A Few Ponderings of Naturalistic Style

[Adair M]

Here is a good example of design without enough consideration of nature and working on auto pilot. I don't blame anyone in particular and I do it myself, but it helps to at least be aware of it when considering naturalistic or ''natural'' looking styles.
In the ''designed'' tree you can see what 99.9% of people do (and that includes all of the ''masters'' ) when they shape the crown of the tree. I won't say 100% because there may be someone who does not do this or seeks to avoid it? They have it firmly fixed in their DNA that we must bring branches down, that we must have a ''main'' branch that dictates the flow of the tree and that this branch must be end in a point and that there must be some kind of triangle to the shape of the crown regardless of the base of the tree. The truth is that real weather beaten trees are completely dependant of the forces of nature - especially the wind - and they usually do not conform to our pre-conceived shallow concepts of beauty. When we start to do away with these concepts and start to really look and appreciate that nature is the true master, we might then start to free up the possibilities which have been either frowned upon or not even realized till now. I have not seen anyone talk about this - not even W. Pall!
In the first example it is very obvious that no consideration at all was given to naturalism, and yet again we have fallen back on text book design rather than try to speculate what really would happen if such a tree were in the mountains and have to deal with a harsh existence and all the weather coming from one main direction. The denser the canopy of this tree becomes the more distant from naturalism it will go. I think it's time we give more thought to the formation of the base of the tree as it presents before we go ahead and blindly shape the crown as we have a million times before. This is the very essence of contrivance with the result of artificiality. No matter how wild or convoluted the trunk and main branches may be we feel the urgent need to ''tame'' the tree by putting a green triangle on top of it.

View attachment 168344


View attachment 168345[/QUOTE]
The thing is, they do grow in classical bonsai shapes!

 

[Vance Wood]

View attachment 168366 View attachment 168367

Here is a good example of design without enough consideration of nature and working on auto pilot. I don't blame anyone in particular and I do it myself, but it helps to at least be aware of it when considering naturalistic or ''natural'' looking styles.
In the ''designed'' tree you can see what 99.9% of people do (and that includes all of the ''masters'' ) when they shape the crown of the tree. I won't say 100% because there may be someone who does not do this or seeks to avoid it? They have it firmly fixed in their DNA that we must bring branches down, that we must have a ''main'' branch that dictates the flow of the tree and that this branch must be end in a point and that there must be some kind of triangle to the shape of the crown regardless of the base of the tree. The truth is that real weather beaten trees are completely dependant of the forces of nature - especially the wind - and they usually do not conform to our pre-conceived shallow concepts of beauty. When we start to do away with these concepts and start to really look and appreciate that nature is the true master, we might then start to free up the possibilities which have been either frowned upon or not even realized till now. I have not seen anyone talk about this - not even W. Pall!
In the first example it is very obvious that no consideration at all was given to naturalism, and yet again we have fallen back on text book design rather than try to speculate what really would happen if such a tree were in the mountains and have to deal with a harsh existence and all the weather coming from one main direction. The denser the canopy of this tree becomes the more distant from naturalism it will go. I think it's time we give more thought to the formation of the base of the tree as it presents before we go ahead and blindly shape the crown as we have a million times before. This is the very essence of contrivance with the result of artificiality. No matter how wild or convoluted the trunk and main branches may be we feel the urgent need to ''tame'' the tree by putting a green triangle on top of it.

View attachment 168344


View attachment 168345

The thing is, they do grow in classical bonsai shapes![/QUOTE]
I have said it hundreds of times myself that the so called rules of design are nothing more than a mechanical repetition of design traits that have worked in the past. The so called rules were the revelation of the Fibonacci Sequence as we have been talking about in this post. So---essentially the attempt to define the naturalistic style is really going back to the beginning where it all started and working forward from that point with new eyes.

 

[just.wing.it]

What a great thread this turned into!
I love the deepness...

 

[Vance Wood]

The thing is, they do grow in classical bonsai shapes!

I have said it hundreds of times myself that the so called rules of design are nothing more than a mechanical repetition of design traits that have worked in the past. The so called rules were the revelation of the Fibonacci Sequence as we have been talking about in this post. So---essentially the attempt to define the naturalistic style is really going back to the beginning where it all started and working forward from that point with new eyes.[/QUOTE]
On an overnight digestion of what this thread has been saying I am coming to a conclusion that if what I said in thread #82 is correct we could be on the verge honestly discovering the American style bonsai. What I mean is: The original bonsai realized through Asian eyes most certainly would be the product of Fibonacci Sequences emulated through Asian eyes. If this is true it must also be true that Fibonacci Sequences viewed through Western eyes might look different and similar at the same time. These sequences do not change the revelation this math takes us to. We may come to different repetitive themes that make sense within a cultural setting but these themes would be as similar to each other, from culture to culture, as they are to themselves, the great world wide Fibonacci Sequence. I hope this makes sense to everybody, I know sometimes I ramble and wander around in a subject until I discover the truth or fall into the pit of ridiculousness.

 

[River's Edge]

What are your thoughts on these? the pictures were taken in February in Japan. Alongside famous junipers in a well known Bonsai masters garden.

 

[Adair M]

The Sumo azaleas? Not grown in the flower display style. More Sumo style. Naturalistic? No. Maybe root over rock.

The whole idea that bonsai should look like natural trees is somewhat silly. It’s art. Using woody living plants. I mean, we make pots out of clay. The clay doesn’t look like clay after it’s been molded and fired!

 

[wireme]

Here is a good example of design without enough consideration of nature and working on auto pilot. I don't blame anyone in particular and I do it myself, but it helps to at least be aware of it when considering naturalistic or ''natural'' looking styles.
In the ''designed'' tree you can see what 99.9% of people do (and that includes all of the ''masters'' ) when they shape the crown of the tree. I won't say 100% because there may be someone who does not do this or seeks to avoid it? They have it firmly fixed in their DNA that we must bring branches down, that we must have a ''main'' branch that dictates the flow of the tree and that this branch must be end in a point and that there must be some kind of triangle to the shape of the crown regardless of the base of the tree. The truth is that real weather beaten trees are completely dependant of the forces of nature - especially the wind - and they usually do not conform to our pre-conceived shallow concepts of beauty. When we start to do away with these concepts and start to really look and appreciate that nature is the true master, we might then start to free up the possibilities which have been either frowned upon or not even realized till now. I have not seen anyone talk about this - not even W. Pall!
In the first example it is very obvious that no consideration at all was given to naturalism, and yet again we have fallen back on text book design rather than try to speculate what really would happen if such a tree were in the mountains and have to deal with a harsh existence and all the weather coming from one main direction. The denser the canopy of this tree becomes the more distant from naturalism it will go. I think it's time we give more thought to the formation of the base of the tree as it presents before we go ahead and blindly shape the crown as we have a million times before. This is the very essence of contrivance with the result of artificiality. No matter how wild or convoluted the trunk and main branches may be we feel the urgent need to ''tame'' the tree by putting a green triangle on top of it.

View attachment 168344


View attachment 168345[/QUOTE]

I'm more or less in agreement with you, I love the old images you have posted before of old Japanese juniper bonsai dating before hardcore refinement days. I would also like to find suitable material to play around with avoiding green triangles and downward branches. Emulate trees like these maybe.

Wind effect I feel may be both underutilized and at the same time often overemphasized. There are other environmental influences that are far less obvious but often have greater influence on a trees growth. They seem to have no recognition in the bonsai world or very little that I have seen. People go on about wind blasting trees, snow load crushing and contorting etc.
Big factors often overlooked are root constriction, insect and pathogen attack and drought. Root constriction in rock pockets is a huge factor. Trees growing in those conditions of course grow very slowly and almost always for some reason grow with spiral grain. Check these out, yeah they are exposed to elements but I believe the spiral grain is entirely due to root constriction and low water conditions not exposure to weather extremes.

Likewise the deadwood and Shari on these is probably due to either death of a portion of the tree from root/trunk constriction at the base again or from insect/pathogen attack somewhere along that life vein in the past. Same for wild junipers, insects, rust, drought, root constriction are the main root cause of all that great deadwood much more so than blasting wind and snow load I contend. Exposed does great thing to weather the wood after death of course.

Junipers with constricted roots like this tend to grow spiral as well and also convoluted and twisted in unpredictable patterns regardless of exposure to high weather impact. I can find them in small Rock outcroppings within the forest sheltered from wind etc looking just like those out getting blasted somewhere provided they are in the open enough for lots of sun exposure. A tree like this is tempting to say the form is extreme weather induced but then from which direction does the wind blow? I could tell you being familiar with the spot.
Is it just a big cop out to say a highly root constricted juniper can grow into damn near any form you can think of and it doesn't have to make sense for any obvious reason and therefore we can do whatever the hell we want to with them? Maybe but it kind of is true.

I have bit more to say on the subject later, gotta run.

 

[MichaelS]

I would guess this tree grew straight upright as a shrub for a few decades then bent down to the right under it's own weight or a combination of other factors, but was protected from the prevailing wind by the rock , and after it grew above the rock, it began to get blasted by the wind coming from the right? That's what it looks like to me???



As for the spiralling, I'm not sure about root restriction causing it. Could be, but there are many Australian native plants for example which naturally spiral without any root restriction.
The point I was trying to make about bonsai styling though, was that we have images fixed into our heads due how we are taught, what we see others do, pressure to conform, embarrassment of doing something wrong or not being able to express what we intended to, the nature of the human eye which tends to seek out straight lines and evenness, the need to tidy up, not being able to recognise natural beauty (or maybe not being willing to accept it as beauty), and straight out lack of imagination. I'm caught up in all this just as much as everyone else is!
We often read that bonsai is all about removing what is not needed to leave the essence of the tree. (particularly in bunjin styles) But what exactly does that mean?
For example what and how much should you remove before you lose the essence? With the tree below, most of us would remove #1 or at the very least #2. The trunk crossing #3 would be a big problem, as would the 3 apices. Would we lose the essence of the tree if we did all those things? Does it matter? Personally I think it could matter depending on your point of view but to go down that road would really be swimming against the tide.
And yet, there sits the wonderful tree!

 

[Bonsai toto]

sharing some photo of azalea that I saved from the internet.

 

[0soyoung]

sharing some photo of azalea that I saved from the internet.

Nice azalea.

Do you think it is in a 'naturalistic style'?

 

[Bonsai toto]

Nice azalea.

Do you think it is in a 'naturalistic style'?

I don't know how to answer that as I'm still making my way into the bonsai world . This thread opens my eyes.
But the real question is, without taking into account what species it is,how would you define it into which category ?

As of today, Bonsai artist around the world has been using many types of trees and shape them not because that's their true way of growing in general. I presume one of the factor is, to suit the raw material in hand at that time to justify the existing movement. which is why 'we' tend to ignore the concept of naturalistic according to its species.
Does it even matter if we can represent a true form of an old tree/shape/style/story behind it regardless what species?
cheers.

 

[MichaelS]

I don't know how to answer that as I'm still making my way into the bonsai world . This thread opens my eyes.
But the real question is, without taking into account what species it is,how would you define it into which category ?

As of today, Bonsai artist around the world has been using many types of trees and shape them not because that's their true way of growing in general. I presume one of the factor is, to suit the raw material in hand at that time to justify the existing movement. which is why 'we' tend to ignore the concept of naturalistic according to its species.
Does it even matter if we can represent a true form of an old tree/shape/style/story behind it regardless what species?
cheers.

As far as I'm concerned, naturalistic means an image which in our minds we could view as something that was not created by human hands. Regardless of which species in which style. Obviously the above pagoda style (heavy horizontal main branches with lots of little braches springing from them like a lawn) does not qualify. However the first tree is closer. I have seen some old Eucalyptus similar to that. So I guess naturalism has an element of personal experience to it as well.

 

[Bonsai toto]

As far as I'm concerned, naturalistic means an image which in our minds we could view as something that was not created by human hands. Regardless of which species in which style. Obviously the above pagoda style (heavy horizontal main branches with lots of little braches springing from them like a lawn) does not qualify. However the first tree is closer. I have seen some old Eucalyptus similar to that. So I guess naturalism has an element of personal experience to it as well.

I have the same observation on that too. 1st tree looks more natural of somewhat between young to old looking tree with strong movement that can be justify as deciduous tree.

 

[M. Frary]

So.
Is there an American naturalistic style a European naturalistic style and Japanese naturalistic style?
Or just one?
Does any of it matter?

 

[Vance Wood]

So.
Is there an American naturalistic style a European naturalistic style and Japanese naturalistic style?
Or just one?
Does any of it matter?

That is the real question. I think we spend too much time trying to catch the wind and not enough time letting that wind fill our sails and drive us forward. We don't spend enough time studying the way nature expresses itself internally as well as externally to really make any solid judgement on the issue.

 

[Anthony]

The simplest way is to draw trees of the same type in nature,
if you choose mature / ancient / dying or just young.
Just look for the parts that are pleasing.

Then leave alone for a week or two and then draw an entire tree
from your head.

This is a technique called -------- Memory Drawing.

The mind will normally harmonise the information.

If you keep at, even 2 /3 /4/ x attempts on the same tree type will become
separate personalities.

The Fibonacci / Golden mean stuff, is what you apply to a finished
effort for analysis [ see the Secret Composition in Painting - book ] and unless you
are a very anal retentive painter. .........................
Most painters have this naturally and it occurs in the beginning stages
of a drawing, like breathing.
But not mathematically planned ------- Maybe N.Poussin.

Once again relax take some Art classes at an Atelier and you will stop
making Japanese multi copies.
See comments in 1950 News papers in China.
The remark was the conifer work of Japan was repetitive.
Good Day
Anthony

+ I thought this was about specifics - Juniper / Azalea ?

 

[Maros]

The whole idea that bonsai cannot look like natural trees is somewhat silly. It’s art. Using woody living plants.

If it's art than artist and only artist will decide how tree will look like. Only result will count at the end, if the bonsai is creating emotional response at the viewer or not.
Bonsai can look like tree from nature and be naturalistic, and if it's or it isn't naturalistic could be debatable. I would personally chose term "believable" for definition of naturalistic. So, if you look at the bonsai and you can believe that tree was grown into this form without human intervention, then I would consider it naturalistic. If tree is overdone, manicured, with structure which hardly resemble any natural structures of the real trees than it is not naturalistic.

So.
Is there an American naturalistic style a European naturalistic style and Japanese naturalistic style?

I think there could be local style, because obviously growth habits of trees could differ from continent to continent, country to country. Trees grow differently in 200 m above sea level, and differently in mountains 2000 m high. So US can easily have southern naturalistic style, coastal, mountain ...you name it. Same applies to Europe. Will we have it one day? I believe yes. Not because I or somebody want it. But because only if we are diverse we can grow. Anybody can take bonsai and add own local tradition into it and create freely. And we may end up with wider range of tastes and styles. Could it hurt our hobby in any way? Hardly. If it is deadend in our art, then it will dieback anyway. Only if it finds more followers and its audience it will survive. So time will tell.

 

[Lazylightningny]

Lol!!! Look at the picture of Dave De Groot’s book that Bill just posted! That azalea looks just like that Pine!

Actually, it looks just like your avatar!

 

[Adair M]

Actually, it looks just like your avatar!

Indeed it does! I like my Pine better! Lol! I need to finish pulling needles. Got halfway done, and haven’t been able to get back to it...

 

[wireme]

I would guess this tree grew straight upright as a shrub for a few decades then bent down to the right under it's own weight or a combination of other factors, but was protected from the prevailing wind by the rock , and after it grew above the rock, it began to get blasted by the wind coming from the right? That's what it looks like to me???

View attachment 168444

As for the spiralling, I'm not sure about root restriction causing it. Could be, but there are many Australian native plants for example which naturally spiral without any root restriction.
The point I was trying to make about bonsai styling though, was that we have images fixed into our heads due how we are taught, what we see others do, pressure to conform, embarrassment of doing something wrong or not being able to express what we intended to, the nature of the human eye which tends to seek out straight lines and evenness, the need to tidy up, not being able to recognise natural beauty (or maybe not being willing to accept it as beauty), and straight out lack of imagination. I'm caught up in all this just as much as everyone else is!
We often read that bonsai is all about removing what is not needed to leave the essence of the tree. (particularly in bunjin styles) But what exactly does that mean?
For example what and how much should you remove before you lose the essence? With the tree below, most of us would remove #1 or at the very least #2. The trunk crossing #3 would be a big problem, as would the 3 apices. Would we lose the essence of the tree if we did all those things? Does it matter? Personally I think it could matter depending on your point of view but to go down that road would really be swimming against the tide.
And yet, there sits the wonderful tree!

View attachment 168445

That juniper, the most common prevailing wind direction comes straight from the viewer into the tree, blows into it from our view. I'm thinking the bend into the slope is quite random and due to the way they grow in constricted conditions and the smaller stuff curving back is foliage chasing light trying to get back out into the open. Maybe utterly wrong. The rock face behind has a kind of small cirque feature maybe when the wind really blows it scoops out in your red arrow direction. Anyways if this was a bonsai in a pot I could imagine criticism because it appears windswept both ways and doesn't make sense. Sometimes I feel like defending some of the crazy weird trees that are criticized as too strange or "sculptural" to represent real trees. Trees like that famous juniper with the huge deadwood arch hanging over it maybe. When you get out into the kind of countryside that produces great yamadori you start to see a lot of weird and fantastical trees so let them be accepted bonsai forms I say. Ironically you also see quite a lot of trees as Adair says growing in near to classical shapes as well. The classic zig zag branch on outside of bend informal upright is not uncommon for example.
I do get what you have to say about the perfect domes and triangles etc though..and the others comments on plausibile vs convincing etc, interesting..

That tree you show by the canyon is super, really amazing tree. My only exposure to bonsai world is right here poking on a phone screen but there's not too many towns a person would get run out of by producing a tree like that is there? W.P. recently shared a bunch of pics on social media from Croatia with all sorts of things like #2 branch left on. Anyways we can all like different things but thanks for encouraging us to not get too stuck in the deep well travelled ruts all the time.