"Elephant Foot" Maple

[A Random User]

Sorry, wanted to clarify... this is the internet, so often a message gets lost...
I appreciate the input, even if it is opposition to what I have done.

I understand that perhaps for some a "broom" style is not supposed to have perhaps downward facing branching, and that's cool... I just think the tree benefits from having them, seeing that it compacts the tree and if this no longer qualifies the tree as a "broom" style for others, I am cool with that. For me, it still retains the properties of a broom style.

As the artist, the very first flaw I saw with the tree is that it had to much real estate in the trunk. I don't think one needs such a long trunk to tell the story of the tree, and seeing that there is not much other interest within the trunk that needs showing... I felt it best to try and draw the viewer's eye away from it after the first 10 inches...

Seeing I have decided not to reduce the height of the trunk for horticulture means, I decided that the next best thing would be to then bring down the branching into this area, to take the viewer's attention away from this area.

The tree now is more compact, as previously mentioned, still holds the same amount of material, yet at the same time holds much more power.

 

[iant]

I see why you did it and there are lots that would agree. I think it's an old debate out there that there are those that don't mind conifer styling in a D tree and there are those that feel that it doesn't look quite as natural. There's plenty of room for different styling opinions.
Ian

 

[ColinFraser]

Sorry, wanted to clarify... this is the internet, so often a message gets lost...
I appreciate the input, even if it is opposition to what I have done.

I understand that perhaps for some a "broom" style is not supposed to have perhaps downward facing branching, and that's cool... I just think the tree benefits from having them, seeing that it compacts the tree and if this no longer qualifies the tree as a "broom" style for others, I am cool with that. For me, it still retains the properties of a broom style.

As the artist, the very first flaw I saw with the tree is that it had to much real estate in the trunk. I don't think one needs such a long trunk to tell the story of the tree, and seeing that there is not much other interest within the trunk that needs showing... I felt it best to try and draw the viewer's eye away from it after the first 10 inches...

Seeing I have decided not to reduce the height of the trunk for horticulture means, I decided that the next best thing would be to then bring down the branching into this area, to take the viewer's attention away from this area.

The tree now is more compact, as previously mentioned, still holds the same amount of material, yet at the same time holds much more power.

Yes, I think the goal is the same either way - something happening down lower. The difference of opinion (and that's all it is) is simply how to get there. Here's an alternate, just for fun.


My initial reaction was decidedly not "this doesn't fit the 'broom' form or style" - it was much more "something feels unnatural."

 

[Cadillactaste]

I remember seeing pictures of a similar thing with a ficus- drilled out the chop, leaving the cambium around a cavity, notched it, and then cinched the whole thing up to a smaller diameter . . . I think it was on Bnut. . .

I believe Dario did that...and got a lot of slack. I actually updated with new photos...and got a lot of slack. Poink88 I think was his name under the forum. Found the link...photos were removed...but I added some at the end of the thread post. Before realizing this would blow up. I thought it ingenious...I'm not sure if Stacy is friends with Dario...But there I believe was a Cypress as Vin suggested that also was done I thought after this.
http://bonsainut.com/index.php?thre...ee-without-potential.10279/page-5#post-160835

 

[Stickroot]

Yes, I think the goal is the same either way - something happening down lower. The difference of opinion (and that's all it is) is simply how to get there. Here's an alternate, just for fun.
View attachment 87409

My initial reaction was decidedly not "this doesn't fit the 'broom' form or style" - it was much more "something feels unnatural."

 

[Cadillactaste]

Man. We should have a gambling option here. And I don't gamble.

But I Got $20 on the quoted is the path to righteousness.

But it's Sawgrass so I got $20 on a chop too!

And 50 cents on it weeps!

Sorce

It will be interesting to see what direction Stacy takes...he has a passion for particular styles...weeping one of them. You can sort of point out a tree that is his...by his typical style he sets to each.

Enjoy the journey Stacy...

 

[Cadillactaste]

I know Vin was right about another thread with a bolt...But I can't seem to locate it. Sorry...better luck to another.

 

[ColinFraser]

View attachment 87410

Is this a "mic-drop" or did you forget to type something?!

 

[A Random User]

I see why you did it and there are lots that would agree. I think it's an old debate out there that there are those that don't mind conifer styling in a D tree and there are those that feel that it doesn't look quite as natural. There's plenty of room for different styling opinions.
Ian

I understand that there is the old argument of not styling a deciduous tree as a conifer.

However, I am have not styled this tree as a conifer. The whole "pine" argument is base upon the notion of creating a pyramid shaped tree, without a rounded canopy. There are deciduous trees that do in fact have down turned branching coming off of the trunk... and it is actually quite common, not all deciduous tree's branching shoot straight up.

 

[Cadillactaste]

I tend to agree...some have branches that hang lower in mature trees...Amur Maple for example.

 

[A Random User]

I was thinking along these lines...

 

[iant]

Yes you can find examples but check out the starting angles as the branches start from the trunk.

 

[A Random User]

Yes you can find examples but check out the starting angles as the branches start from the trunk.

View attachment 87420

What about the other 3?
If one can with a 30 second Google search pull off images... without even stepping outside to take a look, I think it would be safe to say, then one can have some downward facing branching and one has not created a pine.

These arguments are silly... people are always trying to set rules, and sometimes nature just does not want to play by these rules.

Side note... you would be happy to know out of all the branching coming off of this tree, only one branch does not go up before going down. That one goes straight out, then down. So, I am not really sure why we are discussing it?

 

[Jeremy]

I see merit in both sides of the argument. Isn't Bonsai an artistic expression? Doesn't the term 'cookie-cutter' stem from countless trees being styled in a similar manner...the result of conforming to rules/guidelines.
If bonsai is about replicating exactly what we see in nature, what is the point? Why not just photograph those trees for enjoyment. I think the deciduous/upright branching debate is a moot point when the majority of D trees we see are not mature. When branching becomes so massive the weight will lower them.

Stacy, the first thing I thought when I saw your tree was of the Ancient Oaks, which you have included a photo of. I like it, and actually prefer this sort of styling for a 'broom' style. IMO a lot of brooms are quite rigid with straight branching because they are too tight to get in and wire once they ramify. Having the dropping branches allows for a fuller, rounder canopy and you've already introduced movement to the branching. Just my opinion but I am yet to see a nice broom in person, most look like topiary/hedges. <---- that is not a can of worms, please don't open it lol

 

[music~maker]

What about the other 3?
If one can with a 30 second Google search pull off images... without even stepping outside to take a look, I think it would be safe to say, then one can have some downward facing branching and one has not created a pine.

These arguments are silly... people are always trying to set rules, and sometimes nature just does not want to play by these rules.

Side note... you would be happy to know out of all the branching coming off of this tree, only one branch does not go up before going down. That one goes straight out, then down. So, I am not really sure why we are discussing it?

My rule of thumb is this - if I can find at least one example in nature that exhibits at a macro scale what my tree does at a miniature scale, it's fair game. Especially if it's the same or similar enough species! As long as it looks good to me and is technically possible to find in nature, I don't give a damn what the rules say, or what anyone else thinks about it. ;-)

I see all kinds of weird trees that I love, but I know if I were to reproduce them (or even certain elements of them) people would say exactly the kinds of things they're saying to you now.

I find it interesting that we get so used to following the rules for creating trees that we seem to judge the artistic merit of other trees people's trees based almost entirely on these rules. For me, literally the only thing that matters is "does this look like a plausible miniature tree?" Rules are good guidelines, and will help one create a plausible miniature, but when I look around in nature, there are as many beautiful exceptions to the rules as there are trees that follow them.

If you let the branches run and continue to wire curves into them as they grow, I think this can become a very interesting little tree, and should capture the essence of some of those pictures you posted. I probably would have waited to put it in a bonsai pot until after the branches were further developed, but I think your design is certainly sound.

 

[music~maker]

Yes, I think the goal is the same either way - something happening down lower. The difference of opinion (and that's all it is) is simply how to get there. Here's an alternate, just for fun.
View attachment 87409

My initial reaction was decidedly not "this doesn't fit the 'broom' form or style" - it was much more "something feels unnatural."

I like your virt, but I think you're comparing apples & oranges. In the pic on the right, you've drawn thick, properly developed major branches. I suspect if you were to draw over stacy's outline and artificially age his branches with photoshop to thicken them up similar to yours, it would look a lot more natural.

fwiw, I actually think both designs work well - they're just creating two different trees. I've definitely seen both types around outside.

 

[A Random User]

Again, I want to thank Ian for his views, I am not trying to have argument, and not trying to defend my work.

We just hold different views of how things should be done and there is nothing wrong with this.

From my own perspective, I think that if I was clearly trying to style the tree as a pine, I can get where for some there might be opposition... but, I think the image I am going for clearly is representative of what a deciduous tree would could look like and often does if one was to look at some of the photos of examples of trees in nature, that I have posted.

Now on the flip side, I would have to argue that for me the image and it's appearance will always over rule any rules... the reasoning behind this logic, is that it is more important to make a nice piece of Art, seeing this is art, than it is to be correct regarding rules.

This has been the underlying theme regarding a lot of the posts and threads I have posted as of lately. In places like Japan... rules are merely suggested guidelines. They are broken all of the time. When one is a student of the Art, these rules are important because one is learning. When one becomes a practitioner of the Art, one understands the rules, but makes the Art.

 

[iant]

FWIW I don't think I said anything about rules. When I brought it up I said that there were differing views on this subject. I think this is a friendly difference of opinion.
It was simply my opinion that the immediately downpointing branches can look a little odd (to me) on some D trees. I can still appreciate a tree styled that way and you're all welcome to do it.
I think Sawgrass and I respectfully agree to disagree on this one and that's fine. But there's no need to start a rebel movement here.... I'm not a member of the bonsai rule police
Ian

 

[A Random User]

My rule of thumb is this - if I can find at least one example in nature that exhibits at a macro scale what my tree does at a miniature scale, it's fair game. Especially if it's the same or similar enough species! As long as it looks good to me and is technically possible to find in nature, I don't give a damn what the rules say, or what anyone else thinks about it. ;-)

I see all kinds of weird trees that I love, but I know if I were to reproduce them (or even certain elements of them) people would say exactly the kinds of things they're saying to you now.

I find it interesting that we get so used to following the rules for creating trees that we seem to judge the artistic merit of other trees people's trees based almost entirely on these rules. For me, literally the only thing that matters is "does this look like a plausible miniature tree?" Rules are good guidelines, and will help one create a plausible miniature, but when I look around in nature, there are as many beautiful exceptions to the rules as there are trees that follow them.

If you let the branches run and continue to wire curves into them as they grow, I think this can become a very interesting little tree, and should capture the essence of some of those pictures you posted. I probably would have waited to put it in a bonsai pot until after the branches were further developed, but I think your design is certainly sound.

You bring up an interesting point regarding the waiting to repot till further development of the branching...

Often when working material, it is best to usually concentrate on one area at a time. So, if roots need work, as this tree does, you work on these, if large wounds need healing over, one works on these, if one needs to branching you work on this... reason for this is that one needs to try and divert the energy of the tree to the area needing work, which means taking away energy from another location. So, usually one will want to work one at a time.

However, sometimes when a piece of material needs all of these as this tree does... what I have found is that sometimes you have to do just the opposite. Reason being if you try and solve one problem, often you will actually in the process create other problems where there were none.

I will give you an example. .. so if I want to heal over b the large chop wounds, the easiest and fastest way, would be to let leaders grow and allow this growth to heal these over. The problem then is that you have allowed these to thicken up and be out of scale with the rest of the tree. So, you will need to then cut and regrow and now work on this area...

So, then the approach I have taken is to work all of them at the sane time. This route is a much much slower approach, seeing that you are in essence, keeping the tree's energy balanced. But, what this allows for is that because one is working them all, by the time the chop wounds have healed, the branching is finished, and so are the roots. This tree needs years and years of ramification, it also is going to require lots of grafting to both the trunk and the roots. So, if I start on all of this now and not wait... by the time this is anywhere near close to being done, the chops will of slowly healed over as well.

Now, with that said, I would of liked to of waited to do the root work till after any fear of freezes, but thought it best to go forward regardless. It needed to be potted and did not want the tree to go through the stress of having work done only to put it in a pot without doing the work, to then later this spring take it out again and add more stress. Best, just to do all at once and then let recover.

 

[A Random User]

FWIW I don't think I said anything about rules. When I brought it up I said that there were differing views on this subject. I think this is a friendly difference of opinion.
It was simply my opinion that the immediately downpointing branches can look a little odd (to me) on some D trees. I can still appreciate a tree styled that way and you're all welcome to do it.
I think Sawgrass and I respectfully agree to disagree on this one and that's fine. But there's no need to start a rebel movement here.... I'm not a member of the bonsai rule police
Ian

Yes, but this would not be the Nut House if no rebel movements were not started! Lol! Everyone is just passionate and that's fine, however nothing to fight till death over!