Incredible Japanese Maple
- Thread starter amkhalid
- Start date
catfish chapstick
Chumono
thats funny and exactly what i see when i look at this tree; a distorted image. not saying i hate it, it just looks funny and not so connected with nature.
that i don't agree. plenty of bonsai look like real trees and likewise plenty of real trees don't look like real trees, yet i have never seen anything remotely like this in nature.
its not even the thin little branches that bothers me, its the cone-shaped trunk.
is this a trend in china or japan? i feel like it couldn't possibly be.
rockm
Spuds Moyogi
"plenty of bonsai look like real trees and likewise plenty of real trees don't look like real trees, yet i have never seen anything remotely like this in nature. "
This bias is unfortunate and mostly untrue. If you take a REALLY close look at bonsai -- even so-called "naturalistic" bonsai and world-class bonsai IN PERSON-- you will see many things that aren't natural. ALL bonsai are distorted through scale and composition. To say you haven't seen anything like a particular bonsai in nature is really beside the point. Nature does all manner of strange things, including making weird trees, as well as trees that are "perfect" to the human eye--the vast, vast majority of trees I've seen in nature look nothing like the perfect "naturalistic" bonsai I've seen paraded on the Web...Most trees in nature, if scaled down and put in a pot, would be hideous bonsai--and some might resemble this one.
Anyway, bonsai is NOT simple replication of bigger trees. The art really isn't even about trees at all, but about man and his relationship to them and interpretation of them. If you lose sight of that and are simply replicating small trees, you're just doing scale modeling or garden railroad landscaping...
Yes, the trunk here is distorted--which is a FEATURE OF THE TREE. The plant is notable because of that. The massive trunk is the focal point ...
The branching is immature at this point, but hey, who doens't have trees that need a bit of refinement?
This bias is unfortunate and mostly untrue. If you take a REALLY close look at bonsai -- even so-called "naturalistic" bonsai and world-class bonsai IN PERSON-- you will see many things that aren't natural. ALL bonsai are distorted through scale and composition. To say you haven't seen anything like a particular bonsai in nature is really beside the point. Nature does all manner of strange things, including making weird trees, as well as trees that are "perfect" to the human eye--the vast, vast majority of trees I've seen in nature look nothing like the perfect "naturalistic" bonsai I've seen paraded on the Web...Most trees in nature, if scaled down and put in a pot, would be hideous bonsai--and some might resemble this one.
Anyway, bonsai is NOT simple replication of bigger trees. The art really isn't even about trees at all, but about man and his relationship to them and interpretation of them. If you lose sight of that and are simply replicating small trees, you're just doing scale modeling or garden railroad landscaping...
Yes, the trunk here is distorted--which is a FEATURE OF THE TREE. The plant is notable because of that. The massive trunk is the focal point ...
The branching is immature at this point, but hey, who doens't have trees that need a bit of refinement?
catfish chapstick
Chumono
im just trying to learn here... i respect your perspective rockm. i must have a lot to learn about what bonsai is...
maybe its not a "naturalistic" thing, maybe its a design thing that makes the cone trunk look unnappealing to me.
Dav4
Drop Branch Murphy
- Messages
- 13,491
- Reaction score
- 32,213
- USDA Zone
- 6a
This tree is basically a "sumo" style bonsai with a height to width ratio approaching 1:1...definately not everyone's cup of tea. Out of all styles, I, too, find sumos less appealing. However, this one, being so massive and 3 dimensional, would be an exception for me.
Rockm has a good point here... whether or not it looks like a tree in nature is irrelevant.
Have you ever seen a tree in nature planted in a bonsai pot?
The real question is, does it leave an impression on you? All good bonsai should.
Yes the white affect would be from lime sulphur as John R noted. This is commonly done to maples, beeches and other deciduous species to get that striking white affect. Again, you will never see a J maple in nature with bark that white... but it does leave an impression!
And keep in mind, this is clearly still a tree in training. The branch development has barely begun!
Have you ever seen a tree in nature planted in a bonsai pot?
The real question is, does it leave an impression on you? All good bonsai should.
Yes the white affect would be from lime sulphur as John R noted. This is commonly done to maples, beeches and other deciduous species to get that striking white affect. Again, you will never see a J maple in nature with bark that white... but it does leave an impression!
And keep in mind, this is clearly still a tree in training. The branch development has barely begun!
Don Blackmond
Omono
not really. we make bonsai to look like what we think real trees should look like.
heck, if you posted photos of a real tree as bonsai you'd get 9 out of 10 people telling you to trunk chop and start over...
rockm
Spuds Moyogi
"i must have a lot to learn about what bonsai is..."
"maybe its not a "naturalistic" thing, maybe its a design thing that makes the cone trunk look unnappealing to me."
It's unappealing because you don't like it
. That's OK. You either like art, or you don't. No difference here.
But understand WHY you don't like it goes more towards a better understanding of bonsai. Saying it's not natural and discounting it because of that misses the point. Like I said, bonsai is not all that natural in some cases. In some cases, bonsai is bonsai because of other things, exaggeration, unnusual (but proportioned or well executed) style, etc. The sumo trunk is overwhelming in its mass. It's hard to visually digest. Trunks like that one take some time to appreciate, or they're just too much for some tastes.
Bonsai does NOT have to "natural" in the classical sense to be good bonsai. Bonsai is not about simply Xeroxing a "natural" tree on a small scale...It's about interpreting a person's impression of a tree on a small scale, just as impressionist painters didn't paint nature exactly, but their interpretation of it...
"maybe its not a "naturalistic" thing, maybe its a design thing that makes the cone trunk look unnappealing to me."
It's unappealing because you don't like it
. That's OK. You either like art, or you don't. No difference here.But understand WHY you don't like it goes more towards a better understanding of bonsai. Saying it's not natural and discounting it because of that misses the point. Like I said, bonsai is not all that natural in some cases. In some cases, bonsai is bonsai because of other things, exaggeration, unnusual (but proportioned or well executed) style, etc. The sumo trunk is overwhelming in its mass. It's hard to visually digest. Trunks like that one take some time to appreciate, or they're just too much for some tastes.
Bonsai does NOT have to "natural" in the classical sense to be good bonsai. Bonsai is not about simply Xeroxing a "natural" tree on a small scale...It's about interpreting a person's impression of a tree on a small scale, just as impressionist painters didn't paint nature exactly, but their interpretation of it...
Last edited:
Attila Soos
Omono
It should be remembered that copying nature is not necessarily art. When I take a picture of a tree that grows in front of my house, I am not creating art.
But when I draw the same tree on a sketch-pad, that may be art, because I purposefully ommit some of the details, while exaggerating others.
Just an example, take the foliage pads.
If we copied nature, then 99% of the time we should not create foliage pads. But the pads are an important artistic tool to create positive and negative spaces, structure and movement in bonsai. Without pads, bonsai would be a tangled mess.
Same with the "front" of a bonsai.
Nature doesn't have a front, and although there is such a thing as the "best view" of a tree in nature, the trunk and important features are hidden behind the foliage.
But in bonsai, we artificially open up the front and create a more two-dimensional surface on the front side (the back side is where more depth is created).
These are just a few examples to show that bonsai is at best, an interpretation of nature, and sometimes just part of an imaginary world.
But when I draw the same tree on a sketch-pad, that may be art, because I purposefully ommit some of the details, while exaggerating others.
Just an example, take the foliage pads.
If we copied nature, then 99% of the time we should not create foliage pads. But the pads are an important artistic tool to create positive and negative spaces, structure and movement in bonsai. Without pads, bonsai would be a tangled mess.
Same with the "front" of a bonsai.
Nature doesn't have a front, and although there is such a thing as the "best view" of a tree in nature, the trunk and important features are hidden behind the foliage.
But in bonsai, we artificially open up the front and create a more two-dimensional surface on the front side (the back side is where more depth is created).
These are just a few examples to show that bonsai is at best, an interpretation of nature, and sometimes just part of an imaginary world.
coh
Imperial Masterpiece
I find the tree impressive, incredible...but not visually appealing, at least in the leafless phase. Just can't get past that trunk which looks too distorted. However, I'm willing to admit that it might look much more appealing in person or in leaf. Also willing to admit that my tastes/preferences might change over time.
I've seen similarly shaped trees (usually tridents with those huge "dinnerplate" nebari where all the roots have merged together) in person and never really cared for the look.
Chris
I've seen similarly shaped trees (usually tridents with those huge "dinnerplate" nebari where all the roots have merged together) in person and never really cared for the look.
Chris
Brian Van Fleet
Pretty Fly for a Bonsai Guy
Well put!!
stacy allen muse
Chumono
when the very first time I saw a sumo styled tree like this, I thought the same thing... that it was so unnatural, distorted, and the proportions were off. I wondered who would consider growing a tree like this, and why... honestly, I found it appalling... then as time went by I started to rethink my feelings for this approach, and started to "imagine", imagine being the key word... how perhaps in nature a tree like this could grow... and perhaps if I was off traveling in some far off distant land, I might round a bend, and there it would be...
moral of this craziness is... it's not if one see something like this currently growing in nature, but to "imagine" one could...
To me this thread and it's discussion, of whether or not it is realistic and could be seen in nature, proves it is doing exactly what it should be doing as a bonsai... making one wonder if it is possible???
Bonsai is not a duplication of nature, it is an artistic interpretation of nature... big difference...
moral of this craziness is... it's not if one see something like this currently growing in nature, but to "imagine" one could...
To me this thread and it's discussion, of whether or not it is realistic and could be seen in nature, proves it is doing exactly what it should be doing as a bonsai... making one wonder if it is possible???
Bonsai is not a duplication of nature, it is an artistic interpretation of nature... big difference...
PaulH
Omono
"Bonsai is not a duplication of nature, it is an artistic interpretation of nature... big difference..."
Truer or wiser words have not been written on this forum!
Truer or wiser words have not been written on this forum!
mat
Chumono
For what it's worth, I'm going to weigh in on the side of not that incredible. I get that bonsai isn't meant to be an exact replication of nature. I still don't really care for trees such as this as much as some others I see online. I'm not saying that it's not impressive, or that I'd knock it off the side of my bench if it (or hundreds of it 
) happened to appear there, or that I could ever create something remotely like it.
It's just there are many images of trees on the internet I find more appealing.
) happened to appear there, or that I could ever create something remotely like it. It's just there are many images of trees on the internet I find more appealing.
pwk5017
Shohin
Man, I cant believe the majority of people are not enjoying this tree! I agree with someone else who said "these trunks are impressive in person", because they are. Heck, they are incredible in a photograph too. There is so much power in that trunk and tree! Yes, part fantasy part raw natural dominance, but they certainly have a place in bonsai. You can keep your twisty pipe cleaner of a literati, I am going for big boys like this maple every time.
Frojo
Sapling
Hello everyone, I’m very new to bonsai and have mostly only been lurking around the forums for a few years. I find this tree mighty impressive, as I do the ‘dinnerplate’ nebari monsters. I would love to have a tree like this, but I do not find it ‘believable’..... at all.
Personally I prefer bonsai that give the impression of a real tree, not something that has been created by someone. Secondly it should also be a beautiful tree, in other words artistically and compositionally sound (but not necessarily pretty as such).
The first is dictated by nature the other by man.
In order to give the impression that the tree is ‘natural’ the artist must by necessity simplify and exaggerate various aspects, just scaling a big tree down to bonsai size will destroy the impression that the big tree had on you. In my opinion you simplify and exaggerate in order to conserve that impression and not for it’s own sake.
Personally I prefer bonsai that give the impression of a real tree, not something that has been created by someone. Secondly it should also be a beautiful tree, in other words artistically and compositionally sound (but not necessarily pretty as such).
The first is dictated by nature the other by man.
In order to give the impression that the tree is ‘natural’ the artist must by necessity simplify and exaggerate various aspects, just scaling a big tree down to bonsai size will destroy the impression that the big tree had on you. In my opinion you simplify and exaggerate in order to conserve that impression and not for it’s own sake.
Last edited:
GerhardG
Mame
FWIW I don't like 97% of those lime sulpher and deadwood sculptures that most here would rave about, I just don't get it......
A lot of the sumo style trees also don't float my boat, this maple looks like a tall'ish sumo and easier on my eye, but I've seen many maples I prefer.
A lot of the sumo style trees also don't float my boat, this maple looks like a tall'ish sumo and easier on my eye, but I've seen many maples I prefer.
Walter Pall
Masterpiece
Sumo style trees are now mainstream taste, at least in Europe. I personally think it is a typical exaggeration phase at the end of a long trend in art. Someone found that a short fat tree looks good. Then the next one made one even shorter and fatter which looked even better. At the end someone makes the final one which then obviously is totally out of propotion. Then the community wakes up and says 'the emperor has no clothes'. I think we are still a few years away from that point. The maple discussed in this thread is unique insofar as it is a fat Japanese maple. Trident maples like this you can see thousands. I found that one way to make them acceptable for my personal taste is to give them a large crown which fits to the large trunk in proporiton.
Interesting to note that most of the time I tell foolks to make their tree shorter and more compact, the crown smaller and their tree should get better. Here it's the other way round.
I would take the Japanese maple any time and give it a large crown.
Attached my sumo trident maple with a quite large crown.
Interesting to note that most of the time I tell foolks to make their tree shorter and more compact, the crown smaller and their tree should get better. Here it's the other way round.
I would take the Japanese maple any time and give it a large crown.
Attached my sumo trident maple with a quite large crown.
Attachments
coh
Imperial Masterpiece
Walter,
Interesting observations that I think have a lot of merit. We've seen a similar cycle in the art world in painting - for many years the trend was exaggerate and art schools taught students to express themselves at the expense of technical development. Now it seems there is a return to the more traditional forms of realism and instruction. Not an exact analogy, but similar.
I find your tree much more appealing. It's probably the large crown to some extent, but also that the aspect ratio (height:width) is not as exaggerated. I'll take one of those over hundreds of the other tree any day, though it would be interesting to see how the Japanese maple eventually turns out when the crown is more developed.
Chris
Interesting observations that I think have a lot of merit. We've seen a similar cycle in the art world in painting - for many years the trend was exaggerate and art schools taught students to express themselves at the expense of technical development. Now it seems there is a return to the more traditional forms of realism and instruction. Not an exact analogy, but similar.
I find your tree much more appealing. It's probably the large crown to some extent, but also that the aspect ratio (height:width) is not as exaggerated. I'll take one of those over hundreds of the other tree any day, though it would be interesting to see how the Japanese maple eventually turns out when the crown is more developed.
Chris
Similar threads
