A Critique: Winners First North American Bonsai Pot Competition
Luis Fontanills
them with some confidence. Note: I did not participate so have no ulterior
motive on the following comments.
I congratulate both the participants, judges and the institutions that made
this event possible, and hope that it will become a yearly event.
Firstly, it must be noted that not having them in my hands for direct
personal observation is a handicap. The weight, feel and depth of these pots
is lost. The following critique is based upon visual inspection of only the
one view provided, see link below for visuals:
<A HREF="http://www.bonsai-nbf.org/nbf/potcomp2001/potterywinners.htm">
Click here: Winners of the First North American Bonsai Pot Competition</A>
http://www.bonsai-nbf.org/nbf/potcomp2001/potterywinners.htm
MODERN CATEGORY:
First Prize - Jim Barrett
I found this one to be troublesome in this category. Its form, color and
proportions is very traditional; it is only the decorative lattice panel that
might be considered outside tradition. I would have placed this pot in the
traditional category as its main features are traditional. It is a beautiful
pot nonetheless and deserved an award.
Second Prize - Dale Cochoy
This truly belongs in the contemporary category as its asymmetrical 5 sided
form is totally modern. The glaze could have more depth and interest as a
surface. The drip bottom edge of the glaze is a nice detail and lends an
additional organic character to a very geometric form. The proportions are
handsome as is the lip.
Third Prize - Mike Hansen
A beautifully built pot that has an art deco feel to it (organic form made
geometric with the use of curvilinear lines). The clay body could have had
more textural/color interest. This strong stylized form would be difficult to
use for a bonsai pot as it would most likely overpower most plantings.
General Comment on the modern category:
I would have liked one of the more textural and unusual pots to have made the
modern category. The winners seem to indicate a general conservatism by the
judges that may not be in keeping with the spirit of the modern/avant-garde.
TRADITIONAL CATEGORY:
First Prize - Sara Rayner
This is extraordinary. Its traditional oval form and Sara's trademark twisted
feet work very well. The rope pattern at the top and bottom lend detail and
interest without overpowering its form or a future planting. The most
beautiful aspect is the textural/color depth and interest on the main body of
the pot.
Second Prize - Mike Hagedorn
A powerful shape with interesting bandings and foot details. Beautifully
crafted and timeless. It would have been very difficult to choose between
this Sara Rayner's pot for the 1st prize.
Third Prize - Jim Gremel
A well made oval pot with an exceptional textural glaze. It is too
conventional and lacks the refinement and originality, within the traditional
genre, of the 1st and 2nd place winners.
I'd like to hear alternate views/opinions on the competition winners and the
above comments.
Luis Fontanills
Miami-Dade/Broward Counties, Florida USA
********************************************************************************
+++++This list is supported, in part, by a contribution from Charles Abonnel+++++
>>-->> The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ <<--<<
To leave the list, send SIGNOFF BONSAI to: LIST...@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Dale Cochoy
I have thought quite a while before deciding to respond to this post.
First, let me say that I am still overwhelmed at winning ANY place out of
the 150 entrants in this competition. To see MY pot in the glass case at
the National Arboretum and to receive a PRIZE for it at such a banquet, was,
well, I can't describe it.! Pretty great for a good 'ol boy from NE Ohio!,
I can tell you!!
I do feel I have to say, and bear with me here since I'm not the best at
describing thoughts with words, , that to write an "official" pottery
critique for the IBC without actually seeing or touching the winning pots
( or the finalist 25) pots and only seeing the frontal pics of them is....I
can only come up with the word "presumptuous" !
Possibly this is why I saw no other responses to this post after a couple of
days.
I don't agree with several of your comments/observations but won't get into
any of that here, or, at all. I guess that's why we have final judges and
why it's great that everyone sees things differently, or else there would
only be one shape of pot out there and they'd all be the same color!..
I will say , as an interesting note, that after finally seeing the pots
actually displayed myself I was suprised by something that hadn't occurred
to me when I looked at the website pics several times. This was the SIZE of
the winning pots. I was suprised to find that the pots that I thought were
large...weren't, and the pots that I thought were small...weren't! This was
totally a mindset thing that I can't really explain. For some reason, the
pics were deceiving about this. It was neat!
Another thought concerning the "Modern" catagory, After having several
discussions with people about modern, new-wave, contemporary ( or whatever
you want to call that catagory) pots , and their likes/dislikes I have come
to the conclusion that most people just don't "get it"..... It's a
"container" , that CAN be used as a bonsai container/compliment that is NOT
traditional. You CAN NOT judge them by traditional ideas/concepts/rules.
Most people I've talked to seem unable to stray from that to grasp the idea.
They want to picture, in their "minds eye" an ancient California Juniper in
these pots! Probably not....but there are "modern style" trees out there.
The other thing that suprised me was when I saw the cabinet that displayed
the other 25 finalist pots. I found I knew several of the potters personally
and didn't recognize their work ! This was pretty neat too! And, I met and
became friends with a couple I didn't know at all before, or, slightly knew.
Lastly,
I'd be thrilled to own ANY of the pots I saw!!!
Just some thoughts,
Dale
Luis Fontanills
DaleC...@PRODIGY.NET writes:
> <<I do feel I have to say, and bear with me here since I'm not the best at
> describing thoughts with words, , that to write an "official" pottery
> critique for the IBC without actually seeing or touching the winning pots
> ( or the finalist 25) pots and only seeing the frontal pics of them is....I
> can only come up with the word "presumptuous" !>>
Dale,
Please note below that I indicated that not seeing/feeling them in person was
a handicap. I am no stranger to critiques and often what you have before you
is what you must base your decisions/thoughts on. Even in a complex 4
dimensional (time as the fourth dimension) art form such as architecture,
competitions/critiques are most often based on a few drawings; this because
they are unbuilt projects.
I don't understand your 'official' comment. It was done as an individual
voicing an opinion, and I am not shy about doing so as evidenced by my
participation over the years in the IBC.
<<
> Possibly this is why I saw no other responses to this post after a couple of
>
I don't agree with several of your comments/observations but won't get into
> any of that here, or, at all.>>
There are many possible reasons why no other comments were posited. Some are
not interested in bonsai pots as things in themselves. Others may not feel
comfortable speaking about aesthetic issues regarding pottery. Some don't
care. Some don't wish to judge in order to not offend the participants. Some
may have agreed with some of my observations. Some may have disagreed, but
like you, did not wish to engage in analysis and debate about these pots; it
is a shame because much can be learned/exchanged in such constructive
arguments.
Possibly now some others may join in.
> << I guess that's why we have final judges and
> why it's great that everyone sees things differently, or else there would
> only be one shape of pot out there and they'd all be the same color!..>>
Agreed that diversity is good, but even each individual potter creates in a
large assortment of shapes/forms and colors throughout their lives.
<<
> I will say , as an interesting note, that after finally seeing the pots
> actually displayed myself I was suprised by something that hadn't occurred
> to me when I looked at the website pics several times. This was the SIZE of
> the winning pots. I was suprised to find that the pots that I thought were
> large...weren't, and the pots that I thought were small...weren't! This was
> totally a mindset thing that I can't really explain. For some reason, the
> pics were deceiving about this. It was neat!>>
Chris Cochrane had posted the sizes of the pots and I had reviewed these
along with the pictures to understand them better. I am very accustomed to
interpreting/creating scaled drawings, so this aspect was incorporated in my
assessment.
<<
> Another thought concerning the "Modern" catagory, After having several
> discussions with people about modern, new-wave, contemporary ( or whatever
> you want to call that catagory) pots , and their likes/dislikes I have come
> to the conclusion that most people just don't "get it"..... It's a
>
> >> "container" , that CAN be used as a bonsai container/compliment that is
>> NOT
>> traditional. You CAN NOT judge them by traditional ideas/concepts/rules.
>> Most people I've talked to seem unable to stray from that to grasp the
>> idea.
>> They want to picture, in their "minds eye" an ancient California Juniper
>> in
>>
> >>
>
This reaction is normal for most individuals regarding anything that is
unaccustomed. Acceptance is often predicated on what you already know well,
even if by this is just by mindless repetition; note most commercials selling
products.
>
> <<The other thing that suprised me was when I saw the cabinet that displayed
> the other 25 finalist pots. I found I knew several of the potters personally
> and didn't recognize their work ! This was pretty neat too! And, I met and
> became friends with a couple I didn't know at all before, or, slightly knew.
> Lastly,
> I'd be thrilled to own ANY of the pots I saw!!!
> Just some thoughts,
> Dale>>
I don't think I was too harsh in my critique posted earlier, in fact I was
trying hard not to be too critical ;-)...and I too would be thrilled to own
any of these pots.
Regards,
Luis Fontanills
Miami-Dade/Broward Counties, Florida USA
********************************************************************************
Anonymous
Did I miss something...
>that to write an "official" pottery
>> critique for the IBC without actually seeing or touching the winning pots
>> ( or the finalist 25) pots
I figured that Luis was simply giving air to his views in conclusion. I guess I am as guilty as Luis, as I read his veiws and compared them to the pic's available and was able to reconsider my own judgements. Not that they changed nessarcerily, but Luis's opinions gave more information for consideration than previously was made available.
I sent a message to the list a week or so ago asking if there were any available information as to why the judges judged the way they did. ( my server has been playing up on me, so I'm not sure if it got through!)
I congratulated Mike H as well as Dale in that post. I personally thank Luis for at least being honest and forthrite and sharing his veiws, certainly for my education and hopefully for all interested in pots or building Pots.
>I don't understand your 'official' comment. It was done as an individual
>voicing an opinion,C.
I'm sure there has been a misunderstanding here somewhere-- Luis, please dont hesitate to comment on anything- particularly pots or any aspect of construction ( I side with Reiner.. I draw a line at arial roots ;) )
>> Possibly this is why I saw no other responses to this post after a couplof
I did try!
>>I don't agree with several of your comments/observations but won't get into
>> any of that here, or, at all.>>
And why not??????!!!!!!!!!! what is the purpose of this?? I read your posts Dale, I share your humour, I envy your commaderie with other listmembers who you get to meet in person. But I would be bloody dissapointed if refusal to add input was not explained.
>
>There are many possible reasons why no other comments were posited.
Its tough enough giving advice on trees, actual knowledge on pots and construction is thin on this list. All the more reason why input is so important and valuable. No matter how good the tree is it aint bonsai without the pot!.
>Some are not interested in bonsai pots as things in themselves. Others may not
>feel comfortable speaking about aesthetic issues regarding pottery.
Some arn't interested in serrisa'a, mallsai et al, but we still get the option to delete if we don't like it
>is a shame because much can be learned/exchanged in such constructive
>arguments.
Precisely!
>
>Possibly now some others may join in.
well, too late to stop me now! ;)
>
>> << I guess that's why we have final judges and
>> why it's great that everyone sees things differently, or else there would
>> only be one shape of pot out there and they'd all be the same color!..>>
Yeah, but why did the judges select the pots that they did and what was their reasoning. Or is there a case for finding out what the judges like first and submitting pots that take their personal fancies?
>Agreed that diversity is good, but even each individual potter creates in a
>large assortment of shapes/forms and colors throughout their lives.
>> I will say , as an interesting note, that after finally seeing the pots
>> actually displayed myself I was suprised by something that hadn't occurred
>> to me when I looked at the website pics several times. This was the SIZE of
>> the winning pots. I was suprised to find that the pots that I thought were
>> large...weren't, and the pots that I thought were small...weren't! This was
>> totally a mindset thing that I can't really explain. For some reason, the
>> pics were deceiving about this. It was neat!>>
>
>Chris Cochrane had posted the sizes of the pots and I had reviewed these
>along with the pictures to understand them better. I am very accustomed to
>interpreting/creating scaled drawings, so this aspect was incorporated in my
>assessment.
I had no problem here, perhaps my construction/decorating background helped.
>> Another thought concerning the "Modern" catagory, After having several
>> discussions with people about modern, new-wave, contemporary ( or whatever
>> you want to call that catagory) pots , and their likes/dislikes I have come
>> to the conclusion that most people just don't "get it"..... It's a
>>
>> >> "container" , that CAN be used as a bonsai container/compliment that is
>>> NOT
>>> traditional. You CAN NOT judge them by traditional ideas/concepts/rules.
>>> Most people I've talked to seem unable to stray from that to grasp the
>>> idea.
>>> They want to picture, in their "minds eye" an ancient California Juniper
>>> in
>>>
I read in Dales post that there where many examples of "modern" trees to go with these "modern" pots.
Can you explain or illustrate what you mean by "modern" trees/style's. I'm not against inventiveness or exploring new directions. I just draw the line at pots that lack finess or "polish". I am learning to create pots for bonsai, being in the trade I am, I can be darn "picky" and can quickly reject that which does'nt look optically "right". This is not to discourage anyone from creating, it's simply that one should always be honest with one's self and be knowledgable about what state their level of skill is at.
>
>This reaction is normal for most individuals regarding anything that is
>unaccustomed. Acceptance is often predicated on what you already know well,
>even if by this is just by mindless repetition; note most commercials sellin
> <Message truncated after 100 lines>
>
and darn it, having just set up a new server connection, the defaults where still what they were!!!!!!! (fixed, so I guess I gotta go to the archives to find out where this ends)
Keep up the thread!!!!!
:)
AL
NZ
Tom David
>First, let me say that I am still overwhelmed at winning ANY place out of
>the 150 entrants in this competition. To see MY pot in the glass case at
>the National Arboretum and to receive a PRIZE for it at such a banquet, was,
>well, I can't describe it.! Pretty great for a good 'ol boy from NE Ohio!,
>I can tell you!!<
But your effort was obviously beautiful, however,
I agree completely that a mere 2/D image can never truly give but the
most fleeting glimpse of the real object. As a sometimes pro
photographer, I try mightily to capture just a hint of the real
situation in my work but at my very best I only get a sort of
shorthand outline.
Sincere congratulations to yourself and to all finalist and entrants.
Tom David
Tom David
Walter Pall
DaleC...@PRODIGY.NET writes:
> <<I do feel I have to say, and bear with me here since I'm not the best at
> describing thoughts with words, , that to write an "official" pottery
> critique for the IBC without actually seeing or touching the winning pots
> ( or the finalist 25) pots and only seeing the frontal pics of them
is....I
> can only come up with the word "presumptuous" !>>
Dale,
It seems that something must have bothered you when you wrote this. It is
not fair to say this to an attempt to get a sophisticated discussion about
pots going. This was a good and educational effort to analyze the results of
the pot contest.
The result of tree judging is always a good reason to argue about the
outcome. Why should judging of pots be viewed in a different light.
We do judge trees, "officially" or not, every day without having seen them
in reality. We do this on the IBC forum for example. What's wrong with that.
We all know that a tree and a pot will make a very different appearance when
you have it in front of you, but we still do it, because it makes sense.
There are not so many people who can do a sophisticated tree critique. There
are far less who can do a pot critique. We ned more.
Instead of calling this presumptuous it would have been more appropriate to
say exactly where you differ in your opinions.
You are a man of deeds and an artist with emotions and not so many words.
Let those who will use words, where you would not, do it. I think the
critique was well based and objective, Luis has insulted nobody.
Congratulations to your achievement Dale.
best regards
Walter Pall
near Munich Germany climate zone 6b
Walte...@t-online.de http://home.t-online.de/home/Walter.Pall
MIKandCOL
I have enjoyed participating in the First North American Bonsai Pot Competition
and listening to all of the resulting comments. I appreciate all of the
comments, even those that may be a little bit negetive. They will help me
prepare for next time. This was really fun. I have learned a great deal.
I have to admit I was surprised at the strictness of what a bonsai pot should
be. It appears that some are of the opinion that only pots following
traditional rules are worthy of bonsai. Yet when I look at a few "classic
pots" I am surprised how they stretch the rules.
Take a look at Bonsai Today, issue 61, the article starting on page 43. With
the exception of only one pot, all of those shown have heavy decoration, deep
relief, bright colors or scenes of birds and landscapes. All of these things
threaten to take the focus away from the tree.
As a matter of fact, I find lots of examples of bonsai pots with intricate
decoration that were made over a great period of time. The article in Bonsai
Today, issue 61, it states some of these pots may date from the 1600's. A
couple issues later (issue 63), the article says a potter named Shinano did his
best work between 1940 and 1969. A few of his best pots are shown, and guess
what? They all have intricate detail and decoration.
Here are some more examples
Bonsai Today issue 65, starting on page 26
Bonsai Today issue 70, starting on page 41 - on page 43 there is a chinese pot
with blue glaze, wings, and cloud feet that to me look like stalagtites. On
page 46 there is a gourd shaped pot. I can just imagine the comments on these
had they been in this first north american pot competition, obviously in the
"modern category".
If we are set on following tradition, how come pots like this are not currently
being used for bonsai? It seems to me that the idea of using only simple,
brown or grey plain-jane pots may actually be a more modern trend.
- Mike Hansen - (Third place winner in the modern category)
>Third Prize - Mike Hansen =20
>A beautifully built pot that has an art deco feel to it (organic form made=20
>geometric with the use of curvilinear lines). The clay body could have had=20
>more textural/color interest. This strong stylized form would be
>difficult t=
>o=20
Peter Aradi
Competition
SNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP
It seems to me that the idea of using only simple,
brown or grey plain-jane pots may actually be a more modern trend.
- Mike Hansen - (Third place winner in the modern category)
SNIIIIIIIIIIIIIP
Mike and all:
Yes, you are absolutely right when you say that
plain pots and pastel colors are a relatively
modern trend in Japan. As a matter of fact bonsai
pots in the so called neo-traditional Japanese style
became relatively simple only after 1870 and progressively
so in the 20th century.
The Takagi Bonsai Museum, sponsors of this year's
competition, have been sponsoring a similar contest in
Japan for nearly a decade. The results of their shows
are announced in February and published annually in
Kindai Bonsai (Contemporary Bonsai) magazine. The
English language Bonsai Today would do a service by
publishing a sample selection for us to debate. The
prize winners are pushing the envelope much further
than our entries, but I have yet to see any of their
work used in a prestige's exhibit covered by their
magazines. It is an interesting contradiction.
As for the idea that potters entering pots trying to
please the judges, that would not hold water as their
tastes and preferences were unknown in advance. However,
you can bet that this year's entries will have a serious
influence on next year's pots.
Cheers.
Peter Aradi
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Marty Haber
The 5- sided pot idea bothers me. I would have to see a tree in it to
convince me that it is workable.
The avant garde category gives me the same feling that i get when i hear
modern music -
nervous uneasiness. I do bonsai for just the opposite reason -
pervasive calm.
Marty Haber
Zone 7 God's little half acre
Luis Fontanills
bons...@WEBTV.NET writes:
Marty,
I'm not sure if your opening line refers to my critique, but will assume it
does.
Could it be that this uneasiness is more a product of not understanding and
removal from what is commonly seen? Is it possible that if these types of
pots came into widespread usage and bonsai trees/accents that worked
exceptionally well were often seen in them that you too would come to enjoy
or at least appreciate them?
I find no uneasiness in any of these 'modern category' pots. I see them as
formal manipulations of form, space, texture and color that carry intrinsic
properties; as do all pots. These aesthetic properties must then be paired
with sensitivity to a complimentary tree/accent; the ideal is that the whole
becomes greater than the sum of the parts (the gestalt).
Bonsai, as in any artform can also express complex notions, and it is not
necessary to only aim for 'beauty through harmony'. Bonsai should express the
full range of powerful thoughts/emotions that we possess.
Regards,
Luis Fontanills
Miami-Dade/Broward Counties, Florida USA
********************************************************************************
Luis Fontanills
p.a...@HOME.COM writes:
Mike and all:
SNIP
<<Yes, you are absolutely right when you say that
plain pots and pastel colors are a relatively
modern trend in Japan. As a matter of fact bonsai
pots in the so called neo-traditional Japanese style
became relatively simple only after 1870 and progressively
so in the 20th century.>>
Would the influence of zen be the principal factor in this thrust towards
simplicity?
> <<The Takagi Bonsai Museum, sponsors of this year's
> competition, have been sponsoring a similar contest in
> Japan for nearly a decade. The results of their shows
> are announced in February and published annually in
> Kindai Bonsai (Contemporary Bonsai) magazine. The
> English language Bonsai Today would do a service by
> publishing a sample selection for us to debate. The
> prize winners are pushing the envelope much further
> than our entries, but I have yet to see any of their
> work used in a prestige's exhibit covered by their
> magazines. It is an interesting contradiction.>>
SNIP
Peter,
I would love to see these efforts but have no access to Kindai Bonsai ;-(
Bonsai Today would be doing a great service to the art of bonsai if somehow
they could publish some of this work, as you suggest. I will write to John
Palmer and suggest this. Possibly others could do the same to express a more
widespread interest in non-traditional contemporary Japanese bonsai pots.
Peter Aradi
pots in the so called neo-traditional Japanese style
became relatively simple only after 1870 and progressively
so in the 20th century.>>
<Would the influence of zen be the principal factor in this thrust towards
simplicity?>
Luis:
Permit me to destroy one of our Western myths about
Japanese bonsai: Zen Buddhism has or had no specific relationship
to bonsai other than it has on Japanese culture in general.
As a historical matter of fact while neoclassical bonsai
was developing in Japan during the early Meiji period, 1868 to
the 1890s, Buddhism was suppressed and persecuted by the
restoration government. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of temples
were closed down, thousands of priests were returned to lay
life and those remaining were encouraged/forced to get married.
I believe that the simplification of pots was part of the
development of neoclassical bonsai, as an effort to make it
part of "Japaneseness" versus bonsai's Chinese roots.
Cheers.
Peter Aradi
Tulsa, Oklahoma
********************************************************************************
Peter Aradi
>>For another perspective, though, W.G. Beasley in "The Japanese
Experience: A short History of Japan" which I happen to be
reading now, as part of a discussion of the evolution of the Tea
Ceremony from "rowdy 'tournaments' (for guessing types of tea),
which had a reputation for riotous and alcoholic behavior" to the
decorous ceremony of today, says:
"Several of the 'lesser arts' that are associated with Zen, such
as flower arrangement (ikebana), bonsai, and landscape gardening,
helped to provide the atmosphere of discipline and restraint in
which the tea ceremony was expected to take place. Like the
building of splendid villas, the patronage of drama and painting,
and the support that was given to Zen, they (ikebana and bonsai,
etc.) played a part in making feudal rulers 'civilized,' hence
worthy and legitimate successors to the Fujiwara. . . .">>>
Jim:
I disagree with Beasley's statement. Ikebana and landscape
gardening was indeed related to the tea ceremony, consequently
had ties with Zen. Bonsai, however, is not related to chanoyu or
wabi cha, the tea ceremony. I would like to read any primay evidence
with specific details that contradicts my statement as I am easily
swayed by reliable academic research. Beasley's statement above is
an incorrect generalization as far as bonsai concerned.
Cheers.
Peter Aradi
Peter Aradi
From: Ernie Kuo [mailto:erni...@AOL.COM]
Peter,
Almost all the "simple" pots made by the Japanese potters and used for
bonsai nowadays are copies of antiques Chinese pots. There is a two-volume
book about Japanese and Chinese bonsai pots published in Japanese with all
the pictures and information.
Ernie:
You are absolutely right. Just as the Japanese tea ceremony uses
Chinese and Korean peasant rice bowls, some of which are cherished
and very expensive art objects. The facts is that if you review
publications on old, pre-Meiji bonsai pots, they have also originated
in China and even today are considered valuable antiques.
Many of the pots illustrated in the book you refer to and which I am
familiar with were purchased by the Japanese after they became one of
the colonizing powers of China and established several foreign
concessions there. The Japanese traders had a tremendous advantage
as many could read the Chinese characters and antiques (and faux
antiques) were marketed by warlords and Chinese dealers plundering
the country side.
Just as an aside, the Japanese looked up to the Chinese for over a
millennium as the fountain of their culture. That relationship changed
in the middle of the 19th century, after the Opium Wars. By the end
of the century Japan was colonizing China and in many respects touted
itself as the true repository and heir of East Asian civilization.
For an interesting read please see any selection of Chinese books on
bonsai and compare their basic historical section with that of a
comparable selection of Japanese bonsai books. I found a clear
contradiction. The Japanese claim that it was in Japan that bonsai
became an art form! There is a definite "culture war" at the
present time between Japan and China, as well as between Japan
and Korea, and bonsai history is part of it.
Anyway, this topic is much too broad to be covered by a few email
messages.
Cheers.
Peter Aradi
Tulsa, Oklahoma
********************************************************************************
Jim Lewis
> messages.
Oh, not at all!
Well, actually, you're right. "A few" e-mail message won't do
it.
So keep 'em coming. ;-)
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - "I like
trees because they seem more resigned to the way they have to
live than other things do." -- Willa Cather
Dale Cochoy
From: Marty Haber <bons...@WEBTV.NET>
Subject: Re: A Critique: Winners First North American Bonsai Pot Competition
> I have but two comments on your comments:
> The 5- sided pot idea bothers me.
The avant garde category gives me the same feling that i get when i hear
> modern music -
> nervous uneasiness. I do bonsai for just the opposite reason -
> pervasive calm.
> Marty Haber
Calm down Marty....It's just a pot!!!
Dale
Jim Lewis
> pots in the so called neo-traditional Japanese style
> became relatively simple only after 1870 and progressively
> so in the 20th century.>>
>
> <Would the influence of zen be the principal factor in this
thrust towards
> simplicity?>
>
> Luis:
>
> Permit me to destroy one of our Western myths about
> Japanese bonsai: Zen Buddhism has or had no specific
relationship
> to bonsai other than it has on Japanese culture in general.
> As a historical matter of fact while neoclassical bonsai
> was developing in Japan during the early Meiji period, 1868 to
> the 1890s, Buddhism was suppressed and persecuted by the
> restoration government. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of temples
> were closed down, thousands of priests were returned to lay
> life and those remaining were encouraged/forced to get married.
>
> I believe that the simplification of pots was part of the
> development of neoclassical bonsai, as an effort to make it
> part of "Japaneseness" versus bonsai's Chinese roots.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Peter Aradi
> Tulsa, Oklahoma
For another perspective, though, W.G. Beasley in "The Japanese
Experience: A short History of Japan" which I happen to be
reading now, as part of a discussion of the evolution of the Tea
Ceremony from "rowdy 'tournaments' (for guessing types of tea),
which had a reputation for riotous and alcoholic behavior" to the
decorous ceremony of today, says:
"Several of the 'lesser arts' that are associated with Zen, such
as flower arrangement (ikebana), bonsai, and landscape gardening,
helped to provide the atmosphere of discipline and restraint in
which the tea ceremony was expected to take place. Like the
building of splendid villas, the patronage of drama and painting,
and the support that was given to Zen, they (ikebana and bonsai,
etc.) played a part in making feudal rulers 'civilized,' hence
worthy and legitimate successors to the Fujiwara. . . ."
He is speaking of the culture of medieval Japan that was evolving
in the Kamakura (1185-1333) and Muromachi (1336-1573) periods,
which is a bit earlier than Peter was writing about.
I read "associated with Zen" to imply that while ikebana and
bonsai may not have been actual Zen pursuits, they evolved in
Japan during this period of Chinese influence as other ways to
pursue the contemplative life.
Is this an accurate portrayal? I dunno, but I would tend to go
with this one over almost any of the (conflicting) "histories" of
bonsai that I read in bonsai books. These, as far as _I_ can
tell, are seldom based on any real research, and often are lifted
from still other bonsai books, many of those with (somewhat
slanted) Japanese or Chinese roots.
Jim Lewis - jkl...@nettally.com - Tallahassee, FL - Who probably
is unable to discuss this further because this is all he "knows."
Ernie Kuo
<snip>
>I believe that the simplification of pots was part of the
>development of neoclassical bonsai, as an effort to make it
>part of "Japaneseness" versus bonsai's Chinese roots.
Peter,
Almost all the "simple" pots made by the Japanese potters and used for
bonsai nowadays are copies of antiques Chinese pots. There is a two-volume
book about Japanese and Chinese bonsai pots published in Japanese with all
the pictures and information.
Ernie Kuo, Zone 9, http://www.erniekuo.com
Luis Fontanills
rod...@AOL.COMNOSPAM writes:
SNIP...
"Jim, a past president of Bonsai Clubs International, has been involved in
bonsai for 40+ years and is also an accomplished potter. Although he
considers himself a "traditional" bonsai potter, he won the first place award
in the National Arboretum's 2001 Bonsai Pottery contest in the
contemporary/new age category. "
_________________
And in now infamous critique, I had written the following (In a message dated
5/5/2001 12:50:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ManFont writes):
> <<MODERN CATEGORY:
>
> First Prize - Jim Barrett
> I found this one to be troublesome in this category. Its form, color and
> proportions is very traditional; it is only the decorative lattice panel
> that might be considered outside tradition. I would have placed this pot in
> the traditional category as its main features are traditional. It is a
> beautiful pot nonetheless and deserved an award.>>
Apparently my observation concurs with that of the artist. Not bad for never
seeing it in person ;-)
Luis Fontanills
Miami-Dade/Broward Counties, Florida USA
********************************************************************************
Dale Cochoy
What a guy!!
And subtle too!
FYI, I can tell you that while speaking with Jim in Wash.DC that he
mentioned the pot was a design from an antique Chinese pot. He ALSO
wondered why it was catagorized "modern". Perhaps the lattice?
Another person present told me that Jim had told him that he had made a
couple before one came out. I know that feeling. It is sometimes a problem
creating a pot when all you need is a rolling pin and a couple of sticks!!
Hmmm Luis?
also :>)
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Luis Fontanills <Man...@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: A Critique: Winners First North American Bonsai Pot Competition
Luis Fontanills
DaleC...@PRODIGY.NET writes:
> <<What a guy!!
> And subtle too!>>
Dale,
Thanks! Those who know me, friends, family, professors, colleagues, will
agree that I can be like a bit bull. Anyway, I wasn't aware that subtlety was
a requirement of this virtual medium ;-)
Given the lack of face to face contact, one must be clear and direct, or at
least try to be.
<<> FYI, I can tell you that while speaking with Jim in Wash.DC that he
> mentioned the pot was a design from an antique Chinese pot. He ALSO
> wondered why it was catagorized "modern". Perhaps the lattice?>>
Mike Hagedorn, Mike Hansen, Ernie Kuo, Peter Aradi and I had mentioned the
depth and breath of pottery over the millennium. It is quite possible to copy
an ancient pot and have it seen as modern; as recently demonstrated. This
indicates our general lack of historical knowledge. It would be great if
someone put together a comprehensive cataloging of bonsai pots through
history, but this would be costly and difficult. The bottom line is that a
publisher would see no profit in it. Possibly an educational body dedicated
to the art of bonsai might take up the cause.
<<> Another person present told me that Jim had told him that he had made a
> couple before one came out. I know that feeling. It is sometimes a problem
> creating a pot when all you need is a rolling pin and a couple of sticks!!
> Hmmm Luis?
> also :>)
> Dale>>
Sorry Dale, I'm more sophisticated, having use of an electric wheel and a
stick ;-)
Even so the same problem occurs ;-)
You asked why I had not entered, well two major reasons, and the second one
relates to your last comment.
1) I had only been making bonsai pots for 3 months or so, too fresh.
2) Reason 1 did not stop me though ;-), I made a pot that was very good with
an almost black clay just two weeks before the deadline. It and others were
fired by someone else and the cone temperature was too high. They all came
out with big blisters that warped and destroyed them and my chance at an
entry ;-(
But if the Second North American Competition becomes a reality, watch out!!!
;-)
Regards,
Ron Martin
> But if the Second North American Competition becomes a reality, watch
out!!!
> ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Luis Fontanills
> Miami-Dade/Broward Counties, Florida USA
>
completion
Ron Martin
ANITA L. HAWKINS
"modern" category:
> FYI, I can tell you that while speaking with Jim in Wash.DC that he
> mentioned the pot was a design from an antique Chinese pot. He ALSO
> wondered why it was catagorized "modern".
It seems one learning experience for the organizers of the Second NABPC (and I
DO hope there will be another) is to state more clearly their definitions and
conditions for pots. Certainly defining the "traditional" and "contemporary"
divisions, probably should ask the entrants to at least suggest which category
they want each pot to be included in. And give them a sentence or two to state
why (Jim B could have mentioned the antique derivation of his pot's lattice
panel, for instance) in their own pots' defense :)
Another "hidden" requirement: pots were to be "suitable for planting", and it
did seem rather obvious that includes drainhole(s). Nonetheless, pots without
were submitted, and eliminated from consideration. Not saying that was wrong
;) just that it should have been explicitly stated in the entry requirements.
Also, I can understand limiting entrants to one placement each, as a way of
encouraging many entries and preventing a "sweep", but still, couldn't that
have been stated in so many words for the entrants?
Sorry for all the grousy messages tonight... promise to be more cheery next
time!
Anita
Havre de Grace, Maryland (USDA Zone 6/7)
Greenman
trays with no drainage. I beleive the term is suiban. But then I guess that
is Penjing so falls in a different category, huh.
It does bring up the question of what exactly defines a bonsai pot though.
Judging from the comments here and in the gallery, there seems to be little
concensus even here as to what really makes a bonsai pot, let alone a
traditional pot. Personally, without a clear description of what the
tradition IS, I think it is meaningless to ascribe a traditional and modern
category.
Brett Johnson
Green Man Gardens
bnbj...@home.com
> ...Another "hidden" requirement: pots were to be "suitable for
> planting", and it
> did seem rather obvious that includes drainhole(s). Nonetheless,
> pots without
> were submitted, and eliminated from consideration...
Patrick Alexander
: It does bring up the question of what exactly defines a bonsai pot though.
: Judging from the comments here and in the gallery, there seems to be little
: concensus even here as to what really makes a bonsai pot, let alone a
: traditional pot. Personally, without a clear description of what the
: tradition IS, I think it is meaningless to ascribe a traditional and modern
: category.
I think there's also a mistake in believing that traditional and
modern are categories that together include all pots. You've got pots like
Jim Barrett's that I don't think fall into what people today would call
`traditional' (have you ever seen pots with lattices used in bonsai?), but,
on the other hand, there's certainly a misnomer involved in calling a pot
`modern' when its only deviation from the `traditional' style is one whose
origins are ancient...
Patrick Alexander
`No crock of glittering prizes.
No sharply worded telegram.
No excuses for the word-weary.
No excuses for who I am.'
--Jethro Tull
Alan Walker
these were pots originally used for something besides bonsai, such as bulb plants or
perhaps incense. Some have had to be adapted to bonsai use by drilling drainage
holes. But they're out there. They're pretty neat pots usually, but not necessarily
the best choice for most bonsai.
Alan Walker, Lake Charles, LA, USA
> : It does bring up the question of what exactly defines a bonsai pot though.
> : Judging from the comments here and in the gallery, there seems to be little
> : concensus even here as to what really makes a bonsai pot, let alone a
> : traditional pot. Personally, without a clear description of what the
> : tradition IS, I think it is meaningless to ascribe a traditional and modern
> : category.
>
> I think there's also a mistake in believing that traditional and
> modern are categories that together include all pots. You've got pots like
> Jim Barrett's that I don't think fall into what people today would call
> `traditional' (have you ever seen pots with lattices used in bonsai?), but,
> on the other hand, there's certainly a misnomer involved in calling a pot
> `modern' when its only deviation from the `traditional' style is one whose
> origins are ancient...
> Patrick Alexander
********************************************************************************