The "Rules" of bonsai

[coh]

Ah, are we back to rules again? I hope so.

I was just browsing through the most recent blog post by Michael Hagedorn. It can be found here: https://crataegus.com/2016/11/09/part-ii-shore-pine-design-puzzle/
https://crataegus.com/2016/11/09/part-ii-shore-pine-design-puzzle/
An interesting piece of material that I really like, that was presented as a "styling puzzle." In the previous post, he showed the tree before any work and asked what people would do with it.

One quote in the latest post caught my attention: "Here’s the front we chose. Although the front from this side has a slight pigeon breast, coming toward the viewer, that pigeoning adds boldness, and structurally this side had better possibilities for apices and spacial placement of branching." I've underlined the key part. We are often warned to avoid "pigeon breast" trunks, i.e. trunks that move toward the viewer in the middle section, but away (or are vertical) below and above that. It's hard to tell from the photo how much of a "pigeon breast" there is, but I was interested to see his justification...referring to it as "adding boldness." So when does a pigeon breast add boldness, and when is it just a pigeon breast?

I suppose in this case, other features were strong enough to outweigh any negative impact from the bulge. So it seems in many cases, the rules are a "give and take" and one must make judgments and not focus too much on a single rule or aspect of the tree. Nothing earth-shaking, just found it interesting.

 

[Anthony]

Peter,

the guidelines are there, and when you start out they are very comforting.
They help provide - volume - a sense of distance in viewing [ why tops seem to lean forward ] - give balance to
a composition [ placement of a tree in a certain shape of pot ] and so on.

However, there will be times when something pops up that just requires a gut instinct to go beyond the training from
the guidelines.

And I am not sure how much more there is to discuss ?

Much of it will be does it look right or is it effective or plain old -- does it work.
A short topic - which is probably why the music came in so easily.
Great growing to you.
Good Day
Anthony

 

[JudyB]

So when does a pigeon breast add boldness

When you are Michael Hagedorn...

and when is it just a pigeon breast?

When you are a hobbiest...

 

[coh]

When you are Michael Hagedorn...

When you are a hobbiest...

Cynical today, aren't we?

Exactly what I was thinking, though...

 

[JudyB]

Cynical today, aren't we?

Exactly what I was thinking, though...

Well actually, I have a crabapple that from one angle is pretty nice, but has the dreaded PB. So of course my "rules" brain half has stopped me from looking at this side in a serious way. I think people like MH can get away with things like this as most of the material they work with have many more redeeming qualities to make up for flaws... and they are who they are as well.

 

[coh]

But is this another case where we just think something is a flaw, because we've been told it is? If you had two trees that were almost identical, except one had a slight PB...and you showed both to a bunch of non bonsai people, would they see the PB as a flaw? Similarly, would they prefer a tree that "bowed" toward them, over one that didn't? I wonder...

 

[petegreg]

Ah, are we back to rules again? I hope so.

I was just browsing through the most recent blog post by Michael Hagedorn. It can be found here: https://crataegus.com/2016/11/09/part-ii-shore-pine-design-puzzle/
An interesting piece of material that I really like, that was presented as a "styling puzzle." In the previous post, he showed the tree before any work and asked what people would do with it.

One quote in the latest post caught my attention: "Here’s the front we chose. Although the front from this side has a slight pigeon breast, coming toward the viewer, that pigeoning adds boldness, and structurally this side had better possibilities for apices and spacial placement of branching." I've underlined the key part. We are often warned to avoid "pigeon breast" trunks, i.e. trunks that move toward the viewer in the middle section, but away (or are vertical) below and above that. It's hard to tell from the photo how much of a "pigeon breast" there is, but I was interested to see his justification...referring to it as "adding boldness." So when does a pigeon breast add boldness, and when is it just a pigeon breast?

I suppose in this case, other features were strong enough to outweigh any negative impact from the bulge. So it seems in many cases, the rules are a "give and take" and one must make judgments and not focus too much on a single rule or aspect of the tree. Nothing earth-shaking, just found it interesting.

This is very interesting example. I follow Michael's blog too.

Going back to the Part 1 of this story I could see... From the R and L pictures, there are at least two waves on the lower half of trunk. It means pigeon breast from the front and rear side too. 1:1

From the F and R pictures I can see the branches grow out off the trunk almost
directly to the right or left. 2:2

I tried to make the mirror pictures of F and R. Didn't really see any significant difference. 3:3

Couldn't be his decision based on our habit of reading from left to right? I can only guess.

 

[Anthony]

Peter,

I think Sifu might have generated this conversation, to help get past the, 1,2,3 branch or eye poking branch or the
eagle's claw root system to try and get a discussion on what these guidelines do.

So when I use words like volume, or stability or negative / positive space, it gets the reader to look past branch placements
etc. and understand how Design works.

The pigeon breast as a shape might occur where it enhances the design of the tree.
Whereas with other trees, it might just be an ugly shape.

This is why we encourage beginners to have around 300 efforts to not love the few to death, to learn to water, to learn
to prune. All the while looking, or as painters put it - See.
Observing trees in nature, single specimens, draw, draw on prints with tracing paper and so on, gives more information
for the memory to work with.
To effortlessly come up with new designs/ideas.

How many really do the above ?
Now be honest oh readers [ not addressed to just Peter.]

For Peter with little space, suggestion would have been - bean or mame' size, 1 to 3 to 6 inches. Then he could have 300 to
work on.[ Count Matsudaira / Zeko Nakamura ]

By the way our bean and mame' are in full sun and require the same watering as the bigger ones, 1 evening, 2 in the morning.
Good Day
Anthony

 

[MichaelS]

Ah, are we back to rules again? I hope so.

I was just browsing through the most recent blog post by Michael Hagedorn. It can be found here: https://crataegus.com/2016/11/09/part-ii-shore-pine-design-puzzle/
An interesting piece of material that I really like, that was presented as a "styling puzzle." In the previous post, he showed the tree before any work and asked what people would do with it.

One quote in the latest post caught my attention: "Here’s the front we chose. Although the front from this side has a slight pigeon breast, coming toward the viewer, that pigeoning adds boldness, and structurally this side had better possibilities for apices and spacial placement of branching." I've underlined the key part. We are often warned to avoid "pigeon breast" trunks, i.e. trunks that move toward the viewer in the middle section, but away (or are vertical) below and above that. It's hard to tell from the photo how much of a "pigeon breast" there is, but I was interested to see his justification...referring to it as "adding boldness." So when does a pigeon breast add boldness, and when is it just a pigeon breast?

I suppose in this case, other features were strong enough to outweigh any negative impact from the bulge. So it seems in many cases, the rules are a "give and take" and one must make judgments and not focus too much on a single rule or aspect of the tree. Nothing earth-shaking, just found it interesting.

I find the result disappointing. One again we have fallen back on our contrived Japanese aesthetic. A very ''safe'' and boring option. The apex in particular was reduced far to much in my opinion. No rules broken. Very predictable.
Any one agree?????????????? Come on there must be someone!

 

[Djtommy]

I find the result disappointing. One again we have fallen back on our contrived Japanese aesthetic. A very ''safe'' and boring option. The apex in particular was reduced far to much in my opinion. No rules broken. Very predictable.
Any one agree?????????????? Come on there must be someone!

Im not sure if i would have cut back on the right side trunk that much.
But as for he height, he choose the most intersting line and cut the rest away, i dont think it reduced in height that much, it looks balanced out and i like it very much.
I think its in line with most of his styling, a little feminine, sereen,..
And still being 97cm is way high enough

 

[Adair M]

When you are Michael Hagedorn...

When you are a hobbiest...

Note that he positioned a branch to hide that pigeon breast part a bit.

 

[aml1014]

Note that he positioned a branch to hide that pigeon breast part a bit.

Going back to "rules", that branch he placed to hide the pigeon breast is not in the upper third of the tree, so it becomes an eye poker. But yet it looks good to me. ANOTHER rule broken.lol

Aaron

 

[coh]

I find the result disappointing. One again we have fallen back on our contrived Japanese aesthetic. A very ''safe'' and boring option. The apex in particular was reduced far to much in my opinion. No rules broken. Very predictable.
Any one agree?????????????? Come on there must be someone!

I was surprised they reduced the apex as much as they did, but I like the result. Could there have been a more interesting path? Maybe. Why don't you suggest one?

 

[MichaelS]

Im not sure if i would have cut back on the right side trunk that much.
But as for he height, he choose the most intersting line and cut the rest away, i dont think it reduced in height that much, it looks balanced out and i like it very much.
I think its in line with most of his styling, a little feminine, sereen,..
And still being 97cm is way high enough

I meant the mass rather than the height.

I was surprised they reduced the apex as much as they did, but I like the result. Could there have been a more interesting path? Maybe. Why don't you suggest one?

It's very difficult to articulate. But generally, the overall image was originally of a mature tree and the reworking was the image of a young tree. This in itself is not a bad thing but the path for the tree now has been highly restricted and ''normalised''. I would like to have seen more sensitivity to the image as it was and to see that more carefully refined. I'm a bit over the obsession with weeping branches. Why the need to make it into a Japanese white pine bonsai?
I would love to see someone really start thinking instead of the same ol same ol.
Wild bunjin shore pines: