Different pads shape, what are the basic rules

[Ugo]

Hi everyone!

I decided to begin my bonsai journey about a year ago, my main focus this year was to make all my big collection of 4 pre-bonsai trees survive , help the trees get in better health, and do some basic work myself towards the simple designs I imagine.
I started from zero and I didn't want to spend time looking at all the different bonsai rules while my trees are dying due to lack of basic horticultural knowledge.
It was fun and judging by the results I can say Mission accomplish for now so its time to go a little bit deeper in the subject of styling.

I looked at pictures of the different styles seen trees in person, worked a little bit on my trees and I've learned that once you have a clear idea of the 'final' style of a tree you can work towards that goal more specifically.
Seeing the tree in the future is important.
One thing I have learned is that there's is key points that influence the choice of style of a specific tree, major work aside, basic characteristics of the tree will be taken in consideration before choosing a style (Thanks captain obvious)

I hope I'm not confused here but one thing I observed that sometimes remain similar regardless the style of a chosen species it is the secondary/tertiary branches placement giving pads formation.
For example a cascade styled juniper can have pretty much the same secondary, tertiary branching as another juniper styled as an informal upright.

I don't have the chance often to see advanced bonsai specimen in person but when I do I take my time to look at different angles and at the "styles" of the pads if I can say it that way, the shape either viewed from the top or the sides given by the placement of the secondary and tertiary branches.

They pads always have basic profiles like a triangle, a diamond a water droplet.

Can you help me get the guidelines on how secondary and tertiary branches should be "normally" placed to create a specific pad shape?
How many time or form of pad shape are commonly used? I described 3 (is there a name for theses forms in bonsai?) but I'm sure there more.
Is there guidelines that will influence the artist choice for specific shape, what normally dictate the choice pad form?

Search doesn't seems to be my friend or maybe I don't express myself correctly?
A more visual example will be theses 2 pictures:
They are different styles, two different artists , a deciduous and a conifer but when one is not in leaf's and the other has been pruned I could take the branches of one and place it on the other without a major clash in the overall look, they have the same structure from side view.
The tertiary ramification is shorter on the juniper but the "overall" shape especially the lowest branches are similar






Thanks for your help
Ugo

 

[Shibui]

Need to be careful contrasting work from different growers and trying to make general assumptions. Each grower interprets bonsai individually so the results, especially differences, can just be from personal preference, interpretation of guidelines or differences in training.
Many bonsai have been styled to look like bonsai rather than to look like great examples of the species in miniature. Just look at all the S shaped Chinese elms that are sold commercially.
You may even see debate about what is desirable. I know there has been some fierce debate in recent years about whether down swept branches are really desirable for deciduous bonsai.
Personally I try to make my bonsai look as natural as possible so I've got past worrying about triangles or rounded branch pads.

I spend a lot of time analysing mature trees to try to pick out certain things that characterize that particular species in order to incorporate those features in to my bonsai. Sometimes that seems to be angles of branching, sometimes shape of the foliage pads, sometimes overall outline of the canopy.

The triangle seems to feature heavily in older Western bonsai teaching. Whether that was really from Japanese teaching at the time or just some Westerner interpretation that was introduced out here I don't know. Recently a new group of bonsai growers are pushing a far more relaxed and natural styling school. Even bonsai styling in Japan and China has changed over time. Some illustrations of bonsai from years ago look nothing like current bonsai styles.

Definitely read and learn but in the end make trees that look good to you.

Some things almost always seem to give better results:
Tapering growth. Try to get taper not only in trunks but also as you develop branches and branch pads.
Alternating branching where possible. Not only applies to branches on the trunk but also to secondary and tertiary branching. The illustration of top view above has all opposite secondary growth which will never look great. (I guess it was just a quick illustration of a concept but serves as a good pointer for branch layout)
Maintain a theme. If the trunk has bends the same forces should have acted while the branches were developing so we expect to see branches with similar bends. Straight branches on twisted trunks just does not work aesthetically. If some branches on a tree are down swept most others should follow similar lines except closer to the apex

 

[Ugo]

Hello,

You are right about my comparison of the work above, thanks for figuring out a polite way to make me understand.
I meant no disrespect to the creative artist but I was trying to figure out why I was seeing examples of trees with this type of pad formation.
Were there rules to follow, why one tree had its branches formed into pads rather than another which has a more natural look.

But your answer clarifies the point.
I will be honest, I didn't think bonsai could be so related to art.
Knowing not much about bonsai I used to believe that trees were trained to look as much like tall mature trees, but I see now that the work done on a tree can also express a particular vision or feeling of the artist like other art form.
One artist I always spent countless hours looking as his work is Walter Pall. I tend to enjoy the esthetic of a natural looking tree, the level of detail he is able to achieve is impressive.

Preference aside! You are absolutely right about the drawing above, the branches should be alternated, I made this drawing too quickly, as you knew already my goal was to show the branches length difference I sometimes observe, my apologies.

Also thank you very much for giving me some basic rules. They will be really useful and help me understand bonsai styling better.
I don't necessary want to impose myself boundaries already but knowing the rules sometimes let you appreciate them more when they are bended.

Definitely read and learn but in the end make trees that look good to you.

Some things almost always seem to give better results:
Tapering growth. Try to get taper not only in trunks but also as you develop branches and branch pads.
Alternating branching where possible. Not only applies to branches on the trunk but also to secondary and tertiary branching. The illustration of top view above has all opposite secondary growth which will never look great. (I guess it was just a quick illustration of a concept but serves as a good pointer for branch layout)
Maintain a theme. If the trunk has bends the same forces should have acted while the branches were developing so we expect to see branches with similar bends. Straight branches on twisted trunks just does not work aesthetically. If some branches on a tree are down swept most others should follow similar lines except closer to the apex

 

[Shogun610]

It’s good to read, and research traditional fundamentals of styling/aesthetic. Each type of tree whether Deciduous or Conifer will will have their unique style guide rails… it’s also good to go look at nature trees in wild too for a naturalistic / directional approach as well. But you cannot bend the rules until you know them front and back. Like for example you wouldn’t style a spruce or larch like you would a pine.. and you wouldn’t style a maple like a crab apple based upon their natural growth habits for how they’d appear in nature, along with functionality for what your intentionality is if that makes sense. Watch Mirai , Bjorn, Mauro , Walter Pall , Todd Schlafer, Peter Tea, Sherrod …etc.. so many examples on Instagram or YouTube you can check out to see their interpretations. It’s also good to read Japanese bonsai books to Nick Lenz bonsai in wild. You incorporate what you want to express.. but all these people above have had some fundamental/ and generalizations… they are able to form their own style because they are experts at fundamentals of design and horticultural techniques to carry out their work. Personally I like the naturalistic style for both deciduous and coniferous but also like to have some fundamental guide rails carry out that end result that derives form traditional techniques. Hope this helps

 

[*tree*]

I like naturalistic design so I don't care that much about the japanese rules. If you look at Rocky mountain or Sierra junipers, or on bristlecones and whitebarks, you will notice that they often don't have any pads and the branching looks kind of randomized. So look at nature.

 

[Shogun610]

I like naturalistic design so I don't care that much about the japanese rules. If you look at Rocky mountain or Sierra junipers, or on bristlecones and whitebarks, you will notice that they often don't have any pads and the branching looks kind of randomized. So look at nature.

Agreed nature is a good template, however rules such as repotting , horticulture , style , design (which mimics nature) I’m only listing a few categories of rules… one must know the fundamentals in order to break them.

 

[rockm]

I like naturalistic design so I don't care that much about the japanese rules. If you look at Rocky mountain or Sierra junipers, or on bristlecones and whitebarks, you will notice that they often don't have any pads and the branching looks kind of randomized. So look at nature.

Not caring about Japanese "rules: is unfortunate. Those "rules" are not really rules, but techniques that have been used to make trees visually appealing to humans. Simply saying "look at nature" is misleading. Nature has rules, as well, many of those rules make trees look odd, confusing, or ridiculous. NO Rocky Mountain, Sierra juniper or collected tree that becomes bonsai in experienced hands ignores visual rules. They are styled by the likes of Walter Pall, Ryan Neil, even Nick Lenz with human viewers in mind. They are organized according to those rules. Japanese trees can look extremely manicured, or not...depends on who is doing them.

The short answer is use the "rules" to your advantage. Understand WHY they're used and not simply ignore them.

 

[dbonsaiw]

I will be honest, I didn't think bonsai could be so related to art.

Yup. The horticultural aspects keep our trees alive and happy. The elements of any particular bonsai, however, is all art. I like to compare bonsai to painting or sculpting. If we choose one of these art forms, we can create the impression of a tree out of oil on canvass or from marble. Every aspect of the subject tree is what we consciously place on the subject. Bonsai is the same, except that instead of creating a tree from oil paint, we are creating a tree from a tree. (Somewhat ironic).

They pads always have basic profiles like a triangle, a diamond a water droplet.

I'm very much still a beginner, but I sense some confusion here. I believe what you are describing is the overall shape of the canopy, and not specifically the style of the tree nor the formation of specific branches. Tree canopies typically have these shapes, regardless of the style or species of the bonsai. The style of the tree will largely be defined by the trunk, not the branches. Once we have a trunk shape, we can develop branches to form the specific canopy, which will basically always be some sort of triangle/wine glass shape.

When I hear "pads" I think conifer. Deciduous branching is not typically developed to form "pads". The difference has to do with the differences in foliage produced. Conifers have these shorter "pads" of foliage that when viewed from afar create the triangle canopy. Deciduous foliage grows much fuller and so we can develop something more like a full hedge of foliage and there is no need for pads.

The term commonly associated with branch development is ramification. By pruning branches back, we can get them to divide again and again, creating taper, shorter internodes and the awesome structure we see on award winning trees. The pads or whatever are developed from there.

I spend a lot of time analysing mature trees to try to pick out certain things that characterize that particular species in order to incorporate those features in to my bonsai. Sometimes that seems to be angles of branching, sometimes shape of the foliage pads, sometimes overall outline of the canopy.

This may not have made a whole lot of sense to me a year ago, but a more helpful statement is hard to find. I would suggest looking at other bonsai trees as well. If the features of the tree are there only because I as the artist put them there and I can't sketch out what I imagine the tree to look like in the future, then how on earth can I develop my tree? It's the artistic notions of perspective, symmetry/asymmetry, proportions etc. that will define the tree. So we need to have a firmer grasp of what we are trying to develop if we hope to actually develop that.

I like naturalistic design so I don't care that much about the japanese rules.

Sounds like you may not be a fan of Japanese aesthetic. But the "Japanese" rules are what have been developed over a thousand years to develop bonsai. Tried and true. They are Japanese only because that's where the art thrived. Perhaps you are drawing a distinction between the squiggly Chinese Elm and a Walter Pall tree. I don't believe Mr. Pall reinvented bonsai or abandoned Japanese "rules". He merely adapted these rules to what we may call a naturalistic or more western aesthetic.

I too prefer the Western aesthetic, but there is much to be learned from the "S" tree. Personally, I find it easier to develop taper and movement with an "S" shape and it is easier to figure out branch placement and the canopy generally. From my untrained eye studying Walter Pall's trees I see him evaluating each tree and its specific branches on a one-off basis. The "S" shape will follow standard procedures. Mr. Pall's trees each have a more or less individualized approach. Pulling off the realistic naturalistic tree, at least to me, has additional difficulties because you can't just look at one of the thousands of other "S" shaped trees. These types of trees also tend to rely on a much more fantastic base than anything near what I am working with and don't necessarily follow the same rules of taper that make sense in other styles.

 

[Zelrod]

Most people consider Japan the leader in Bonsai and it's because of their techniques that Bonsai has grown to what it is globally. Keep in mind people that live on the east cost of the US do not see ancient pines hanging from a crack on the edge of a cliff in an asymmetrical triangle. I look at a Japanese cascade and can appreciate everything that it took to be styled in that form. I don't know trees that look like a mount Fuji shaped trident maple. I prefer more natural trunk widths comparted to the height of the tree.

Even with natural designs there are many Japanese techniques that can be used to achieve the goal you are pursuing. Also not every bonsai artist creates the same looking trees even using the same principles. Dan Robinson's trees are very impressive but they are mostly abstract designs with prominent deadwood. Most of his trees are yamadori which means you can't follow the rules as closely as with cultivated materials. In the end you should create what you like.

Bonsai has techniques like photography and graphic design. Typically things that follow the rules look better than things that don't.

 

[rockm]

Most people consider Japan the leader in Bonsai and it's because of their techniques that Bonsai has grown to what it is globally. Keep in mind people that live on the east cost of the US do not see ancient pines hanging from a crack on the edge of a cliff in an asymmetrical triangle. I look at a Japanese cascade and can appreciate everything that it took to be styled in that form. I don't know trees that look like a mount Fuji shaped trident maple. I prefer more natural trunk widths comparted to the height of the tree.

Even with natural designs there are many Japanese techniques that can be used to achieve the goal you are pursuing. Also not every bonsai artist creates the same looking trees even using the same principles. Dan Robinson's trees are very impressive but they are mostly abstract designs with prominent deadwood. Most of his trees are yamadori which means you can't follow the rules as closely as with cultivated materials. In the end you should create what you like.

Bonsai has techniques like photography and graphic design. Typically things that follow the rules look better than things that don't.

"Keep in mind people that live on the east cost of the US do not see ancient pines hanging from a crack on the edge of a cliff in an asymmetrical triangle."

Sure we do. There are literally thousands of mountaintops along the Appalachians where that happens. No we don't have trees like those from the Rockies, since we lack the sheer altitude (and accompanying intense UV sunlight) ad heavy snow cover there that abuses the trees out there. We do have places like the Niagara escarpment --where battered eastern white cedar much like the alpine junipers from out west have been sourced for bonsai for decades. The Western slope of the Appalachians in Pennsylvania and the Adirondacks New York produce snarled pitch pine, while the Shenandoah Valley in Va. has Table Mountain Pine.

These species have mostly been forgotten by the rush to buy old collected western conifers.

Dan Robinson's trees are not abstract if you ask him...they're natural.

 

[Shogun610]

"Keep in mind people that live on the east cost of the US do not see ancient pines hanging from a crack on the edge of a cliff in an asymmetrical triangle."

Sure we do. There are literally thousands of mountaintops along the Appalachians where that happens. No we don't have trees like those from the Rockies, since we lack the sheer altitude (and accompanying intense UV sunlight) ad heavy snow cover there that abuses the trees out there. We do have places like the Niagara escarpment --where battered eastern white cedar much like the alpine junipers from out west have been sourced for bonsai for decades. The Western slope of the Appalachians in Pennsylvania and the Adirondacks New York produce snarled pitch pine, while the Shenandoah Valley in Va. has Table Mountain Pine.

These species have mostly been forgotten by the rush to buy old collected western conifers.

Dan Robinson's trees are not abstract if you ask him...they're natural.

Not forgotten by me

 

[*tree*]

It was meant with a little exaggeration. The branches look randomized, but they are definitely not. However, the reasons why they look so are so complex, that I, since last year, allways shape new trees according to real, full-grown trees. It may be an extreme, but I think they will look good when established.

 

[*tree*]

I'm putting together some """"rules"""" of broom style trees, like what causes, that they are visually bigger, or that thay look small but old (not only the zelkova brooms, but as well beech brooms, oak, and so forth, they look different). Then I will try it out.

 

[BobbyLane]

I'm putting together some """"rules"""" of broom style trees, like what causes, that they are visually bigger, or that thay look small but old (not only the zelkova brooms, but as well beech brooms, oak, and so forth, they look different). Then I will try it out.

This is a good guide, there is a section on brooms if you scroll down

Styling: The Basic Forms of Bonsai – Bonsai 4 Me

bonsai4me.com

 

[Zelrod]

"Keep in mind people that live on the east cost of the US do not see ancient pines hanging from a crack on the edge of a cliff in an asymmetrical triangle."

Sure we do. There are literally thousands of mountaintops along the Appalachians where that happens. No we don't have trees like those from the Rockies, since we lack the sheer altitude (and accompanying intense UV sunlight) ad heavy snow cover there that abuses the trees out there. We do have places like the Niagara escarpment --where battered eastern white cedar much like the alpine junipers from out west have been sourced for bonsai for decades. The Western slope of the Appalachians in Pennsylvania and the Adirondacks New York produce snarled pitch pine, while the Shenandoah Valley in Va. has Table Mountain Pine.

These species have mostly been forgotten by the rush to buy old collected western conifers.

Dan Robinson's trees are not abstract if you ask him...they're natural.

You really excel at finding things to argue about. Yes there are mountains and trees on the east coast. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Create trees that you like. Foliage like an asymmetrical triangle which is what made bonsai what it is or something more familiar to where you live.

I'm saying Dan Robinson's trees do not fit the mold of Japanese Bonsai but they are very inspirational and amazing.

 

[*tree*]

This is what I have found about the brooms:
1. The longer trung and smaller crown, the smaller the tree tends to look.
2. More continuous primary branching often causes the tree to look smaller, because you usually look at a bigger tree from a longer distance, so the primary branching looks more like all branches emerge from the same point. Also the primary branches thicken so the branching hides.
3. Irregular shape - smaller and older tree.
4. And the thicker trunk and smaller crown, the smaller the tree tree usually looks, because the trunk can't be infinitely thick.
But this largely depends on species, so take it with a grain of salt.
Then, about the species, english oak creates continuous branching with some branches lower on the trunk, even if it has a lot of space.
European oak makes a lot of trunks going upwards and the side branches grow from them. But this everything is only what I have so far put together, there are so many more things to figure out.
(I should probably write this as well to the broom forum)

 

[BobbyLane]

Thats not just with brooms its with pretty much everything. a wider, extending canopy makes a trunk look smaller, while a small, tight canopy accentuates the trunk. A wide pancake nebari makes the tree look smaller while a powerful nebari close to the trunk appears to make the trunk more powerful.
An irregular crown can make a tree look old, that depends if the branches are done properly. an irregular crown can make a tree appear more natural while a more manicured to shape crown can make it appear like it was done by man.
you should check out Walter palls series with Sandev bonsai, some of these topics are discussed.

 

[dansai]

It's always interesting to see discussions about "the rules" of bonsai. Some say you need to know them to break them. Others say they are just guidelines. Others say f the rules. My understanding is that neither of theses really approach what they are or where they came from.

The horticulture of plants/trees in pots has come a long way and essentially a Bonsai needs to be kept alive. The "rules" around this have changed significantly over time as better technique, newer mediums, understanding of fertilisation and what it is that what we are trying to achieve have changed. The original trees that were considered Bonsai were very old collected trees that were grown and developed slowly. We now like to grow our trees quicker to develop thicker trunks, better taper, more density, better health, etc... Hence the "rules" of horticulture need to be adapted.

When it comes to design, those "rules" (at least my understanding) were a way to introduce Americans to Bonsai following the occupation of Japan after WWII and the influx of Bonsai to the US that followed. Like any Art, there are guidelines to things like Line, Form, Balance, Fullness, Space, etc. that were set out to help with understanding how to appreciate, design and grow Bonsai. Was Japan following these "rules"? I highly doubt it.

And then there is the original post that was asking questions on how to develop pads. I would say your drawing above is a good start to understand some concepts. The drawing on the left shows a well developed pad with a main branchlike and smaller branches coming off it to fill the space. The drawing on the left shows a flattened 2d branch. Shibui has already mentions about the secondaries being opposite, but the other thing I noticed is that they are all perpendicular to the main branch. This is not what your other picture shows, where they actually leave the main branch at an angle heading outwards. This is what tress will usually do as they head outwards towards the light.

The other 2 points I would make is the lack of branches on the top of the branch in the second picture. These can be shorter than the side branches but can be used to fill in the volume of the pad. The second is the lack of movement in the main branch and secondaries. If you are going for a strict formal upright (very difficult design to pull off well) that may be fine, but some movement is usually desirable to give depth and volume while also shortening the branch. It is often difficult to see this it pictures in books or the internet. Try looking for videos where artists show you more in depth about how to build a pad.