Post Modern-Neo-Classical/Early Modern Turning Point

[Smoke]

In Robs thread there is discussion about classical and.. ohh well I forget.

The point is I find that bonsai for better or worse made a pardigm shift in the 1970"s. As bonsai became more about technical artistry, it lost some flavor about being natural. The ruggedness and the naturalness of the tree was looked over for shorter needles, perfect taper and symetrical branching.

Should we make a move back to more natural looking bonsai or keep on this path of technical beauty?


I will make my case with a few pictures from Kokufu style books I have from the 70's.

First some trees from 1973

 

[Smoke]

Still 1973

 

[Smoke]

Then we move to 1977. Same type book terrible binding, pictures falling out.

Notice the distinct shift in the canopy of these trees.

These images are not cherry picked to make my point just the best (I felt) images to look at. Some are butt ugly. While I can find a few pointy trees in 1973, for the most part more of the trees are natural and rugged. While there are a few rugged trees in 1977, most are well groomed, and obviously worked for horticultural concerns into a triangle, which allows light to all branches.

Also notice some of the smaller branches outside the canopy line on some trees from 1973 and notice how weak they are from being shaded.

All interesting points, and quite a shift in 4 years.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Very interesting, especially over such a short period of time, though I suspect that while the shift had been occurring for some time, part of the spotlight shifted during the jurying process for the shows. That said, it's definitely a shift from, "look at this natural tree I found", to, "I found out how to make this tree look natural"...

 

[edprocoat]

They are all beautiful trees in their own right. I like most the earlier ones better than the triangular ones mostly as I can see the earlier group growing alongside a road or in a pasture or on a ridge, the others look more contrived. That all said, its all a matter of personal taste and who are you trying to please, your sense of aesthetics or anothers. I feel if they please you thats all that counts. I have been told things such as the lower branches have to be the thickest ones just like in nature, which in nature is false more often than not. My personal vision of Bonsai styling is to approach the look of a tree I have seen or am familiar with, like taking a snapshot of the tree and transfering it into a pot where I can keep and enjoy it.

ed

 

[Smoke]

Very interesting, especially over such a short period of time, though I suspect that while the shift had been occurring for some time, part of the spotlight shifted during the jurying process for the shows. That said, it's definitely a shift from, "look at this natural tree I found", to, "I found out how to make this tree look natural"...

Another interesting point is that those trees we see in the book in 77 were being perfected and groomed in 73.....

 

[Smoke]

I suspect that as the shows became more mainstream and developed more of a calling card on nurseries taking care of client trees that people worked on trees longer before showing them.

1973 may have been the last reamining bits of a bonsai culture that was more amateur and not so professional?

Still interesting...

 

[Smoke]

Driving from one end of California to the other is like driving thru a time tunnel. If a person were to divide California from east to west thru Fresno....

The Northern clubs and exhibits display trees more akin to what we see in Japan today. The teachers have studied in Japan, or are diciples of those that studied in Japan.

The Southern end of the state show trees more like John Naka and how trees were styled in the 1960's. It is slowly changing and improving in the south but it has been a hard nut to crack......

 

[Ang3lfir3]

interesting that in your last comment you said "improving" as to imply that it is the perfect stylized version of a theoretical idea of what a perfect tree might look like that is pleasing to look at. or at least more pleasing than say the actual image of what a truly natural tree looks like .

I remember there being an article on this a few months ago by that kid who's name I can't spell (Byorn?) ... in International Bonsai ?

my personal taste .... no big surprise I know .... "why did anyone ever stop making natural looking trees?"

 

[grouper52]

The 1973 trees are strikingly reminiscent of Chinese trees. Shockingly reminiscent, actually. Those are Chinese in style. Those are Penjing, and fine ones. Uncanny, and quite amazing. As a huge fan of Penjing, my first love, really, the only bonsai books I ever look at anymore are a half dozen Chinese tomes that are filled with that sort of playful, natural aesthetic. I'm a bit stunned to see them in a Kokufu book, quite frankly. What the h*ll happened in those few short years, that so much was lost so quickly to both Japanese and American bonsai? Yoshimura's tragically influential book came out in 1957, long predating this shift, and such a provincial little aesthetic here could not possibly have influenced the Japanese masters so much so quickly over there.

I'd really love to know what happened. It's like the discovery of alien life forms in a collection of old tourist photos of Kyoto, the downtown and Ryoanji. Startling. Thanks for posting this.

 

[William N. Valavanis]

Al, Those two bonsai albums are not Kokufu ten exhibition albums, and as you stated are like "Kokufu style" albums.

The first album you showed is NOT a typical exhibition, but rather the Imperial Bonsai Collection which have not been cultivated as traditional or classical Japanese bonsai. They are rather "historical" bonsai and have mostly simply maintained rather than trained or improved during the decades. When that exhibition album was published the Imperial Bonsai were not taken care of by professional bonsai artists for display, but rather for maintenance. After that time the Nippon Bonsai Association became involved and gradually altered (improved?) their design.

So it is not correct to compare the Imperial Bonsai Collection with contemporary Japanese bonsai.

The second album you showed (white) is from another Japanese contemporary bonsai exhibition. This is more typical of bonsai of today.

As you have noted, there is a trend today to use less wire and to allow the bonsai to appear more "natural" rather than more stylized as was popular in the past.

Bill

PS: If you want to compare the styling, development and popularity of Japanese bonsai through the ages, I suggest you compare the Kokufu Bonsai Exhibition albums which are a better representation of contemporary Japanese bonsai.

 

[Smoke]

Al, Those two bonsai albums are not Kokufu ten exhibition albums, and as you stated are like "Kokufu style" albums.

The first album you showed is NOT a typical exhibition, but rather the Imperial Bonsai Collection which have not been cultivated as traditional or classical Japanese bonsai. They are rather "historical" bonsai and have mostly simply maintained rather than trained or improved during the decades. When that exhibition album was published the Imperial Bonsai were not taken care of by professional bonsai artists for display, but rather for maintenance. After that time the Nippon Bonsai Association became involved and gradually altered (improved?) their design.

So it is not correct to compare the Imperial Bonsai Collection with contemporary Japanese bonsai.

The second album you showed (white) is from another Japanese contemporary bonsai exhibition. This is more typical of bonsai of today.

As you have noted, there is a trend today to use less wire and to allow the bonsai to appear more "natural" rather than more stylized as was popular in the past.

Bill

PS: If you want to compare the styling, development and popularity of Japanese bonsai through the ages, I suggest you compare the Kokufu Bonsai Exhibition albums which are a better representation of contemporary Japanese bonsai.

Thanks Bill, yes I know they are not Kokufu albums and yes that is why I stated "Kokufu style" which are strikingly reminiscent of the Kokufu Albums.

For the sake of this thread, yes it is OK to compare the Imperial bonsai collection with more moderm Japanese interpretations of how a bonsai should look.

This is not so much a history lesson thread as it is a triangle versus more natural as it was dug from the mountain thread.

Thanks for explaining the books though. They were gifted to me from my teacher about ten years ago. While he is Japanese and very fluent in the language he was not able to tell me the difference between the two. At least a translation anyway.

Yes I also agree with how bonsai have changed thru the years in Kokufu albums. Since I do not own any it may be of some service for those here for you to show us some pictures of bonsai thru the years here. I am sure that there would be many that would benifit from such an exchange in the community. Many know you know the history but many have never seen it. A discussion can only improve with contributions.

Cheers, Al

 

[Smoke]

Edit:
Since I do not own any "old" ones

 

[Gene Deci]

This is not so much a history lesson thread as it is a triangle versus more natural as it was dug from the mountain thread.


Yes I also agree with how bonsai have changed thru the years in Kokufu albums. Since I do not own any it may be of some service for those here for you to show us some pictures of bonsai thru the years here. I am sure that there would be many that would benifit from such an exchange in the community. Many know you know the history but many have never seen it. A discussion can only improve with contributions.

Cheers, Al

Thanks for starting this thread Al. I also hope that anyone who has pictures showing the evolution of bonsai appreciation will post them.

I have two pictures to share. I really do not like to post with out proper attribution but I do not know for sure where these originated. I believe they may have come from the Toronto Club.

They are pictures of an Ezo spruce. The first shows what was considered "high art" a couple of decades ago. The second is how it looks today.

 

[Bill S]

Not sure where the descrepency is but at a demo I raised this question to Ryan Neil as to the differences between the US and Japan and he was eager to say that we have a wrong impression, and although we may hav eour trees a bit rougher around the edges, don't think that bonsai in japan is all manicured helmets, it's closer to where we are than we think.

I think it is basically some differences in the amount of fine refinement, and attention to small details that takes time many here aren't willing to spend to get the results.

Good bad or otherwise it really shouldn't matter, unless we wish to be judged by thier standards.

 

[Si Nguyen]

Nice thread! Thanks for starting it Smoke. I have almost the complete series of the California Bonsai Society books, and I can see that there is not much changes over the years in the local Southern California bonsai styling, at least with the members of this fine old club.

 

[Ang3lfir3]

View attachment 24987View attachment 24988

First thought was ... "what a shame" (personal opinion of course) .... the first image was far superior while still more "cloudy" than I personally prefer it still doesn't feel so cartoony

 

[Victrinia Ridgeway]

Part of that may also be that the first photo looks professional, while the other was taken at a taller vantage off center. It would profoundly change the view, but I agree the older image is way more dynamic for me too. In this case I feel like it's a hesitation on the artist not to take down his/her work to open up the tree again... it's very full. For me, one of my favorite types of maintenance work is taking a really over ramified tree and letting it breathe again. Plus it's a great opportunity to really make the structure interesting. But you know that...

To the thread though... I don't know if the title is literal or artsy... I don't understand the context of post modern-neo-classical/early modern. Can I get a small art lesson first. I feel like I'll say something profoundly stupid and out of context if I don't understand the verbiage as it relates to bonsai. I need to see some context for those two terms. Any help would be appreciated... try not to bury me in art-speak though. lol

V

 

[Gene Deci]

@ Ang3lfir3 "Cartoony" is exactly how most highly refined trees look to me. It is just a discription, not a condemnation, but it captures in a word why I also prefer the style of the first picture.

 

[rockm]

"I feel like I'll say something profoundly stupid and out of context if I don't understand the verbiage as it relates to bonsai. I need to see some context for those two terms. Any help would be appreciated... try not to bury me in art-speak though"

You really think anyone else understands "neo-classical" or "early modern" when they're used to describe bonsai? Anyone who professes to seriously apply those terms to tree art can't be taken too seriously. I find those kind of terms in traditional art extremely off putting and opaque. It's art BS, mostly.