The "Rules" of bonsai

[coh]

As for whether what we are doing is art or not, I have similar views to that as to whether something is bonsai or not. Art, to me, is one of those things that is defined by the one doing it. How can I point to something that somebody else created and say that it's "not art" if they think it is? If they say it is, then it is. The artist is the final arbiter of what is art.

I can judge it, or call it bad art, but who am I to say that it's not art? To my understanding, art is just a way of expressing some thought, feeling, or vision that you have in the form of a particular medium...

Nice post, and the above quoted is a pretty good summary of my feelings on the art question. Art is a form of expression that doesn't always result in something "beautiful" or realistic but should convey a mood, idea, or feeling. In terms of bonsai, I've found that feeling in both trees that look just like real trees, and trees that are highly abstract/stylized and look nothing like anything I've ever seen in nature.

"Bad art", I try not to use that term too much. I may not like something for whatever reason, but that doesn't necessarily make it "bad."

I generally try to stay out of the "is it art" or "bonsai style" battles, but every so often I get drawn in (like this thread). Think I'm done with this one. But I do think it would be interesting to continue discussing the idea of "rules" or guidelines, with examples of when they are broken to good effect.

 

[Eric Group]

Duchamp with his urinal? That was great art, people still argue about it today.

That is it! I just couldn't get the name out!

 

[wireme]

This whole concept of labeling somebody else's trees (or even one's own) as "not yet bonsai" or "potential bonsai" requires an arbitrary line in the sand that I'm not comfortable drawing,

I do that. I've defined it for myself as a tree that's met the minimum developmental goals that I started with for it, canopy and branches in place and nicely potted. Basically in a state where I wouldn't be embarrassed to submit it for a show. More or less, still a vague line but nothing to be taken too seriously. I'm hoping to have a couple in two years. It's only for myself, a goal to reach maybe but I like to think of it that way. Not a definition I'd push on anyone else.

 

[MichaelS]

="music~makerrules

.
Music maker,

I agree with your definitions of what bonsai is. I think most people would. but I have to disagree with these quotes.

As for whether what we are doing is art or not, I have similar views to that as to whether something is bonsai or not. Art, to me, is one of those things that is defined by the one doing it. How can I point to something that somebody else created and say that it's "not art" if they think it is? If they say it is, then it is.

To my understanding, art is just a way of expressing some thought, feeling, or vision that you have in the form of a particular medium

.

Even if what you're doing is a "craft", it's still your unique expression of that craft.

If we are to take this concept to it's logical conclusion, then all of one's activities have the potential to be labelled art if the one who performs the activity deems it so. Therefore, I can get up in the morning and declare that I am performing art when I make a cup of coffee or make a sandwich. Well that can't be right because you say that even if what you're doing is a craft, it's still your unique expression of that craft and that is reason enough to do away with the differentiation between craft and art. So let's take it further. In making the sandwich that I have now declared as being art, I have taken a slice of bread, put a piece of cheese on it and covered it with another slice of bread. That is not what the average person would call ''unique''. Far from it. It would be seen about as unique as breathing. There needs to be some kind of practical definition of the word unique. So I think we can agree that that would not generally be considered is art even if the sandwich maker says it is.
But if I then take that slice of bread and turn it round 3 times before finishing it, that has now become a unique expression and is now truly art. Perhaps so but you can see how ridiculous it then becomes. By the same definition, every bonsai is unique and therefore art. I went to a bonsai exhibition yesterday and I can say that in my opinion there was very little of what I would call art going on. 95% of the trees where made according to a pre-viewed image. The fact that each was unique is just not enough to label it as being derived from individual thought. I like Oscar Wilde's quote ''Art is the most intense form of individualism we have''
Nothing in the universe is not unique. The way I type these words is unique. We are not doing art just by existing.

 

[music~maker]

I do that. I've defined it for myself as a tree that's met the minimum developmental goals that I started with for it, canopy and branches in place and nicely potted. Basically in a state where I wouldn't be embarrassed to submit it for a show. More or less, still a vague line but nothing to be taken too seriously. I'm hoping to have a couple in two years. It's only for myself, a goal to reach maybe but I like to think of it that way. Not a definition I'd push on anyone else.

Let me clarify a bit. I think we all do it - I have my own line in the sand for what I consider a tree worthy of exhibit, but a) that doesn't necessarily mean that the ones that are not are definitely not bonsai (even exhibit trees are up-potted and left to relax for a while - do they stop being bonsai then?), and b) that's my own personal line, not one I'd be comfortable imposing on anyone else.

I rarely even discuss it except when somebody else brings it up in a thread like this. ;-)

 

[MichaelS]

Duchamp with his urinal? That was great art, people still argue about it today.

So the definition of great art is that it makes people argue? He was very clever in doing that art because his intention was to make people argue over it and he was supremely successful in that. No question.
It is successful art but if the intention was to cause controversy, I would say it is not great art at all. Controversy is inherently negative. Negativity does nothing to enhance the life of humans. Not only would I say that it is not great art. I would say that it should be exposed for what it truly is at every opportunity. The work of a man who's only intention was to stir up trouble.
And this, in my opinion, is where we westerners need to be rather careful as we work with our bonsai. Let's not make trees with the intention of being controversial. What benefit would that bring? What advantage or enjoyment?

 

[Adair M]

I do that. I've defined it for myself as a tree that's met the minimum developmental goals that I started with for it, canopy and branches in place and nicely potted. Basically in a state where I wouldn't be embarrassed to submit it for a show. More or less, still a vague line but nothing to be taken too seriously. I'm hoping to have a couple in two years. It's only for myself, a goal to reach maybe but I like to think of it that way. Not a definition I'd push on anyone else.

On the face of it, I rather like your definition of a bonsai as a tree you would feel comfortable showing. There are issues with that definition, too. For example, a friend visited my house and pointed to a tree and said they'd never seen that one before. Why hadn't I shown it? And I replied I didn't think it was ready. And he said he thought it was!

I have "project trees", "bonsai in training", and "bonsai". The boundries between them? Really hard to say. I guess they're Projects until Refinement begins. Then they're In Training until they're showable. Then they're Bonsai. At least, that's the way I view my trees.

 

[music~maker]

.
I agree with your definitions of what bonsai is. I think most people would. but I have to disagree with these quotes.

Yes, I figured you would.

.
If we are to take this concept to it's logical conclusion, then all of one's activities have the potential to be labelled art if the one who performs the activity deems it so.

Sure, why not?

.
Therefore, I can get up in the morning and declare that I am performing art when I make a cup of coffee or make a sandwich. Well that can't be right because you say that even if what you're doing is a craft, it's still your unique expression of that craft and that is reason enough to do away with the differentiation between craft and art.

I'm fine with doing away with the distinction between art and craft - you guys are the ones who are so keen to define it. I get the difference you're trying to make between the two, but I think there's a massive gray area of overlap between art and craft, and think it's kind of silly to waste time trying to make something black & white that isn't. If anything, I would say that the rules are incorporated within the craft of bonsai, and the use of those rules during the crafting of a bonsai (or ignoring them) is the art. But that's just one possible way of looking at it, and I'm not pretending my answer is the correct one. Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 answers. That's reason alone to not get too worked up about the difference. =)

.
So let's take it further. In making the sandwich that I have now declared as being art, I have taken a slice of bread, put a piece of cheese on it and covered it with another slice of bread. That is not what the average person would call ''unique''. Far from it. It would be seen about as unique as breathing. There needs to be some kind of practical definition of the word unique. So I think we can agree that that would not generally be considered is art even if the sandwich maker says it is.

So is "unique" a required characteristic for something to be art? Mundane things can't be art? You may not think it's art, and maybe it's not, but why do you get the final say if somebody else does? It's a slippery slope that slides right down into artistic dictatorship, where one person or group declares what's art, and everyone else must conform.

And true artists don't give a rat's ass what an average person thinks, or if what they are doing is generally considered art or not.

.
But if I then take that slice of bread and turn it round 3 times before finishing it, that has now become a unique expression and is now truly art. Perhaps so but you can see how ridiculous it then becomes. By the same definition, every bonsai is unique and therefore art.

Yes, exactly.

.
I went to a bonsai exhibition yesterday and I can say that in my opinion there was very little of what I would call art going on. 95% of the trees where made according to a pre-viewed image. The fact that each was unique is just not enough to label it as being derived from individual thought.

So it's individual thought that makes something art? Unless you can enter somebody else's mind to determine where they get their ideas, I think you just need to give people the benefit of the doubt here. btw, I also see a large percentage of bonsai trees that I don't think are particularly good, but that doesn't mean they're not bonsai, and it doesn't mean they're not art, it just means they don't meet my particular standard for how I like to work trees. Declaring it "not art" because it doesn't conform to my idealistic view of a bonsai isn't fair to the artist.

.
I like Oscar Wilde's quote ''Art is the most intense form of individualism we have''
Nothing in the universe is not unique. The way I type these words is unique.

Precisely.

.
We are not doing art just by existing.

Somewhere, there is almost certainly a performance artist who would disagree with you strongly on that. And if I see somebody just existing, calling it art, and really getting me to think about the nature of art as a result, I will not only support their right to call it art, but I will broaden my definition of art to include it.

Art, by it's definition, is a fluid, creative thing. If we set rules that everyone must absolutely follow, then progress will never occur. It is those who defy the conventional rules who expand our definition of what art is, and get us to think about life and our place in it. I am very thankful that such rule-breakers exist because life would be pretty damn boring without them.

 

[music~maker]

So the definition of great art is that it makes people argue? He was very clever in doing that art because his intention was to make people argue over it and he was supremely successful in that. No question.
It is successful art but if the intention was to cause controversy, I would say it is not great art at all. Controversy is inherently negative. Negativity does nothing to enhance the life of humans. Not only would I say that it is not great art. I would say that it should be exposed for what it truly is at every opportunity. The work of a man who's only intention was to stir up trouble.
And this, in my opinion, is where we westerners need to be rather careful as we work with our bonsai. Let's not make trees with the intention of being controversial. What benefit would that bring? What advantage or enjoyment?

Successful art makes people think. If that also makes them argue, that's a side effect. The fact that controversy can be negative does not mean that great art that causes controversy is not great. That's just your arbitrary definition. Other people would clearly disagree. I actually love art where the only intention is to stir up trouble because I think it's important to rock the boat sometimes and get people thinking. So for me, the more controversial the better. Who gets to decide? It's in the eye of the artist and the eye of the beholder. And you'll get a wide variety of opinions on that.

And this, in my opinion, is where we westerners need to be rather careful as we work with our bonsai. Let's not make trees with the intention of being controversial.

To what end? Why not make trees with the intention of being controversial? Nick Lenz, one of the great American bonsai artists, does nothing but make controversial trees, and they're great!

 

[MichaelS]

"music~maker, post: 400347, member: 18268"]?
Nick Lenz, one of the great American bonsai artists, does nothing but make controversial trees, and they're great

And so what now gives you the right to say that?
If I don't have the right to say something is not great, same goes for you!

 

[music~maker]

And so what now gives you the right to say that?
If I don't have the right to say something is not great, same goes for you!

You have every right to say something's not great, just as I have every right to say the same thing is great. You know, freedom of thought and expression and all...

But you're the one proposing the restrictive definitions, not me. And you've taken on the harder task by trying to prove a negative. If at least one person thinks something is great, then for at least that person, it is.

 

[music~maker]

On the face of it, I rather like your definition of a bonsai as a tree you would feel comfortable showing. There are issues with that definition, too. For example, a friend visited my house and pointed to a tree and said they'd never seen that one before. Why hadn't I shown it? And I replied I didn't think it was ready. And he said he thought it was!

I have "project trees", "bonsai in training", and "bonsai". The boundries between them? Really hard to say. I guess they're Projects until Refinement begins. Then they're In Training until they're showable. Then they're Bonsai. At least, that's the way I view my trees.

That "really hard to say" part is precisely why I broadened my definition. I could never philosophically decide quite where "project tree" ended and "bonsai" began. Every definition was arbitrary. So if I'm performing techniques on something with the intent of creating a refined, miniature tree, I just call all that bonsai.

It eliminates the philosophical condundrum, and doesn't require me to inflict arbitrary definitions on anyone.

 

[MichaelS]

="music~maker,

That's just your arbitrary definition

Definition of arbitrary: Based on random choice rather that any reason or system.
Well not random and based on convention.

But you're the one proposing the restrictive definitions, not me. And you've taken on the harder task by trying to prove a negative. If at least one person thinks something is great, then for at least that person, it is.

Yes that does not mean something is TRULY great. There needs to be some kind of definition. Otherwise it's a free for all. It means that as long as I say something is so, it is. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as good and bad. Let me try another example. A person who collects dog turds might think it's great. And to him, it might very well be great. That does not make it great. All we can say that it's great to him. Everyone else would say it isn't. Does that make everyone else wrong? No, that makes everyone else right and the turd collector wrong. He has a disordered perspective on things. One might even say sick. Surely something truly great (art or not) has the quality of being uplifting or at least the ability to inspire hope to the human spirit. Duchamp's urinal is not such a work. Not only do I BELIEVE it's not great, It factually is not great, regardless of what some twisted art academic might say. It takes little thought to arrive at such a conclusion.
Unless of course we has different definitions of the word great. In which case I would say yes it is ''great'' but complete worthless crap.

 

[music~maker]

But I do think it would be interesting to continue discussing the idea of "rules" or guidelines, with examples of when they are broken to good effect.

Yes, that is by far the more interesting topic here, and arguably the more practical. So I'll start ...

Inverse taper is the easy one - real trees have it, but not usually to excess. So miniature trees should be able to have some, but not to excess. My eye does not prefer it, so I strive to avoid it. I do think that taper helps create the illusion of scale as much as anything. But if I have a tree that has a bit of inverse taper, I'm not going to just throw it out or start re-building the trunk from scratch if it has a lot of other desirable features.

Trident branches are another one I see people get all uptight about. If I have a 3-way fork, and it serves a purpose, even temporarily, I have no problem keeping it. Especially if one of those forks is an eventual sacrifice that would otherwise take me a lot longer to arrive at the same or similar result by some other means. Then it stays for sure.

Crossing branches - I tend to like trees with fewer crossing branches, but real trees cross branches all the time. I think leaving some to cross gives the tree a more realistic look sometimes. So that's not a hard and fast rule for me either.

And some rules are as much practical as anything - things like not crossing roots. They tend to look nicer un-crossed, but they also tend to cause you greater problems later if you don't resolve them now.

Thoughts? What are some examples of rules you tend to break on occasion and why?

 

[coh]

Thoughts? What are some examples of rules you tend to break on occasion and why?

The ones you listed are good examples. Another that was mentioned earlier was the branch on the inside of a curve. I don't think you should have one right at the sharpest part of the curve, but I've seen many trees with a branch that comes off somewhere in the inside region to good effect.

Another that I've been wrestling with is the idea of the apex always having to come forward. I mentioned earlier that seems to be something that is quite tightly tied to Japanese culture (the tree should "bow" toward you, if it leans away it seems "unfriendly" or unwelcoming). And I understand the idea that having the apex come forward can give the feeling of the tree towering over you, making it seem bigger. Maybe. This is something I'm going to experiment with on some of my trees...maybe in some cases the apex leaning away can make the top of the tree seem further away, thus taller? Maybe we're all conditioned to think the apex has to come forward, but it really doesn't.

I have one piece of material that I purchased a couple of years ago, a very unusual procumbens juniper. I picked it out because of really interesting trunk movement and branch placement, with deadwood. But then when I was studying it from what I thought would be the front, I realized that the apex moved away quite strongly. For quite a while that became a roadblock for me...I was paying too much attention to the rule, that I couldn't do that. Now I think the tree can work even with the apex moving away, though the proof will be in the pudding. Maybe it will work for me but not anyone else. I'm OK with that.

Keep in mind I've only been at this for about 5 years, so I don't have a long history of either following or breaking the rules!

 

[music~maker]

Definition of arbitrary: Based on random choice rather that any reason or system.
Well not random and based on convention.

Random or convention, it's still arbitrary. Everything that's convention now probably started out as something new and controversial.

Yes that does not mean something is TRULY great. There needs to be some kind of definition. Otherwise it's a free for all.

Hate to break it to you, but life is a free for all. There's almost 7 billion of us on the planet, and we're all more or less doing our own thing.

It means that as long as I say something is so, it is. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as good and bad.

Nope. There is no good or bad or right or wrong. Just a free for all. There might be a societal convention of what is good or bad, but if society collapsed, a new standard for good and bad and right and wrong would arise. It's very arbitrary, it just doesn't seem that way sometimes.

Let me try another example. A person who collects dog turds might think it's great. And to him, it might very well be great. That does not make it great. All we can say that it's great to him. Everyone else would say it isn't. Does that make everyone else wrong? No, that makes everyone else right and the turd collector wrong. He has a disordered perspective on things. One might even say sick. Surely something truly great (art or not) has the quality of being uplifting or at least the ability to inspire hope to the human spirit. Duchamp's urinal is not such a work. Not only do I BELIEVE it's not great, It factually is not great, regardless of what some twisted art academic might say. It takes little thought to arrive at such a conclusion.
Unless of course we has different definitions of the word great. In which case I would say yes it is ''great'' but complete worthless crap.

See this is where we truly disagree. I think Duchamp's urinal is truly great art. Why? Because it annoys people. It bugs them so much, and offends their sense of aesthetic so greatly, that they still argue about it almost 100 years later. But what's it really done? It got us all to re-think what we really think about art, and how we define it. But most of all, it makes us think - period. To me, that is a truly great work of art!! You may not think so, and that's absolutely you're right, but to say it "factually is not great" is frankly kind of silly, as it is the very definition of an arbitrary standard of "great".

And for the record, if the turd collector could catalog the turds in some way that similarly made us think and wonder what the hell he was up to, who knows? Maybe that could be a great work of art as well. If somebody collected, preserved and cataloged a turd from every single kind of dog on the planet, for instance, and ordered them from small to large and laid them out according to the golden ratio, I might declare that great just for having the nerve and taking the time and effort to do it. But that one I'd have to see first. =)

 

[music~maker]

The ones you listed are good examples. Another that was mentioned earlier was the branch on the inside of a curve. I don't think you should have one right at the sharpest part of the curve, but I've seen many trees with a branch that comes off somewhere in the inside region to good effect.

Another that I've been wrestling with is the idea of the apex always having to come forward. I mentioned earlier that seems to be something that is quite tightly tied to Japanese culture (the tree should "bow" toward you, if it leans away it seems "unfriendly" or unwelcoming). And I understand the idea that having the apex come forward can give the feeling of the tree towering over you, making it seem bigger. Maybe. This is something I'm going to experiment with on some of my trees...maybe in some cases the apex leaning away can make the top of the tree seem further away, thus taller? Maybe we're all conditioned to think the apex has to come forward, but it really doesn't.

I have one piece of material that I purchased a couple of years ago, a very unusual procumbens juniper. I picked it out because of really interesting trunk movement and branch placement, with deadwood. But then when I was studying it from what I thought would be the front, I realized that the apex moved away quite strongly. For quite a while that became a roadblock for me...I was paying too much attention to the rule, that I couldn't do that. Now I think the tree can work even with the apex moving away, though the proof will be in the pudding. Maybe it will work for me but not anyone else. I'm OK with that.

Keep in mind I've only been at this for about 5 years, so I don't have a long history of either following or breaking the rules!

Ah yes, the bowing apex rule. That's one I don't worry about much because I strive to create trees that look good from multiple angles. If a tree requires a front, so be it, but I like to strive for trees that will look good from at least a few angles as I rotate them around 360 degrees. The bowing apex rule just doesn't really apply in that case.

For me, if the apex looks like something that could naturally occur in nature, and I think it works with the composition, I'm not at all attached to the precise angle it moves at. Maybe bowing forward is a nice ideal, but that's not usually my primary concern.

The branch inside a curve depends entirely on why I want that branch there or not. If it serves some purpose, I have no problem with leaving it there. The main reasons would be if I temporarily (or permanently) want to fill a space in the tree where there's otherwise no other branch, or if leaving it there will cause the larger branch it sits on to develop in a particular way. Either of those might be reason enough to keep a branch inside a curve. Or maybe even because it happens to be an interesting branch and getting rid of it makes the whole area a lot less interesting.

Good examples ...

 

[coh]

Ah yes, the bowing apex rule. That's one I don't worry about much because I strive to create trees that look good from multiple angles. If a tree requires a front, so be it, but I like to strive for trees that will look good from at least a few angles as I rotate them around 360 degrees. The bowing apex rule just doesn't really apply in that case.

I've seen a lot of trees that look great from a very specific front view or very small viewing range, but quite ridiculous from off to the side. You see that at shows all the time...walk along the row toward a tree, see it from the side...yikes! I think I'd like most of my trees to look pretty good from multiple positions, more like trees you'd see in nature. I realize many will probably have problems with that...where's Adair? LOL.

 

[MichaelS]

Ah yes, the bowing apex rule. That's one I don't worry about much because I strive to create trees that look good from multiple angles. If a tree requires a front, so be it, but I like to strive for trees that will look good from at least a few angles as I rotate them around 360 degrees. The bowing apex rule just doesn't really apply in that case.

For me, if the apex looks like something that could naturally occur in nature, and I think it works with the composition, I'm not at all attached to the precise angle it moves at. Maybe bowing forward is a nice ideal, but that's not usually my primary concern.

Can I just add that there is good reason for the apex needing to bow toward the viewer. It has to do with scale. When we stand near a real tree, it's sheer size (compared to us) overwhelms us and we almost feel it has the ability to pick us up.
In bonsai we tilt the top toward us so as to give a similar feeling. It is for same reason that we always bring larger branches toward the front. We want to convey the feeling of the tree ''embracing'' us.
An indispensable ''rule'' in helping create the illusion.

 

[Maloghurst]

@namnhi ,

you missed the hidden agaenda.

How much did you pay to study, and what happens if you paid so much, and can't get anything $$ back.

I re-mention our Ceramic period of late 1970 to early 90's.
Convinced that they could make money on not a craft, but an Art many took courses, bought moulds,
kilns, glazes, and got gypped, nothing sold.
Money down the drain.

This is why we do for ourselves, don't want to be victims.

Yi-Xing wares by master potters --------- ha ha ha
Tools that keep going up in cost -------- not value ---------- ha ha ha

Here is a master potter's work ---------- http://syracusethenandnow.org/Nghbrhds/Strathmore/ScarabVase.jpg

Adelaide Alsop Robineau
Master Ceramist

Note she is listed as ----- Master Ceramist ---------------- Art clay body

Same as the suckers who did the Ceramics courses down here - art clay body - totally nonfunctional
also falls apart with time, just standing there - body formula had a slight change to make it
commercial.

Apologies, the big letters, machine is doing as it wishes -------- Not shouting.

JudyB,

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

The sincerest compliment is when someone purchases your effort.
Good Day
Anthony

.
Music maker,

I agree with your definitions of what bonsai is. I think most people would. but I have to disagree with these quotes.



.



If we are to take this concept to it's logical conclusion, then all of one's activities have the potential to be labelled art if the one who performs the activity deems it so. Therefore, I can get up in the morning and declare that I am performing art when I make a cup of coffee or make a sandwich. Well that can't be right because you say that even if what you're doing is a craft, it's still your unique expression of that craft and that is reason enough to do away with the differentiation between craft and art. So let's take it further. In making the sandwich that I have now declared as being art, I have taken a slice of bread, put a piece of cheese on it and covered it with another slice of bread. That is not what the average person would call ''unique''. Far from it. It would be seen about as unique as breathing. There needs to be some kind of practical definition of the word unique. So I think we can agree that that would not generally be considered is art even if the sandwich maker says it is.
But if I then take that slice of bread and turn it round 3 times before finishing it, that has now become a unique expression and is now truly art. Perhaps so but you can see how ridiculous it then becomes. By the same definition, every bonsai is unique and therefore art. I went to a bonsai exhibition yesterday and I can say that in my opinion there was very little of what I would call art going on. 95% of the trees where made according to a pre-viewed image. The fact that each was unique is just not enough to label it as being derived from individual thought. I like Oscar Wilde's quote ''Art is the most intense form of individualism we have''
Nothing in the universe is not unique. The way I type these words is unique. We are not doing art just by existing.

It's odd to me that some of you are so anti bonsai rules but place all kinds of rules on what is art? While clearly not understanding art in the first place.
For any artist or person familiar with art or art history this conversation is dumbfounding.
Art is everything you've called it and less and more.
1. You don't have to be commercially successful to be an artist.
2. Craftsman are generally called Artisans nowadays because what they do is considered an art.
3. Art doesn't have to be groundbreaking or controversial. There are no rules, the sky is the limit.
4. We create artistically when we create bonsai so it is art. The same as A figure painter paints the human form we represent life using a living thing as our medium. The figure painting world has so many variations as well. Photo realism, abstract, Impressionism, cubism, primitive, comic books, my 3 year olds first face drawn this week. It's all art.
5.Bonsai does not have to be show ready in order to be a bonsai. We do have terms like prebonsai etc.
Here is amazing performance artist named Marina Ambromavic. You might not agree that she is an artist but that would be just silly.