - Anon.
********************************************************************************
Peter Aradi
I was away from the list for 18 days and when I returned
I read this entire topic. It should be published. It is
instructive, but more importantly, FUNNY!!!
While nursery hopping in Los Angeles, we came across a place
in El Monte where the sign said "Bonsai Nursery." We parked
outside and entered. The first inner area was filled with
mud people, pots, cheap Chinese statues and trinkets. There
was a work are where a Chinese language broadcast was blasting
through a large speaker, entertaining about a dozen workers.
One used freshly mixed cement to divide manufactured pots into
two sections. The rest were potting 8 inch tall Juniper
procumbens plants into pots, tamping down the soil, adding a
stone, and finally, GLUING ON SMALL PEBBLES! Folks: We
found the mallsai factory!!!
In the back hundreds, nay, thousands of cookie cutter bonsai,
AKA mallsai, were stored on benches. On the left side a crew was
assembling orders into large shipping boxes. It was an awesome
sight. It reminded me of finding Santa Claus and the elves in
their North Pole lair.
BTW everybody spoke an unrecognizable Chinese dialect.
You want cookie cutter bonsai? I have just the place for you.
Sincerely
Peter Aradi
Tulsa, Oklahoma
who believes that bonsai should NOT look like trees in nature,
but should be an expressional and artistic representation of them.
Reiner Goebel
snip
> If you have better examples of what bonsai "should" be, then out with it.
> Show us pictures, describe specific characteristics, do something other than
> rip the efforts of others.
Good thing _I_ didn't say that. ;-)
Reiner Goebel
Toronto, Canada
http://www.tbs.game2.com/
********************************************************************************
Alan Walker
seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. I didn't find Andy's reply to be
particularly demeaning or "snotty". Calling your argument "vacuous" is a little low
but not out of line with the rest of this debate's tone. His use of the term "bunk"
is no more "snotty" than your use of "nutz" in your reply and similar expressions (
like "bah" and "humph") you have used through the years on this forum. Disagreement
does not equate with disrespect, but perhaps you both will reconsider use of such
expressions, considering how uncomfortable you are in having one directed your way.
I'm enjoying the debate on both sides. I think good points have been scored
on both sides, but the debate has teetered on sliding down the slippery slope of
personal attacks. I blame much of this on the obviously condescending and
denigrating terms of "cookie cutter bonsai", "green donut bonsai", and similar name
calling. While the terms sound cute and innocent at first, they have a slanderous
and demeaning impact over time. That rouses defensiveness.
My biggest disappointment in the debate has been the recurrent failure to be
clear and precise in criticisms. Generalities abound. For example, and I'm
repeating a question others have asked, what IS cookie cutter bonsai. Those who use
the term to describe others' trees should be responsible enough to further
articulate what they mean by that.
So, I'll take a stab at articulating what you and others mean by "cookie
cutter". I believe the reference has to do with the appearance of strict adherence
to basic, so-called "rules" of bonsai design. Without clear articulation, we get a
lot of confusing comments throughout this debate. For example, you have complained
that "cookie cutter" bonsai "ALL have the same shape -- basically a pyramid". You
say you admire the diversity of nature, then contradict yourself with "The broad
outlines of a basic shape for each species will be there...." It is the broad
outlines of a basic shape which you are deriding in so-called "cookie cutter"
bonsai.
I share concerns for overly strict adherence to bonsai design guidelines. I
have greater concerns for those who think they can effectively create fine bonsai
that will be admired by others without the discipline of learning the basics of
design and horticulture. The rules, or guidelines as I prefer to call them, of
bonsai design are not culture specific. They are also quite diverse. It is naive
to believe that the basics of bonsai design are summed up by a triangular pine tree
shape. Horticulturally, it is hard to grow healthy trees without some approximation
of the triangle or pyramid involved in the design. The devil is in the details.
I have just listened to John Naka used to support each side of the
argument. John's trees have even been criticized by some as "cookie cutter" and
John criticized as a prime advocate of the "cookie cutter" pine tree shape. I find
such criticism distasteful in their disrespect as well as their apparent foundation
in ignorance of his body of work. John has two volumes of classic bonsai
literature which speak for themselves. All who follow have been wise to stand upon
his shoulders in the advancement of bonsai. It is unfair and distortional to
represent an individual's ideas and work by an out of context example or quote.
There is a danger for each of us to fall into a rut of design ideas and
practice. It is prudent to guard against this. I find it unfair, however, to have
one's whole body of work castigated by the stereotype of "cookie cutter" or "green
donut bonsai" as a few have done to Reiner in the past week or so. While many of
Reiner's trees seem to have a similar shape, closer examination show quite a
variety, each with meticulous grooming and attention to detail that only a handful
of those on this list have the commitment to accomplish.
I wish we could rid the world of stereotypes like "cookie cutter" bonsai,
but I have no such illusions. I encourage those on this list, though, to continue
to challenge any use of such smug stereotypes and push for more specific criticisms
and examples every time these terms come up.
Alan Walker, Lake Charles, LA, USA
http://LCBSBonsai.org http://bonsai-bci.com
==================================
<snip> Oh no. EVERY tree (of the same species or of varied species)
out in the woods or standing alone in a field is much more of an individual than a
cookie cutter bonsai. Ma Nature seldom repeats herself.
------------------
Bunk. I don't think you know what you mean by "cookie-cutter"
and I sure as heck don't know what you mean. However, if you care to look at
nearly all trees within the same species/variety in nature and most trees
in nature as a whole, you will find that they are strikingly similar in design. How
on
earth can you suggest otherwise?? Is this merely to try and support your
vacuous argument or do you really believe this?
I'll try to be a little less snotty than this reply was, but you really need
to walk in the woods and LOOK at trees. I said they all had the same general form
within that form. And here we're talking of trees in the same species. "Cookie
cutter" (I didn't invent this term) bonsai look the same, no matter the species.
"Cookie cutter" bonsai all are triangular (the recent examples on the gallery --
with the possible exception of the apple -- are prima facie evidence. You can't see
through them when in leaf (although, as someone said, as deciduous trees they may
have been been designed for their winter silhouette, and that they DO look
better "in person"). They, in effect, seem all to be the same tree -- no matter the
species.
============================
Yes, there are individual examples of trees that got stepped on by a deer
when they were seedlings or got struck by lightning in its mid-years or got whipped
by the wind and grew a certain way, but trees tend to grow virtually the same as
every other tree in its species - and all have to find a way to get sunlight to all
of the leaves - this means that they grow either in a pyramid or a broom or with
flat tops. Virtually every tree on earth HAS to follow this template.
This is another of those "legal" arguments. We design bonsai to look like
like this, too.
BUT, we bonsai growers are supposed to work counter to nature? Why? How?
What are you saying?
=====================================
I never used the term "counter to nature." The opposite, in fact.
-------------------
The broad outlines of a basic shape for each species will be there, but
within that she is a marvelous designer. With cookie cutter trees you can line up 6
maples, a beech a few hornbeam, etc., and they ALL have the same shape -- basically
a
pyramid -- which is a shape that the Ol' Lady doesn't use very often.
-------------------
Well, then you don't pay the O'l Lady much attention. What are commonly
characterized as the broom style and what you refer to here as the "pyramid"
are the most common forms of trees in the world. This is why most bonsai
fall into these two categories.
==============================
NUTZ! I defy you to produce a maple tree in nature that is shaped like that
maple on the gallery. Same with the hornbeam.
=============
If you're going to rip bonsai produced by others, at least be accurate in
your arguments as to what O'l Ma Nature produces as your counter-example.
==============
Well, I've spent a good deal of my life working with Ma Nature in one way or
another. I think we're on pretty good terms.
==============
And, let's all stop with the silly little generalizations. If you (general
- anyone) think someone's bonsai is crap, have the courage of your convictions and
have your say and say why specifically - support your claims instead of hiding
behind the skirttails of these kinds of ludicrous generalizations.
==============
1. I haven't generalized.
2. I never, ever said any of those bonsai were (in your most delicate word) "crap."
In fact, I recall saying that I'd probably never have trees as nice. I DO feel that
they do NOT represent "real" trees. They are copies of other bonsai. They
are "type specimen" bonsai. I am a bit disappointed in their makers (whoever they
are) because I KNOW they can do better. I also said that these are the kinds of
trees that are winning the awards these days. I, most definitely, am in the
minority here.
========
If you look a little closer at Andy's comment, he was making these comments
to the list in general, not just to Jim, i.e., "If you (general - anyone) think
someone's bonsai is crap...." AW
========
However, I don't think my views on what makes good bonsai deserve the
"attack mentality" that I got here.
=============
OR
If you have better examples of what bonsai "should" be, then out with it. Show us
pictures, describe specific characteristics, do something other than rip the efforts
of others.
==============
I did. I suggested that folks who have the Takagi calendar take a look at
the maple that's in the November calendar. It is copyright, so I can't reproduce
it, and _I_ certainly don't have anything to offer. They can also take a look at
many of the
other bonsai in the calendar. I have the 67th Kokufu catalog. There are very few
"cookie cutters" in there -- even in winter silhouette as these deciduous trees
are. Page 89. Page 90. Page 74. Page 96. Page 108. Page 114. Page 125. Page
130. Page 132. ETC.
--------------------
<snip> Lawyers have a term for that kind of argument. It's Latin and ends in
"absurdum." Of course we would not do that, but we WOULD (or should) try to produce
the _essense_ of nature and infuse it into our trees.
===============
While I agree with your characterization of this argument, I (and everyone
else in this discussion) have no idea what you mean by the last part without
your providing concrete examples and explanations as to specifically what
makes them different from the rest of the cookie-cutter bonsai.
Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
===============
Well, Andy, your regards weren't very "kind" were they? I suspect that if
you had sat and thought for a moment before typing that diatribe you MIGHT have
managed to understand.
Note: I will be happy to continue this discussion. As I said before, I think it is
worth discussing the value of designing our trees to REPRESENT what happens "in the
wild" -- if we can do it rationally. This is the LAST response I will make to a
response like this one, however.
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL
********************************************************************************
Reiner Goebel
> .... but you
> really need to walk in the woods and LOOK at trees. I said they all had the same general form
Cookie cutter.
> (the problem with quoting out of
> context) but that they were infintitely variable within that
> form.
Just like cookie cutter bonsai. True, we have no pictures of these trees
in their bare state, so we'll have to give them the benefit of the
doubt. And, of course, the azalea wouldn't go bare anyway. It's mainly
grown for its flowers.
In the meantime, I have posted one of my own lampshades both in leaf and
out at
http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/agora/view.php?key=1005362050&bn=internetbonsaiclub_ibcgallery&site=internetbonsaiclub
. This tree has been under my care since 1998. The pictures were taken a
few days ago. I'll gladly post a few more pictures of my lampshades,
green doughnuts or cookie cutter pyramids, both with leaves and without.
> "Cookie cutter" bonsai all are triangular (the recent examples on the gallery -- with the possible > exception of the apple -- are prima facie evidence.
OK. What forms then do 'non cookie cutter' bonsai take? Square?
Rectangular? Octagon?
Impressionistic unkempt? ;-)
> And here we're talking of trees in the same species.
> "Cookie cutter" (I didn't invent this term) bonsai look the same,
> no matter the species.
Are you saying that each species in nature has its own distinctive form?
> "Cookie cutter" bonsai all are triangular
As Colin pointed out, most trees take that shape in nature because it
maximizes the number of leaves exposed to light. Therefore, if you want
to grow trees like they grow in nature, you design them with a more or
less triangular canopy. You seem to be talking at cross purposes here:
you don't like triangles, yet you want to grow trees like they grow in
nature. If those cookie cutter trees on the Gallery at least had exactly
the same triangles, but they don't. Just like trees in nature, the
triangles vary. If you looked at these trees just as closely as you
purport to be looking at trees in nature, you would see that difference.
> I suggested that folks who have the Takagi caleandar take
> a look at the maple that's in the November calendar.
I would be interested to know if that picture is of a bare tree or one
in leaf. Since it's a picture for November, it is probably bare. The
Japanese like showing their trees in that state. Quickly leafing through
Kokufuten album #74, there is almost no deciduous tree shown in leaf,
and the few that are were probably not worth showing bare. ;-) Part of
the reason for that may be that the exhibition is held at a time when
the trees have not leafed out yet. But if I imagine those bare trees in
full leaf, I get a whole bunch of cookie cutter bonsai.
Reiner Goebel
Toronto, Canada
http://www.tbs.game2.com/
********************************************************************************
Reiner Goebel
> In fact, I recall saying that I'd probably never have trees as nice.
Yes, you _did_ say that.
But I am puzzled. Why would you think that you'll never have trees 'as
nice'? My impression of 'cookie cutter' is definitely 'not nice'. To me,
it implies that the trees were created without imagination or skill.
Like a cookie made with a cutter. When you are saying that they are
'nice', and concede that you'll never have trees 'as nice', then you are
also conceding that the bonsai you are attempting to grow - those that
will resemble 'real' tress - will not be as nice as these lampshades.
Hm.
> I DO feel that they do NOT represent "real" trees.
I appreciate that that is the way you feel. However, as has been stated
previously, bonsai is not (necessarily) about 'real' trees. It can't be
if it is art. [OK, Lynn, this your chance to let me have it ;-) ]
And I must say: I don't really care if it is art or not. But let's not
go there. ;-)
> They are copies of other bonsai.
I don't agree that they are copies of other bonsai just like I wouldn't
agree that a natural maple is a copy of a natural beech. The trees are
as different as that maple and that beech. Never mind that they are not
representative of how their full size relatives grow in nature. The
Burning bush I posted in its natural form is just that: a bush. Yet it
is styled in the form of a tree. Lampshade, yes, but what the heck: even
I can't jump beyond my shadow. ;-)
> They
> are "type specimen" bonsai. I am a bit disappointed in their
> makers (whoever they are) because I KNOW they can do better.
Blame Ron for picking what he did. ;-)
> However, I don't think my views on what makes good bonsai deserve
> the "attack mentality" that I got here.
Did you ever think that it might have been a 'defence mentality'? ;-)
> I have the 67th Kokufu catalog.
Rats! Just the one I don't have! However, I don't think the trees in #67
are much different in quality from those in #66. And just like I
mentioned about the trees in #74, if you imagine the bare trees with a
full complement of leaves ...
I rest my case.
;-)
Reiner Goebel
Toronto, Canada
http://www.tbs.game2.com/
********************************************************************************
Lynn Boyd
nature in our hobby? > >
> > > argument.
The above are statements from two GENTLER folks I really
would like to reply to and then this morning's burst forth - so
with great trepidation I step into the fray - much like
approaching my four brothers in battle - ready to sling my arms
around, kick and bite, too. :))))
But -- there are some steps that we could take about
this and the first is to acknowledge that the language of art is
lacking on this list and words used in the context of art
incorrectly BESIDES cookie-cutter - which in my experience are
Santa Clauses, rabbits and the like, eh??
Now - were we looking for an American style?? - or what was our
original goal - ?
-----------------------
To start with there are basically two categories of
understanding both resulting styles and individual viewpoints of
art in general - with few exceptions.
First, (as brief as I can make it) give basic
realizations to the differences in what we can see as
individuals. -
Classifications to use in our situation:
Traditional, Classic and Romantic. Traditional is the Japanese
version of the art - a set and conventional art with a broad
range of possibilities. Classic and Romantic can Both be found
in Japanese traditional now, I think the Literati a Romantic more
than Classic form of bonsai, for example. But the with the
exception of some of the recent bonsai the outlook is not only
Classic from a western viewpoint, but it is an art of conventions
strictly adhered to and with little elbow room for the Romantic.
And lets get to what Romantic is before you get some mind-set
about that is not an art in art terminology.
Classic classifies the art of linearity and an art where
each part of the art, trunk, foliage and branches are seen
individually and treated almost separately from the whole for a
kind of perfection found in the rational use of measurement and
symmetry and balance. This is a very hands-on Human
interpretation - we master the art of the tree as we work this
way. Romantic is an art of Nature where
the edges are not so well-defined, the proportions, the
separation of parts are subordinated to a "whole" picture which
must be controlled in art within limits, but nothing like those
of the Classic. It can, however, be More difficult to perform
successfully. It is an individual approach that leaves the artist
to decide without such strict linearity, disregarding some of the
conventions, perhaps, but still he can well stay within those
innate balances we feel constitute beauty - it is the linearity
of structure which we may find difficulties in this approach - I
do not know as I think of trees - but I think so.
When Kimura began to exaggerate driftwood to the extent
that it was noticeably his individual viewpoint he began to
exaggerate some traditional looks, and that trend is
continued -in Liporace? - but additionally some more relaxed
foliage and some slightly different balances. Walter Pall may be
working with
this more relaxed tendency too, but I am in danger with these
specifics here. The leaning tends now from the Classic to the
Romantic, however, and it is not surprising, given the move is
already started, I think. Maybe, the pendulum swings broader than
in the Japanese past. That is very possible given the greater
freedom we feel, and the individualism we exercise.
I hope Romantic is seen in the meaning I am using it - the
artistic Romantic is Nature/natural views, the Classic
encompasses the more geometrically balanced and linear, Humanly
devised. These two differences are carried in the art of
painting, called linear and painterly approaches. They are found
in literature and poetry. Examples abound.
Again and again now for some time I hear people speak of
trees in Nature - how they look and how bonsai has become
cookie-cutter - UnNatural. It is a difference only between thos
e two basic categories of view. The problem is such
in everything that has style -a pendulum swings from Classic to
Romantic - our automobiles, now they are swinging once again
from the sharper edged designs to the rounded sleekness, as they
did in the past. It continues to rotate as the stimuli of one
diminishes the sales or people tire of it. It does in our
clothing; women fashions now are architectural classic to a great
extent - long, straight, not so much curve, straight hair. This
last definitely not of the Romantic leaning.
Back to trees - there is a majority of talk on the lists
about Nature's trees, and a defensiveness in those in the
traditional (Japanese) style.
The solution is not for the Classic artists, productive
and content, it is for the discontented Romantics to find their
way to express their love for Nature in new styles now. Drop the
linear foliage pads a bit with some ease, forget the
exaggerated stumps a bit, let a branch or two be irregular - work
the driftwood to some pleasing assymetrical trim -whatever one
can find to do. There are artists that never change their
outlook from one to the other - UNTIL in a mood of innovation
someday they go a step Too far in the Romantic set and create
some
"sentimental" painting, or some artistically-failed tree into a
work without coherent structure - then they must go back to
Classic sustaining "rules." Even impressionism has structure.
Classicism can be overdone, too, of course, the linearity too
strict, the edges too strong, the shapes too similar, a loss of
feeling or connected meaning with reality, a rigid boredom. But
not necessarily.
How does that help an American Style?? Somewhere there is an
in-between these styles - we have a past of beautiful and
pristine wild landscapes and painters, Romantics, and Classical,
one can find both . Probably we will have the same in our bonsai
trees.
We cannot predict what we would finally become - but I would
guess the mixture, the traditional Japanese is less a mixture
because of the conventions that provided an icon for their lives,
we are free of that directional drive - in time it may effect the
results.
What beauty really needs is an awareness in us all of the
need for both Classic and Romantic so that we can move forward
conscious of what is going on. Our forests and great
wildernesses incline us to Romanticism, at the same time our
collected pasts display beauty to remind us where the first step
in the ladder
is and where proved safety factors exist.
Lynn
(tomatoes to the right please-I dodge to the left)- is that
right? :(
Peter Aradi
Most of us agree that to become a proficient creator of
bonsai we must learn the basics rules of both bonsai
design and horticultural practices.
Lynn leads us to the direction to conclude that if we are
to discuss art and aesthetics we must also learn its basics,
especially its vocabulary. BRAVO!
We are going around in circles without explicitly stating
that our discussion is about bonsai QUALITY! The difference
between a stick in a container and a tree in a pot. So far
the attitude of most writers seem to be "I know quality when
I see it!" Is beauty in the eyes of the beholder and anything
goes as long as SOMEBODY likes it? How can we define that
elusive bonsai "quality?" Who is a qualified bonsai connoisseur?
To raise another question related to our topic: We define
bonsai as a four dimensional art consisting of the three
spatial dimensions and TIME. According to my bonsai teachers
Japanese black pines and satsuki azaleas should be maintained
on a three year cyclical schedule and they are to be in "show
ready" condition only once every three years. Does this mean
that these trees are "good" bonsai for three months and ordinary
trees for the remaining 33 months? Does aesthetic quality in
bonsai ephemeral?
After all our bonsai being living organisms they
are constantly changing. We only notice the great
changes seasons bring, but there are a constant
flow of smaller changes, most which we can't perceive.
All comments will be appreciated, none will be labeled foolish.
Peter Aradi
Tulsa, Oklahoma
(unlike Lynn I will duck down so aim your tomatoes and flames high!)
Alan Walker
endeavor.
I am very skeptical of any attempt to forge an "American" bonsai style, just
as I would be reluctant to discern an "Australian" or "Norwegian" or "Bosnian"
bonsai style. Especially if it is proclaimed by the "creator" of such a style.
Such self-conscious efforts are rarely convincing to me. The bonsai world has
shrunk along with the rest of the world. We are in continual communication of our
ideas and aspirations. Japanese or Chinese bonsai/pensai/whatever have had a
situation of relative isolation for development which no other part of the world
will ever have again.
I, for one, do not bemoan the trend of assimilation. There will always be
individual iconoclasts who will push the boundaries. Some will be worth pursuing
and imitating, and these will lose their mantle of iconoclasm and become the new
standard for yet another school of design orientation. Each will produce their share
of imitations, some rigidly so, and others with a greater degree of creativity.
Traditions will remain. Only the naive are unaware that even traditions have always
evolved and stubbornly insist that, "Thus it always was so!"
I welcome the new vogue for "natural" styling. However, I prefer your label
of "romantic" styling, Lynn. In my opinion, your perspective of art history gives
this a less political feeling than the "natural" label. It will be interesting to
see how this orientation evolves and clarifies its rules and guidelines.
There will be a lot more bellowing and name calling by us "bad boys" before
it's over, though! By then, another orientation will be coming into vogue. ;-)
Alan Walker, Lake Charles, LA, USA
==========
> > Again, maybe I'm missing something: how does one represent
nature in our hobby? > >
> Oh, well. There is no way for either "side" to win this argument.
the edges are not so well defined, the proportions, the separation of parts are
subordinated to a "whole" picture which must be controlled in art within limits, but
nothing like those of the Classic. It can, however, be More difficult to perform
successfully. It is an individual approach that leaves the artist to decide without
such strict linearity, disregarding some of the conventions, perhaps, but still he
can well stay within those innate balances we feel constitute beauty - it is the
linearity
of structure which we may find difficulties in this approach - I do not know as I
think of trees - but I think so.
When Kimura began to exaggerate driftwood to the extent that it was
noticeably his individual viewpoint he began to exaggerate some traditional looks,
and that trend is continued -in Liporace? - but additionally some more relaxed
foliage and some slightly different balances. Walter Pall may be working with
this more relaxed tendency too, but I am in danger with these specifics here. The
leaning tends now from the Classic to the Romantic, however, and it is not
surprising, given the move is already started, I think. Maybe, the pendulum swings
broader than in the Japanese past. That is very possible given the greater
freedom we feel, and the individualism we exercise.
I hope Romantic is seen in the meaning I am using it - the artistic Romantic
is Nature/natural views, the Classic encompasses the more geometrically balanced
and linear, Humanly devised. These two differences are carried in the art of
painting, called linear and painterly approaches. They are found in literature and
poetry. Examples abound.
Again and again now for some time I hear people speak of trees in Nature - how
they look and how bonsai has become cookie-cutter - UnNatural. It is a difference
only between those two basic categories of view. The problem is such
in everything that has style -a pendulum swings from Classic to Romantic - our
automobiles, now they are swinging once again from the sharper edged designs to the
rounded sleekness, as they did in the past. It continues to rotate as the stimuli
of one diminishes the sales or people tire of it. It does in our clothing; women
fashions now are architectural classic to a great extent - long, straight, not so
much curve, straight hair. This last definitely not of the Romantic leaning.
Back to trees - there is a majority of talk on the lists about Nature's trees,
and a defensiveness in those in the traditional (Japanese) style.
The solution is not for the Classic artists, productive and content, it is
for the discontented Romantics to find their way to express their love for Nature in
new styles now. Drop the linear foliage pads a bit with some ease, forget the
exaggerated stumps a bit, let a branch or two be irregular - work the driftwood to
some pleasing asymmetrical trim -whatever one can find to do. There are artists
that never change their outlook from one to the other - UNTIL in a mood of
innovation someday they go a step Too far in the Romantic set and create
some "sentimental" painting, or some artistically failed tree into a work without
coherent structure - then they must go back to Classic sustaining "rules." Even
impressionism has structure.
Classicism can be overdone, too, of course, the linearity too strict, the edges too
strong, the shapes too similar, a loss of feeling or connected meaning with reality,
a rigid boredom. But not necessarily.
How does that help an American Style?? Somewhere there is an in-between these
styles - we have a past of beautiful and pristine wild landscapes and painters,
Romantics, and Classical, one can find both . Probably we will have the same in our
bonsai trees.
We cannot predict what we would finally become - but I would guess the mixture,
the traditional Japanese is less a mixture because of the conventions that provided
an icon for their lives, we are free of that directional drive - in time it may
effect the results.
What beauty really needs is an awareness in us all of the need for both
Classic and Romantic so that we can move forward conscious of what is going on.
Our forests and great wildernesses incline us to Romanticism, at the same time our
collected pasts display beauty to remind us where the first step in the ladder
is and where proved safety factors exist.
Lynn
(tomatoes to the right please-I dodge to the left)- is that right? :(
======
Depends on whether you are facing or leading your audience! ;-))))
Alan Walker
Por favor!===============================
Jim Lewis
> who believes that bonsai should NOT look like trees in nature,
> but should be an expressional and artistic representation of
them.
EXACTLY!
I thought I said that. "essence" "distilled nature" Etc. At
least I have been TRYING to say that for hours and days and days
and weeks and months and . . .
And "those trees" I've been talking about miss this mark by a
loooooong way.
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - He who sets
an apple tree will live to see it end. He who sets a pear tree,
sets it for a friend. - Anon.
********************************************************************************
Jim Lewis
> Lynn
> (tomatoes to the right please-I dodge to the left)- is that
> right? :(
Nah. I can buy all that.
Still . . . ?
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - He who sets
an apple tree will live to see it end. He who sets a pear tree,
sets it for a friend. - Anon.
********************************************************************************
Andy Rutledge
From: "Peter Aradi" <p.a...@HOME.COM>
<snip>
> We are going around in circles without explicitly stating
> that our discussion is about bonsai QUALITY! The difference
> between a stick in a container and a tree in a pot. So far
> the attitude of most writers seem to be "I know quality when
> I see it!" Is beauty in the eyes of the beholder and anything
> goes as long as SOMEBODY likes it? How can we define that
> elusive bonsai "quality?" Who is a qualified bonsai connoisseur?
It seems to me that the "I know quality when I see it" attitude is a cop-out
and often (though not always) indicative of a lack of understanding of the
specific elements that comprise quality. This is one reason that I believe
that someone serious about increasing skill and knowledge in bonsai artistic
work should deeply study the specific, individual elements of bonsai quality
(the rules) - all of them, not just some. With these sometimes disparate
components, one can then better apply them together in concert with the
broader artistic vision to make "good stuff." But only if they are known
and understood. I've seen the work of some who just apply a few of the
basic design elements of bonsai and the trees come out looking handmade
rather than natural.
Some suggest that one need not get down to specifics in design features nor
learn "the rules" (the specific elements of quality), but merely "make it
look like a tree," but I'd suggest that this works against the aims and
against the quality of the outcome.
As applied to the debate over American bonsai, that many argue for not using
the "Japanese" rules for bonsai is, in essence, arguing against learning or
using these specific elements of design quality - the stuff that makes
bonsai look like real trees. Why would we want to do that?
------------------------
<snip>
> Does this mean
> that these trees are "good" bonsai for three months and ordinary
> trees for the remaining 33 months? Does [Is] aesthetic quality in
> bonsai ephemeral?
------------------------
Sure. No bonsai can be maintained in "show" condition all the time. I
think that we should couch our discussion in the realm of "show ready" trees
since they are what should be displayed as art.
Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas
********************************************************************************
Lynn Boyd
> > Lynn
> > (tomatoes to the right please-I dodge to the left)- is that
> > right? :(
>
> Nah. I can buy all that.
>
> Still . . . ?
---------------------
Yep, still . . .? :)
Nothing like a good stir to make a good pancake - er tree.
You should experience the radical arguments on an aesthetics
list!! We are of a mild nature - darn - compared we are
absolutely having fun! I have seen that list go dead for a month
at a time - you cannot find some of the words in a dictionary,
they don't print them - so, actually, I am not doing some
"scolding" thing - no way, just that there are definite classic
viewpoints and definite romantic viewpoints among us. That
recognition won't solve the tree "quality"
issue - but an awareness of a lot might have surfaced in the
past two threads here . . . as long as we do not lose people
who do not see the psychological buffering needed for internet
lists.
You know one thing just entered my mind (well -that is all
it will hold:)
Carl Rosner and I are quite good friends - mighty fine man
that one - and he is a classic linear painter, and I am for the
most part, a romantic painter. We send jpgs back and forth and
enjoy it no end. Now I think that is possible with two different
tree people - as long as the viewpoints are understood. Carl
and I had the background to see each other. Viewpoint and
language understanding are important, I think.
Lynn
Lynn Boyd
> It seems to me that the "I know quality when I see it" attitude
is a cop-out
> and often (though not always) indicative of a lack of
understanding of the
> specific elements that comprise quality.
What are these specific elements? What qualities must
they display?
I worry that we throw stones at the wrong targets.
This is one reason that I believe
> that someone serious about increasing skill and knowledge in
bonsai artistic
> work should deeply study the specific, individual elements of
bonsai quality
> (the rules) - all of them, not just some.
Often rules can lead one to the result in terms of
proportion, or actual measure, but the parts put together fail a
good gestalt - is not an attractive tree, so something else is
involved, isn't there?
With these sometimes disparate components, one can then better
apply them together in concert with the broader artistic vision
to make "good stuff."
What is the failure in a traditional classic bonsai
when it fails? The broader artistic vision is what?
But only if they are known
> and understood. I've seen the work of some who just apply a
few of the
> basic design elements of bonsai and the trees come out looking
handmade
> rather than natural.
It is possible that the artist's viewpoint is confused -
that the approach is awkwardly handled between two different
ones - is the result to be classic or romantic - or do I want to
finish between the two. Knowing the approach gives a platform for
action - THEN the rule IS BROKEN slightly, or greatly or defyed
with a specific purpose. This knowledge would give the "broader
artistic vision" that you mention above to a great extent. Here
is an artistic gamble.
>
> Some suggest that one need not get down to specifics in design
features nor
> learn "the rules" (the specific elements of quality), but
merely "make it
> look like a tree," but I'd suggest that this works against the
aims and
> against the quality of the outcome.
I tend to agree with this! Because - implicit in all art
is the beginnings of the art - it is like dressing a skeleton of
ideas from the past - how shall it look now.
A problem exists when "performing" a change - innovation
is a "sudden" idea usually that comes to the artist as progress
is continuing - the sudden urge to "try" something because "here"
at this time is the opportunity. It is a gamble - all innovation
or change is a gamble. If it fails - toss it or chop it but
recognize that the gamble this time failed. Next time it may be
the New bonsai. Eh??
>
> As applied to the debate over American bonsai, that many argue
for not using
> the "Japanese" rules for bonsai is, in essence, arguing against
learning or
> using these specific elements of design quality - the stuff
that makes
> bonsai look like real trees. Why would we want to do that?
I don't think they mean to argue against rules, but as I
mention above rules must be considered and then challenged with
some intent and understanding - lean a bit to the
romantic(nature) - it is happening now frequently in our masters.
The rules are implicit, but they exist still to give us a form
for performance - form = per-form-ance. Performing is then
another stage where we control with a viewpoint - not too
specific to see possibilities but definite enough to guide us -
could that be??
Lynn (I am only trying . . .)
Bob Polk
I've been studying the "rules for over 30 years and then I go and do
what I damn please. At age 71 I'm now into instant gratification. My
trees may not be exhibition quality but they're mine and I love them.
Infortunately I may be moving back East and will have to start all over
again. (Dang it, I've learned to enjoy Zone 8.)
Old Bob in Oregon
Lynn Boyd wrote:
>
>
>But -- there are some steps that we could take about
>this and the first is to acknowledge that the language of art is
>lacking on this list and words used in the context of art
>incorrectly BESIDES cookie-cutter - which in my experience are
>Santa Clauses, rabbits and the like, eh??
>
>Now - were we looking for an American style?? - or what was our
>original goal - ?
>
********************************************************************************
Andy Rutledge
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Boyd" <lynn...@EARTHLINK.NET>
> From Andy:
<snip>
> > ...the
> > specific elements that comprise quality.
------------
> What are these specific elements? What qualities must
> they display?
> I worry that we throw stones at the wrong targets.
--------------------------------------
What I'm referring to (specific elements of quality) are both what most
regard as the physical composition "rules" of bonsai and the results of
successfully (not "strictly") employing them along with good technique (in
training, pruning, wiring, etc...). The quality results "they must display"
are natural forms with minimal or no evidence of having employed the
techniques at all.
As to the targets, I'm not sure what you mean here, so perhaps my target is
the wrong one.(??)
---------------------------------------
> Often rules can lead one to the result in terms of
> proportion, or actual measure, but the parts put together fail a
> good gestalt - is not an attractive tree, so something else is
> involved, isn't there?
----------------------------------------
Yes! Which is no reason for not learning the ins and outs of these specific
elements! What one person may do with them is not the responsibility of the
elements. In other words, despite the fact that I or others may, after
having trained dilligently in absorbing these elements, still screw up
bonsai design (or make them "cookie-cutter"), it is not the fault of the
artistic and technical elements we try to employ. It's OUR fault.
We should still make an effort to learn and understand them! Yes? Of
course there is "something else" involved. It's called talent, it's called
ability, above all it's called understanding. If you don't know why you do
something, you'll never know when you should not do it or should modify it.
------------------------------------------
> What is the failure in a traditional classic bonsai
> when it fails? The broader artistic vision is what?
------------------------------------------
IMO, the failure might be the lack of tree-ness or reality or too-strict an
adherence to the "rules". In other words - a lack of understanding of why
the design dogma is so successful when employed properly and why (and when)
certain elements of the dogma are useless. But this is just a relevant case
to this argument. There may be thousands of reasons why a bonsai design
fails.
As to the broader artistic vision - that is up to the artist, yes? Getting
back to the previous part, if the artist fails to achieve the "picture"
he/she is obviously working toward, it may be that their vision is flawed -
or more likely - they are unable to achieve their vision due to a lack of
technical or artistic understanding. They lack the tools to build their
vision (or they possess only 45% of the tools needed to build it).
--------------------------------------------
> It is possible that the artist's viewpoint is confused -
> that the approach is awkwardly handled between two different
> ones - is the result to be classic or romantic - or do I want to
> finish between the two. Knowing the approach gives a platform for
> action - THEN the rule IS BROKEN slightly, or greatly or defyed
> with a specific purpose. This knowledge would give the "broader
> artistic vision" that you mention above to a great extent. Here
> is an artistic gamble.
---------------------------------------------
What you describe here is the process of knowing the "rules", understading
the whys and hows of employing them and then using what is relevant to one's
vision. Voila! The perfect use of bonsai dogma.
As to the artistic gamble - that's art! Every work is more or less a
gamble. In bonsai, this gamble is made more trepidatious by the fact that
we need the co-operation of the medium to achieve our goal. And, we need to
recognize the upswing in the cycle of conditioning as well - the point at
which the design goal meets the whims of the tree as directed by advisable
technique! This is all dependent upon our knolwedge and understanding of
all of these elements.
----------------------------------------------
> I don't think they mean to argue against rules, but as I
> mention above rules must be considered and then challenged with
> some intent and understanding - lean a bit to the
> romantic(nature) - it is happening now frequently in our masters.
> The rules are implicit, but they exist still to give us a form
> for performance - form = per-form-ance. Performing is then
> another stage where we control with a viewpoint - not too
> specific to see possibilities but definite enough to guide us -
> could that be??
> Lynn (I am only trying . . .)
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, and trying well. This is my view of the bonsai dogma. By the way,
I've used that term, bonsai dogma, in a few posts to see if anyone would
take issue with it (but none have). I don't deem the classical guidelines
to be dogma, but just guidelines. A template from which to work, but a
template that embodies the basic, quality features of good tree design.
From these templates, the artist should feel no need to adhere verbatim in
design work, but - as you say - "imply" the template in interesting, natural
and quality design work.
Some spit the words "bonsai rules" out like they think that they are
ironclad standards to which each tree must strictly adhere or the artist
will get kicked out of the club, as it were. The "rules" as I term them,
the specific elements of quality, are the necessary elements of design whose
absence detracts from the tree in quality and artistic aesthetic.
For instance, one may make a triple-trunk bonsai that has marvelous design,
neatly placed branching, perfect ramification, great overall composition,
BUT the 3 trunks are all the same diameter. The "rules" say that this is
wrong, but it does not mean that the bonsai is junk. It just means that
it's a wonderful composition with a flaw. Some elements in the design or
the overall presentation may more than make up for the fact that the trunk
size is monotonous. Yes, it would look better with variance in trunk size,
but what the heck?! Most of the "world's best bonsai" break one or more the
"rules", but they triumph anyway because of the employment of good
technique, and the fact that they have nearly all of the specific elements
of quality as part of their designs.
I'm not sure where this leaves us, but maybe we're whittling down to the
core.
Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas
********************************************************************************
Ernie Kuo
<Ernie, about this business of "cookie cutter" bonsai: how come you haven'
chimed in with your views?>
John and Forum,
All my bonsai are cookie cutter bonsai and most of my coniferous bonsai are
green donut bonsai, and I am proud of it!
I have impressions in my mind what matured old trees look like in nature
and my mind is my cookie cutter.
Ernie Kuo, Zone 9, http://www.erniekuo.com
Lynn Boyd
> > What are these specific elements? What qualities must
> > they display?
> > I worry that we throw stones at the wrong targets.
> --------------------------------------
Actually, what you have to say is fits right into my
former statements.
That the traditional form and styles of bonsai are implicit
in any bonsai that will come and it is necessary to know them and
use them -modifications can come about through the traditional
classic, and in the hands of people who are adept with them.
It seems to me the gallery has had numerous trees that were in
the hands of those wanting to push the classic edges somewhat
and doing so quietly and with some success. But, I think it has
been happening for some time already - internationally.
The diversity in arts has some terrible things - in
painting, in music, in literature, poetry, dance - just call it -
but actually it seems to me the nature of bonsai has preserved
some of the greatest dignity and beauty that we can find and I
would like see it keep that traditional classic dignity which
does not hold back room for some relaxation for experimentation
but retains the "core" for beauty and meaning.
Thanks Andy, for answering me so fully.
Peace, Y'all,
Lynn
Anton Nijhuis
and March/93. I already have these in my collection and I offer all 3 to the
highest bidder with all proceeds to be sent to Reiner (the list) and I will
cover the cost of mailing to anywhere on this planet.
Instant Bonsai!!!!
The January/94 issue is probably one of the best single issues of any bonsai
magazine. There is an article by Hal Mahoney on Spirea japonica (Little
Princess)that should be reprinted over and over again. For all you beginners
or even experts that would like to have an instant bonsai (mame) that will
cost you less than $20 Canadian for plant and container!!!! It is bullet
proof, lots of fun, results in the first year and you can find overgrown
Spireas at any nursery. Spireas are very hard to kill! You may be suprised
at the results and end up with a 'Suthin' type mame!!!
Another article in the same magazine is called "The Yugawa Method fo Growing
Black Pine" A technique for keeping needles and internodes short. There are
11 pages and it ties in nicely with the past threads on pruning and
internode lengths. This article should be reprinted also.
The auction should end by Friday November 16th at 12 noon Pacific Standard
Time.
Anton
Reiner Goebel
>
> Going through a box of stuff I found 3 BCI magzines from January/94, May/93
> and March/93. I already have these in my collection and I offer all 3 to the
> highest bidder with all proceeds to be sent to Reiner (the list) and I will
> cover the cost of mailing to anywhere on this planet.
Thanks for your support, Anton.
This gives me the opportunity to thank two other recent contributors:
Martin Beauchamp
Colin Lewis
Running the List, the Gallery and our Home Page costs about $425
every quarter right now. This money has to be raised from the
participants on a voluntary basis. I'm glad to be able to say that we
haven't missed a payment yet. To make sure it stays that way, you can
make _your_ contribution by sending a USD cheque made payable to 'IBC'
to me at
14 Bruce Farm Drive,
Willowdale, Ontario, Canada
M2H 1G3
As a guide, the average contribution is about $33. Most contribute $20
to $25, but a few very generous people bring the average up.
Reiner Goebel
Toronto, Canada
http://www.tbs.game2.com/
********************************************************************************
Anton Nijhuis
Zane's 'Intermediate Bonsai' for auction. This is the sequel to Tom's famous
and highly acclaimed first book. This book is brand new I had printed by
permission from Tom. This is a must have book for any serious bonsiast!!!!
Same rules apply as previous post; auction closes November 16 at 12pm
Pacific Standard Time all proceeds go to Reiner and I will cover all
shipping costs anywhere on this planet.
Anton
Anton Nijhuis
All proceeds go to support this list!
Anton Nijhuis
Time
All proceeds go to support this list!
Anton Nijhuis
Anton Nijhuis
For a great example that resulted from the article mentioned below goto
http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/agora/view.php?bn=internetbonsaiclub_ibcga
llery&key=1002727417&first=1003083999&last=1002391845
On the gallery to see Don Case's Spirea, this one is Gold Flame!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Anton Nijhuis [mailto:ibo...@oberon.ark.com]
Instant Bonsai!!!!
<The January/94 issue is probably one of the best single issues of any
<bonsai magazine. There is an article by Hal Mahoney on Spirea japonica
<(Little Princess)that should be reprinted over and over again. For all <you
beginners or even experts that would like to have an instant bonsai <(mame)
that will cost you less than $20 Canadian for plant and <container!!!! It is
bullet proof, lots of fun, results in the first year <and you can find
overgrown Spireas at any nursery. Spireas are very hard <to kill! You may be
suprised at the results and end up with a 'Suthin' <type mame!!!