Is inverse taper a deal-breaker for you?

[pandacular]

this whole crusade against “da rulez” is such a silly strawman

 

[River's Edge]

this whole crusade against “da rulez” is such a silly strawman

Agreed, makes one reconsider the use of the term " common sense" when it is not so common. Life does become simpler when one focuses on the things that are important. For example, ihow does one decide if a tree is an actual bonsai or is it simply a plant in a pot.
Now there is a crusade for those with free time and the tendency to tilt at windmills.
But actually how does one progress if they cannot tell the diferrence?

 

[BobbyLane]

I guess I interpret the rules as a pathway to acceptable trees. Some of them might be boring as *, but they do make a decent bonsai. Once you understand these basic concepts (I do not feel they are rules to be honest) you can start to interpret when and why they matter.

This larch I really like. I have however been told about a fatal flaw, which I really did not notice when I put the tree together, because the rest of the tree works well to me. I do not use the basic bonsai styling concepts to limit what I do, but to help me make choices. And I feel this is what everyone should do. If you follow up on all design elements, you will typically end up with a decent bonsai. As said, probably boring as anything..
View attachment 471289

This!

 

[ShadyStump]

this whole crusade against “da rulez” is such a silly strawman

I laugh because I have a very complicated relationship with rules in general.
I like to know how things work, why they do what they do. I don't want to know the rules! I just want to know why.

The funny part is that as I begin to understand the why and how, I find myself doing things by the rules more.
They're rules for a reason.

That said, you don't do it because they're the rules! You do it because that's the way that works.
If you want to find a better way, start by breaking the fing rules!

 

[Lorax7]

Your statement on "an element of abstraction" does beg discussion on it's own, though, but applied to the original question it's almost an argument in favor of inverse taper.

No, not really. Saying that there is an element of abstraction present doesn’t imply that just any abstraction will do. I was referring specifically to the representation (archetype) of an ancient tree constructed in the mind by a human viewer seeing the tree from a close vantage point. The mind fails to correct for the geometric distortion due to perspective when extrapolating from the remembrance to imagine a side view of the whole tree, resulting in an exaggeration of the amount of taper present in real world trees.

Although it’s certainly not stated anywhere in “the rules”, I think that this is a big part of what ends up being psychologically pleasing about bonsai aesthetics. We like little trees more if they activate those archetypes in our memories.

 

[roberthu]

Agreed, makes one reconsider the use of the term " common sense" when it is not so common. Life does become simpler when one focuses on the things that are important. For example, ihow does one decide if a tree is an actual bonsai or is it simply a plant in a pot.
Now there is a crusade for those with free time and the tendency to tilt at windmills.
But actually how does one progress if they cannot tell the diferrence?

Bonsai means "tree in a pot", literally. I don't know who can say what is or is not a bonsai definitely.

As an art form, it is very hard to determine right or wrong or even rank different forms.

I am not ashamed to admit that I don't understand why Picasso's paintings are so admired and valued. I am also not going to say they are not paintings. I simply don't understand them.

 

[ShadyStump]

No, not really. Saying that there is an element of abstraction present doesn’t imply that just any abstraction will do. I was referring specifically to the representation (archetype) of an ancient tree constructed in the mind by a human viewer seeing the tree from a close vantage point. The mind fails to correct for the geometric distortion due to perspective when extrapolating from the remembrance to imagine a side view of the whole tree, resulting in an exaggeration of the amount of taper present in real world trees.

Although it’s certainly not stated anywhere in “the rules”, I think that this is a big part of what ends up being psychologically pleasing about bonsai aesthetics. We like little trees more if they activate those archetypes in our memories.

You've very effectively defined how forced perspective works.
This idea of archetypes is intriguing. I've not heard it put that way before. I'll have to explore it more.

 

[Gabler]

You've very effectively defined how forced perspective works.
This idea of archetypes is intriguing. I've not heard it put that way before. I'll have to explore it more.

I was trying to start a similar conversation over here, but then the thread went off the rails, lol.

Basically, I don't think appreciation for trees is merely rooted in memory. I suspect the Form of the Tree is genetically encoded.

 

[August44]

l like it!

Here's a photo of the pine I was talking about:

https://bonsaitonight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Limber-pine.jpg

The fact that the inverse taper is deadwood on the tree makes it way more acceptable to me.

 

[ShadyStump]

I was trying to start a similar conversation over here, but then the thread went off the rails, lol.

Basically, I don't think appreciation for trees is merely rooted in memory. I suspect the Form of the Tree is genetically encoded.

A very interesting argument, but I feel like it's overstating the evolutionary connection between man and monkey. Humans are so far removed from the rest of the primate family - millions of years, and 100s of thousands of generations - that the instinctive connection with trees is likely lost by now.

Much the same way domesticated dog all stem from wolves, but that was so many generations ago that they're an entirely different creature now. Even wild or feral dogs don't behave like wolves. They don't raise young the same way, pack structure is loser, they don't employ the same hunting strategies. Dogs may have come from wolves, but dogs aren't much like wolves any more.

However, if you wanted say plants in general, I think your argument would be stronger. From forest dwelling gatherers, to savannah dwelling hunter/gatherers, to horticultural societies, to agricultural societies; plants have been there the entire time.

 

[Gabler]

A very interesting argument, but I feel like it's overstating the evolutionary connection between man and monkey. Humans are so far removed from the rest of the primate family - millions of years, and 100s of thousands of generations - that the instinctive connection with trees is likely lost by now.

Much the same way domesticated dog all stem from wolves, but that was so many generations ago that they're an entirely different creature now. Even wild or feral dogs don't behave like wolves. They don't raise young the same way, pack structure is loser, they don't employ the same hunting strategies. Dogs may have come from wolves, but dogs aren't much like wolves any more.

However, if you wanted say plants in general, I think your argument would be stronger. From forest dwelling gatherers, to savannah dwelling hunter/gatherers, to horticultural societies, to agricultural societies; plants have been there the entire time.

I think you're underestimating the impact of sixty million years in trees, compared to the mere two million since we descended from the trees. We still have the Babinski reflex, for example, as well as the palmaris longus and auricular muscles. Why not a vestigial appreciation for nice trees? It may not even be entirely vestigial. Children are clearly drawn to climb trees, and even adults can use them for shelter, especially hunter-gatherers living in warm, dry climates.

 

[ShadyStump]

(BTW, I'm not saying your theory lacks merit. It's just that such "nature vs nurture" arguments beg the intercession of a devil's advocate.)

And whales have hip bones free floating in their bodies. Do they have an instinctive appreciation of land?
The Babinski reflex (The jerk or kick you experience when woken by the sensation of falling) is still useful in humans, so of course we retain it. The palmaris longus (a muscle that only helps with pinch strength (I literally just read up on these BTW, and now I'm late getting ready for work )) is absent in significant portions of both human populations and the ground dwelling great apes, so that bares little weight. The anterior auricular muscle has little to no evolutionary pressure to be gotten rid of. It's essentially the same as arguing a connection to past ancestors via the appendix. It exists because there's very little pressure any more for it not to.

I recently got thinking about my boots and my feet, and realized that humans weren't far off from evolving to walk up on our toes like all other ground based mammals. Had the invention of footwear come about just a little later (in evolutionary terms) high heels would be the standard. We'd barely more in common structurally with giant birds than apes. Evolution is a fickle thing, so be careful how you use those arguments.

 

[Gabler]

(BTW, I'm not saying your theory lacks merit. It's just that such "nature vs nurture" arguments beg the intercession of a devil's advocate.)

And whales have hip bones free floating in their bodies. Do they have an instinctive appreciation of land?
The Babinski reflex (The jerk or kick you experience when woken by the sensation of falling) is still useful in humans, so of course we retain it. The palmaris longus (a muscle that only helps with pinch strength (I literally just read up on these BTW, and now I'm late getting ready for work )) is absent in significant portions of both human populations and the ground dwelling great apes, so that bares little weight. The anterior auricular muscle has little to no evolutionary pressure to be gotten rid of. It's essentially the same as arguing a connection to past ancestors via the appendix. It exists because there's very little pressure any more for it not to.

I recently got thinking about my boots and my feet, and realized that humans weren't far off from evolving to walk up on our toes like all other ground based mammals. Had the invention of footwear come about just a little later (in evolutionary terms) high heels would be the standard. We'd barely more in common structurally with giant birds than apes. Evolution is a fickle thing, so be careful how you use those arguments.

To clarify my position, it's not an argument from evolution that because our ancestors were arboreal, we must necessarily have an inborn appreciation for trees. It's an empirical observation that we have an inborn appreciation for trees and a speculative explanation for why that inborn appreciation might exist. My best guess is that our appreciation for trees is related to our evolutionary past, coupled with the fact that anatomically modern humans are still pretty good at climbing trees for access to food and shelter.

 

[ShadyStump]

Ah, that does make for a slightly different context.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

If she has a good personality it’s not a “deal breaker”, but we’re talking a really good personality.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

To clarify my position, it's not an argument from evolution that because our ancestors were arboreal, we must necessarily have an inborn appreciation for trees. It's an empirical observation that we have an inborn appreciation for trees and a speculative explanation for why that inborn appreciation might exist. My best guess is that our appreciation for trees is related to our evolutionary past, coupled with the fact that anatomically modern humans are still pretty good at climbing trees for access to food and shelter.

You’re on the right track, also we can see far more shades of green than any other color. I think that is a similar connection with our forest dwelling past.

 

[Gabler]

You’re on the right track, also we can see far more shades of green than any other color. I think that is a similar connection with our forest dwelling past.

It's definitely useful to help distinguish types of plants.