Incredible Japanese Maple

Walter,

Some time ago you posted an article on a different forum, which is now shut down, titled something like "How Appreciation of Bonsai Evolves". I found that article very insightful and appropos to the current thread. Is there somewhere that I could currently find that article on line?
 
Pattern Recognition in Judging Bonsai, or How Bonsai Taste Evolves
by Walter Pall

(This article is also published in Art of Bonsai Project under 'eristic')

Can you tell the difference between a conifer and a broadleaved tree just from looking at an image? Sure you can, any child can do this. Can you tell the difference even when the conifer grows much like a broadleaved tree would normally and the broadleaved tee grows like a conifer? Sure you could. You see this in a split second looking at an image.

OK, now explain how exactly you made the decision. Some will succeed in giving a good explanation, some will come back wit a poor explanation and some will not bother. But all will take quite a while to articulate something that they have 'known' in a split-second.

Even though our brain knows how to do this classification, our conscious mind is often incapable of articulating the rules. Our brain is exceptionally good at this type of task. We are amazing pattern recognition machines.

Our brain has evolved to do exactly this with great accuracy. If we have a set of objects we can form internal rules by which we classify them. When you learned how to read you were shown many examples of the letter 'a'. you have learned to see the letter 'a' whether it's hand written or printed. You can tell the letter 'a' immediately even if written in bad hand writing or printed in unusual script. You can do this even when you never had seen this handwriting or this script before. But you would be hard pressed to explain every time how you came to your conclusion.

You are very good in deciding instantly that a letter is NOT 'a'. So there must be some mechanism that enables you to do this to read texts at an enormous speed.

Recognition of abstract things is even more complex. You learn early what is good and what is bad behavior. You are given many examples in your childhood. As you grow to an adult your brain catalogs all examples of good and bad acts and at one point discovers rules of how to decide. When you get to a new situation in life that you never were in before you can instantly apply these rules. So we all have internal rules, but they differ slightly depending on how they developed. Thus we have slightly different notions about morals. These differences become striking when we meet a person who grew up in an entirely different culture and who apparently applies radically different rules for the distinction between 'good' and 'bad'.

So what has all this to do with bonsai taste? Well, exactly the same happens when we learn to appreciate bonsai. We learn that a tree that follows the bonsai rules which are written in stone it is good. When it breaks one of these rules it becomes bad. We learn that trees designed by Naka, Kimura, any great Japanese master are good. We are not content with just being told. We learn to search images of trees for patterns. We learned to see 'good' application of rules and 'bad' application. We learn to see the similarities in trees which are 'good' and we somehow create our own internal rules of how to decide. We can then judge a tree which we have never seen before. We can tell right away whether we have a piece of raw material or a masterpiece in front of us. We are not equally good at this. Some can get very far in this and become experts in judging bonsai. Mind you there was no word about CREATING bonsai here. It is all about judging from seeing. In this concept a person can be an expert judge for bonsai without ever having touched a tree.

The question now is, to what extent are we truly judging the merit of the bonsai, and to what extent are we just using our pattern-recognition skills.

Yes, some bonsai have the ability to move us emotional, to convey a message, to make us feel their 'soul'. But can we be sure that this response isn't simply a learned reaction? Appreciating a bonsai takes training. It is generally not the case that someone who has no training can appreciate and distinguish 'good' from 'bad' bonsai easily. Is it not possible that what we call artistic training is essentially training for pattern classification?

One step further now. I have trained myself to appreciate contemporary bonsai by experiencing it a lot, and if my brain is good at that sort of thing, then I'll form rules for discovering what I was told was 'good' bonsai and distinguishing it form the 'bad'. When I visit an exhibit and see the work of a new artist, I will apply my rules of 'good' and 'bad' bonsai and make my judgment on whether this artist is any good. Since most of us were trained by the same books and by similar examples of 'good' and 'bad' bonsai, our opinions will often be similar to other bonsaist, and the new artist will be branded accordingly.

At the same token this applies to bonsai designers. If I decide to become a bonsai master, I will judge my own work by the same abstract rules of 'good' and 'bad' and produce bonsai that pass my own criteria for judgment. Therefore, once it is established that some works are examples of good art, it almost guarantees that the pattern will be perpetuated by future artist and critics. This goes so far that a considerable number of bonsai connoisseurs and artists believe that there is only one way to do it 'right'. There is a strong tendency for fundamentalism; it is inherent in the system of how bonsai taste evolves.

Now in appreciating bonsai there is, of course, more than just pattern recognition here, but is there any way for us to ever separate the two? Normally there is no observer here from outside of the system, and we can never know to what extent our preferences are biased by the pattern-recognition training we have received in the past. But you remember the example of above when we 'knew' exactly what was morally good or bad and all of a sudden a person from another culture had a very different moral code. The question is whether we even listen to someone who comes from another bonsai culture. If we listen, do we understand what he is saying? Probably not really, and probably we want to stay in our cozy well established and defined bonsai world rather than constantly question what we are thinking. And we don't realize that what we think are 'natural' rules just evolved accidentally and became a generally accepted code. But by sheer coincidence it could have become a very different code.

Can we not bring into a bonsai exhibit a person from the street who was never exposed to any bonsai or theory about them. Well, we can, but what do we expect? The person will make some judgments and will give some explanation, but they will not really tell us much more than that we have someone with a very naive taste and no background in front of us. Art form is also a language in itself, and without training and exposure one cannot learn how to read that language.
The story is told about a person approaching Picasso and told him 'Mr. Picasso, I don't understand your art'. Picasso replied, 'do you know Chinese?'. 'No'. 'but Chinese can be learned.'

How will we ever know the true difference between elitism perpetuated through pattern recognition and the intrinsic value of a bonsai?



Adapted from: "Art and Elitism: A Form of Pattern Recognition" by
Kunal Sen, 2007, Encyclopedia Britannica blog
 
Last edited:
Decided not to lurk so much. ;)

The first reaction to this tree was wow...white. Then I started reading the comments in the thread, and really started to think about it. Personally, before I can say I like this tree or not, I need to see it with it's clothes on. How does it look in leaf? Is there a link to an image of it in leaf?
 
Regarding the issue of looking at a tree in leaf or without leaves.....


Deciduous trees should look at their best without foliage. This is why Kokufu-ten is in the winter.

So, if a tree doesn't look good without foliage, then it is not a good bonsai. Conversely, if one needs the foliage on, in order to look good, that only means that the foliage will hide some of the shortcomings. The result is the same: the tree is not yet top quality.

Without trying to label anybody on this forum, beginners usually prefer a bonsai in leaf, while professionals and seasoned bonsaists prefer to admire a deciduous tree as a winter silhouette.

Looking at this maple, it is clear that the branches are not yet fully developed. It will take a few more years before this tree will look good without foliage.
 
Lol,you were that beginner,i find i admire what attracts my eye.

In this instance it's like a lump of wood and also a bit chilly.
 
Regarding the issue of looking at a tree in leaf or without leaves.....

Deciduous trees should look at their best without foliage. This is why Kokufu-ten is in the winter.

So, if a tree doesn't look good without foliage, then it is not a good bonsai. Conversely, if one needs the foliage on, in order to look good, that only means that the foliage will hide some of the shortcomings. The result is the same: the tree is not yet top quality.

Probably true in general. However, I think there is room in the bonsai world for deciduous trees that look better (and are only displayed) with foliage. There is precedent...for example, wisteria are generally only displayed in bloom and are relegated to the back bench at other times. Probably other species are treated this way as well.


Without trying to label anybody on this forum, beginners usually prefer a bonsai in leaf, while professionals and seasoned bonsaists prefer to admire a deciduous tree as a winter silhouette.
Maybe...but I am a beginner and I would say it's not that simple. There are some trees that I prefer in leaf, and some that I prefer in winter. Don't think I have an overall preference though.

Looking at this maple, it is clear that the branches are not yet fully developed. It will take a few more years before this tree will look good without foliage.
Definitely agree that more development is needed. Not convinced it will ever look "appealing" but time will tell.

Chris
 
Well I've been a beginner for almost 20 years. I began my adventures in my late teens, and without the guidance of anyone experience in bonsai I've had to learn by trial and error myself with the help of books and internet. I've killed my share, probably more than my share, and it's trial and error that's got me to the point I'm at now.

Here's an analogy.

Bonsai is Bonsai in leaf, out of leaf. And I totally get your point, and it makes sense.

However! Betty Davis was Betty Davis in or out of a dress. But would you want to see her at 80 something without a dress? :) :)
 
"However! Betty Davis was Betty Davis in or out of a dress. But would you want to see her at 80 something without a dress?"

The analogy breaks down here. Trees are not people. We appreciate old trees' forms while most cultures--especially youth-oriented Western culture-consider old peoples' physiques icky :D. Old trees are much more interesting than younger trees (which is true of most people too) Trees show their flaws and age openly, without apology and are the more noble for it--at least in the eyes of people.

BTW, This tree has a very underdeveloped set of branches, which is being worked on. There is no intricate web of secondary and tertiary branching on it--yet.
 
I believe the major misunderstanding here is that a few don't see that we are disussing about a piece of raw material. It still has five to ten years to go to become a presentable bonsai for exhibit. What counts at the moment is not what is there, what you see. Only the potential is important.
 
well said, mr. pall

best wishes, sam
 
I believe the major misunderstanding here is that a few don't see that we are disussing about a piece of raw material. It still has five to ten years to go to become a presentable bonsai for exhibit. What counts at the moment is not what is there, what you see. Only the potential is important.

now i get it.

In this instance it's like a lump of wood and also a bit chilly.
 
Walter's tree seems more appealing becuase he has mistakenly called it sumo which it isn't.

In fact this is a very natural proportion for a tree that might be found in nature.


Thus...more appealing...

....To those that find more natural shaped trees appealing.


I can find most any tree appealing in some way.
 
I feel its up to the individual. I have a chinese elm that is no where near this material but wouldn't trade for it.
 
Walter's tree seems more appealing becuase he has mistakenly called it sumo which it isn't.

In fact this is a very natural proportion for a tree that might be found in nature.


Thus...more appealing...

It is not a mistake, it definitely is a sumo trunk that could well have very short branches and be as grotesque as all the others. That's the point of my message. Make a much larger crown and the proportions will be OK. The tree that I shown is not a sume, that's right. It's a corrected sumo.
Here is how it started in 1993.
 

Attachments

  • 1993-04-06-Magazin13-Bild17.jpg
    1993-04-06-Magazin13-Bild17.jpg
    67.2 KB · Views: 107
It's not just the crown and development of the branches that differ. Measuring from my computer screen, the aspect ratio of your tree (height to top of trunk compared to the distance across trunk at soil surface), even back in 1993, is about 2.0. However, the tree in the video has a ratio more like 1.5. That's a pretty big difference (like 30%) and it's very obvious to the eye.

The more I think about it, the more I doubt that any amount of branch development will make that trunk look anything but grotesque.

Chris
 
It is not a mistake, it definitely is a sumo trunk that could well have very short branches and be as grotesque as all the others. That's the point of my message. Make a much larger crown and the proportions will be OK. The tree that I shown is not a sume, that's right. It's a corrected sumo.
Here is how it started in 1993.

Thats my point Walter. The farther you continue to whittle it down the more sume it will become.

I am not ignorant.

I was comparing you calling the original picture a "sumo" which it was not.

You said it was, then took all the branches off to make it seem smaller in comparison to the trunk.

Even a caveman could do that.

If you have to reduce, or even remove branches to make it seem more sumo, than it never was in the first place......

I have no idea why you take this post to task since you say now that it is a corrected sumo. This was your text
Attached my sumo trident maple with a quite large crown.

If a large trunk has a large canopy it is not a sumo....period.
 
Last edited:
It may be worth reading Mike Page's article, paraphrased by John Romano in the ABS article here.

It is a good read and even though my small shohin trident maple falls a little short of the trunk being 2/3 the height ratio, it seems sumo enough.

Trunk is 3.25 across while the tree is 6.5 inches tall.
Under those guidelines I would need one more inch of girth to really fit the criteria.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_000800012.JPG
    DSC_000800012.JPG
    65.6 KB · Views: 80
Walter's tree seems more appealing becuase he has mistakenly called it sumo which it isn't.

In fact this is a very natural proportion for a tree that might be found in nature.


Thus...more appealing...

....To those that find more natural shaped trees appealing.


I can find most any tree appealing in some way.

Plus 1. Couldn't have said it better.
 
You boys sure know how to start a fight huh! Blimey. Who cares what it is and is not called for goodness sake! Why do we have to put everything into little boxes? When these forum discussions get down to such trivial to'ing and fro'ing they become boring! At the end of the day you are either going to like the tree or not like the tree. It is not mature yet, so now is not the time to make that decision. Now the decision is whether you like the potential or not, and that's a personal decision based on personal tastes with no right and no wrong answer!
 
Back
Top Bottom