Design: The Divine Proportion and natural sequences

[qwade]

It may be that there are certain "factors" that we are wired to think are beautiful, and the golden ratio may be one of them. But, then you have to add on top of that your life experiences, what you are taught, the environment you grow up in, etc. So that would allow one person to see beauty in the old contorted tree while to another it is an eyesore. Or one person sees beauty in Picasso while others just see "WTF".

Chris

Now on this I could agree.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Guys I'm starting to get a little frustrated. This is a thread about design. It is a thread about one specific design theory.

Now if you want to say "I don't need to design I just wing it" or "I just know what I like - I'm not interested in trying to understand why" then this probably isn't the thread for you.

The last thing I want is every time we start a design thread we get people arguing about all the exceptions to every design principle on the planet. Sawgrass has suggested he is going to start a thread on perspective. If you don't understand it, that is one thing. But to say "perspective isn't for me" or "everyone sees perspective differently" is not helpful.

 

[bonsaiBlake]

My interest in the ratio began very young. Around 8-9 yrs old. We had this VHS "Donald duck in mathamagic land" To this day I still feel it explains the ratio better than another other single source. It starts at the begining with its discovery by Pythagoras through the pentagram and his observations in nature. The ratio actually lead to the modern 8 note musical scale. Discovered by creating nodes on a taut string. The ratio is found in practically all of da vinci's art, and most other of the rennosaunce artists. The masons and stone workers used its proportions in the building of churches and cathedrals. It is a tool which when properally applied will create something structurally sound or aesthetically beautiful. As ancient and important as fire.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '...must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarreling always comes very naturally to them,' and the York magicians had proved the truth of this for a number of years."

Susanna Clarke "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell"

 

[bonsaiBlake]

Thank goodness for you tube

Here it is guys. A Donald duck classic in Technicolor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJgkaU08VvY

It begins going into the Golden ratio at 7min.

 

[Smoke]

Guys I'm starting to get a little frustrated. This is a thread about design. It is a thread about one specific design theory.

Now if you want to say "I don't need to design I just wing it" or "I just know what I like - I'm not interested in trying to understand why" then this probably isn't the thread for you.

The last thing I want is every time we start a design thread we get people arguing about all the exceptions to every design principle on the planet. Sawgrass has suggested he is going to start a thread on perspective. If you don't understand it, that is one thing. But to say "perspective isn't for me" or "everyone sees perspective differently" is not helpful.

Thats because you are sorting out this premise with words instead of pictures. Show the pictures of trees of those that fit the sequence and why they do it, and then others can show you trees that don't fit the sequence that are every bit as beautiful or functional and let people make up there mind if the numbers are worth taking the fun out of bonsai or not.

From My perspective and thousands of pictures , literally, and the amount of Kokufu books, Gafu books, and keido books I own, for every tree you show me that fits, I can show 12 that don't.

This discussion has no outcome, it is as perpetual as your spiral gif.

This discussion has as much merit as with designing trees in 360 degrees. While I keep that thought in my mind while I work on my tree, I don't continue to cut off branches every time I turn the tree. I tried that once and came up with one hell of a sexy carrot!

 

[Bonsai Nut]

let people make up there mind if the numbers are worth taking the fun out of bonsai or not.

I don't think talking about design "takes the fun out of bonsai". Clearly you do. I will never be able to convince you of the value of learning basic design theory - and you will never convince me that it is valueless

 

[Smoke]

Apply any sequence to these.

 

[tmpgh]

So, this isn't a discussion that is about something being the only way to do something. It's about ONE way of doing something. There's no need to show the 12 which don't conform. We all know they exist (or think they do, or whatever...).

My frustrations last evening, however, remain. Where are photos of actual trees which follow the principle so that we can discuss the artistic merit of the idea? Isn't that the premise of the thread?

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Apply any sequence to these.

I would think three of them would be improved if they HAD more natural balance - and looked more like something you would find in nature.

 

[coh]

So, this isn't a discussion that is about something being the only way to do something. It's about ONE way of doing something. There's no need to show the 12 which don't conform. We all know they exist (or think they do, or whatever...).

My frustrations last evening, however, remain. Where are photos of actual trees which follow the principle so that we can discuss the artistic merit of the idea? Isn't that the premise of the thread?

The "12 which don't conform" may only appear to not conform at first glance. Perhaps there is something common to those trees that can be quantified. I won't pretend to know what it might be, though it could turn out just to be a more complicated application of the same basic principles.

 

[qwade]

Apply any sequence to these.

Well smoke. Lets go with the literati first..following the trunkline-- The distance from the base of the tree to the first bend to the right --- the distance from there until the second bend to the right___and then from there to the apex---roughly shows the ratio. Btw A very nice tree .

 

[bonsaiBlake]

Apply any sequence to these.

Gave it my damnedst. Most of them are actually pretty close the first one not as much. Its more of a guide guys not a rule. Very simply people find things within the ratio beautiful. Many artists create within the ratio without being aware of doing so. I found this very true early on in bonsai. When I started the "Golden Ratio" thread. I gave it up because despite the negative response and disbelief that the ratio has no place in bonsai, ITS EVERYWHERE from Kimura to Pall to Hagedorn to naka. everyone of them has a tree or multiple trees in the ratio, The famous Kimura planting on the slanted rock falls into it. The is no point in arguing fact. The ratio is everywhere. Whether you choose to feel that it is a factor that should be considered in bonsai is irrelevant the ratio was here before we knew what it was and it will keep on being a part of nature after we're gone. Since bonsai is a natural art you would have to intently try to remove the ratio and even then you wouldn't be able to, assuming a conifer exists on you bench regardless of species, the ratio is at work, in the development of whorls and branches, the growth pattern of the needles down the branch, and finally in the cone itself.
Young'n out.

 

[Smoke]

Gave it my damnedst. Most of them are actually pretty close the first one not as much. Its more of a guide guys not a rule. Very simply people find things within the ratio beautiful. Many artists create within the ratio without being aware of doing so. I found this very true early on in bonsai. When I started the "Golden Ratio" thread. I gave it up because despite the negative response and disbelief that the ratio has no place in bonsai, ITS EVERYWHERE from Kimura to Pall to Hagedorn to naka. everyone of them has a tree or multiple trees in the ratio, The famous Kimura planting on the slanted rock falls into it. The is no point in arguing fact. The ratio is everywhere. Whether you choose to feel that it is a factor that should be considered in bonsai is irrelevant the ratio was here before we knew what it was and it will keep on being a part of nature after we're gone. Since bonsai is a natural art you would have to intently try to remove the ratio and even then you wouldn't be able to, assuming a conifer exists on you bench regardless of species, the ratio is at work, in the development of whorls and branches, the growth pattern of the needles down the branch, and finally in the cone itself.


Young'n out.

You guys are missing the huge point.

No one will disagree with finding a sequence in a tree after it is designed. A chimp can do that given enogh instruction and an endless supply of banana's. Show me the artists out there styling trees with a ruler and a sliderule. Not all bonsai is about natural. I would say most of it is stylized in fact.

I would suggest using the trees I posted and doing virtuals on how they might be improved using the sequence. In fact if some could even verbalize that it would be cool.

Once again to quote Greg: it would be cool if some advocates could explain why these trees are not natural even though they are mostly unchanged since their days in the wild and are "natural" growing plants.

"I would think three of them would be improved if they HAD more natural balance - and looked more like something you would find in nature."

I do not see how this advances the dialog either.

If all that is necessary to making better bonsai is the application of a ratio, then once again a chimp might do it with more banana's. These rules you so eloquently speak of may be universal and etched in stone as deeply as physics, but not everyone is Hawking.

I propose a deconstructing of the trees I posted and make them more deftly fit the Golden Section so they might be more to the liking of nature. Since the rules are everywhere and as old as the universe itself, this should be a very easy exercise for its advocates.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

It doesn't have to be a spiral. The spiral is simply one application of the series in a circular fashion. It can be linear (like my example of branch spacing), or simply a ratio of height to width, placement of a pot on an empty mat, etc.

Let me create a couple of examples and post them. It will take me a while...

 

[Smoke]

Well smoke. Lets go with the literati first..following the trunkline-- The distance from the base of the tree to the first bend to the right --- the distance from there until the second bend to the right___and then from there to the apex---roughly shows the ratio. Btw A very nice tree .

Nice try...but how much of that has the artist had control over? Explain your lines and how they fit the sequence for those not so educated in the process. Greg seems to want more details and I will continue until I am satisfied if that is what it takes. Explain how the ratio is divided and what the reasons for the points like trunk bends in making this ratio fit the tree. I mean if we are going to arbitrarily pick points like trunk bends, jins, etc, etc. then anyone should be able to apply a ratio to any tree. I'm sure I can find enough trunk bends in a really shitty tree to fit a ratio. Is this making sense?

Lets all compare apples and apples in the future.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think talking about design "takes the fun out of bonsai". Clearly you do. I will never be able to convince you of the value of learning basic design theory - and you will never convince me that it is valueless

I think this is pretty closeminded. I never said basic design theory is useless. On the contrary it is fundamental to making good bonsai as well as composing good displays, building good stands etc etc. I think I have shown plenty enough samples af all of those ideals over the years.

I may be stumbleing over the idea of building bonsai by the numbers. That is what I get from your discussion and I am a more by the seat of your pants kinda guy. We may differ on how we get there, but I know I get there.

All of the individual components of design theory are combined into the Golden Section at one point or another. Like the visual speed of branch spaceing getting smaller and shorter as it ascends the tree, or the visual depth of back branches and the appealing aspects of negative space. All of these single attributes can be seen in your spiral gif. There is no denying this, and I won't try to.

My point which seems to be very small is that I can't for the life of me list anyone who is doing bonsai by taking a piece of rough stock, putting tape markers on the tree and then start working the tree trying like hell to make it conform to some ratio in the pursuit of an artistic bonsai. Am I over thinking this or what?

 

[tmpgh]

I think you may be over thinking it, Smoke. I think the point is that this may be something that we can think about when making decisions. Do I cut branch A or B? Well, A is about 1/3 up the trunk while B is just 1/4, for an over simplified example. Or we could look at the way a branch is ramifying and consider how the ratio might help make a better looking pad.

However, I'm still looking for just one photo of a tree on which the artist may have done so.

 

[Anthony]

Al,

just a bit of fun.
Added on design.
Good Day
Anthony

 

[bdwarner]

For those of you interested in this subject perhaps the books "Geometry in Nature" or "the Geometry of Flowers" may be a good read for you. Although I don't believe they talk about bonsai I do believe one touches on the growth of trees. My girlfriend has them both, very interesting.