The secret to growing bonsai. A thread inspired by Bolero.

[MichaelS]

Please...I am wondering WHO Micahael is...what extent of training he had to go through this post and critique everyone's show and tell. Is he an educated man in the art of Bonsai? I was reading a thread I was tagged in for my direction. Then start seeing him direct more critiquing than I care to count ones trees chosen. Honestly?


Thanks Denise...I am curious...as to the one doing all the critiquing. I didn't get that this was a critiquing thread. But one of a show and tell sort of aspect of what inspires us...and what we currently feel our best. Nothing like one running around with a safety pin trying to pop bubbles. If a tree speaks to one...THAT is what matters. It may not speak to the next person...and that is okay. One thing I do like about bonsai is...there seems to be a style for everyone's taste. Yet not every style fits everyone's taste it makes some see more in a specific tree than another would. I would be curious to know of the critiquing one @MichaelS that feels that his credentials gives him the right to critique what another find appealing? It's like...saying, one has poor taste in the tree they chose to share that inspired them. I don't know you well enough Michael...to know your credentials. Maybe enlighten me...so that I may understand your knowledge you share as a learning aspect more than a higher than thou aspect of belittling what ones shared as the tree that inspired them? (No sarcasm,no tone of inflection...I just wish to understand if you have more teaching and are a master to some degree that ones look up to you...and you are sharing your knowledge with us little folk. To broaden and fine tune our seeing bonsai. For if you are...then, I don't wish to offer disrespect of your knowledge.)

Ok, you asked.
When anyone puts any of their works on any public forum, and that includes all the shows and this place as well, they are, or should, be knowingly placing their work in the view of all that see it. So, what should they expect (NOT HOPE FOR. Hoping for something is about as useful as praying) from the viewer? There are three options.
1. That there is no comment at all. 2. That everyone who sees it will say positive things (this is too often the case), and 3. That there will be honest comments both positive and negative. To expect 1 or 2 is pathetic and insecure. If you hope for that, don't post anything. The only instructive option is 3. Anything else is tiddledy winks. Now, the fact that everyone sees things in a different way is a given. If I hear that one more time I'll freak! That's why I begrudgingly write IMO all the time, even though I sick to death of having to do that. Everyone who looks at a tree automatically critiques it in their minds. You know that, you do that, we all do that. Why are so many people so precious that they cannot take constructive criticism when they know that everyone has already critiqued the piece as soon as they see it? Is it ''look but say nothing unless it's good''? The more opinions we get, the faster we learn. Isn't that what a forum is actually for? Or is it an ego stroking outlet? Is it really just too much to handle? It's not an act of law, you can do whatever the hell you want! Everyone's personal taste is valid to themselves but don't mistake that as being the end of it. There are different levels of appreciation. I may look at a tree very differently to someone who has been practicing the craft for 5 years, and there is no doubt that some old master who has been tending his trees for half a century or more will see things differently that me. I don't really care if it offends you that after working all day, every day with trees for 30 years or so, growing them from seed (I have never purchased a tree in my life. every damn branch is mine), that I have confidence that I can quickly discern quality in a piece and instinctively know how it could be improved and at the same time notice fundamental mistakes that people make. I also know from the same experience that some others do not see the same thing and some even never will. That won't stop me from pointing out those mistakes. Whether they like it or reject it is unimportant to me. As I already mentioned, if they post it, that is what they should expect. What is important to me is that quality rises. I also have realized my own short comings after all this time, but that is also a positive thing. I really couldn't care less if you see me as ''pompous'' or ''superior'' what ever the hell else you want to tag me with. I know who I am and I know my intentions are always positive. If you see it another way, not my problem. Anyone who calls themselves a master is fooling themselves. Knowing your limitations and desiring to have them pointed out is what's important.

 

[Adair M]

Ok, you asked.
When anyone puts any of their works on any public forum, and that includes all the shows and this place as well, they are, or should, be knowingly placing their work in the view of all that see it. So, what should they expect (NOT HOPE FOR. Hoping for something is about as useful as praying) from the viewer? There are three options.
1. That there is no comment at all. 2. That everyone who sees it will say positive things (this is too often the case), and 3. That there will be honest comments both positive and negative. To expect 1 or 2 is pathetic and insecure. If you hope for that, don't post anything. The only instructive option is 3. Anything else is tiddledy winks. Now, the fact that everyone sees things in a different way is a given. If I hear that one more time I'll freak! That's why I begrudgingly write IMO all the time, even though I sick to death of having to do that. Everyone who looks at a tree automatically critiques it in their minds. You know that, you do that, we all do that. Why are so many people so precious that they cannot take constructive criticism when they know that everyone has already critiqued the piece as soon as they see it? Is it ''look but say nothing unless it's good''? The more opinions we get, the faster we learn. Isn't that what a forum is actually for? Or is it an ego stroking outlet? Is it really just too much to handle? It's not an act of law, you can do whatever the hell you want! Everyone's personal taste is valid to themselves but don't mistake that as being the end of it. There are different levels of appreciation. I may look at a tree very differently to someone who has been practicing the craft for 5 years, and there is no doubt that some old master who has been tending his trees for half a century or more will see things differently that me. I don't really care if it offends you that after working all day, every day with trees for 30 years or so, growing them from seed (I have never purchased a tree in my life. every damn branch is mine), that I have confidence that I can quickly discern quality in a piece and instinctively know how it could be improved and at the same time notice fundamental mistakes that people make. I also know from the same experience that some others do not see the same thing and some even never will. That won't stop me from pointing out those mistakes. Whether they like it or reject it is unimportant to me. As I already mentioned, if they post it, that is what they should expect. What is important to me is that quality rises. I also have realized my own short comings after all this time, but that is also a positive thing. I really couldn't care less if you see me as ''pompous'' or ''superior'' what ever the hell else you want to tag me with. I know who I am and I know my intentions are always positive. If you see it another way, not my problem. Anyone who calls themselves a master is fooling themselves. Knowing your limitations and desiring to have them pointed out is what's important.

So you've only worked with trees you've started from seed? That's: 1) amazing; and 2) limiting.

But it does provide insight into your perspective I suppose.

Limiting: some trees take forever to develop the character to make really good bonsai. Japanese White Pine, for example, don't even start to make rough bark until they're 20 to 25 years old! And then, it's another 20 years or so before they start to develop "plated" bark like a JBP. So, you're looking at 40+ years just to get nice bark on a trunk!

 

[MichaelS]

Vance Wood, post:

Holy crap Mike you miss the entire focus of art. You can of course make the argument that there is no art involved in the production of the images produced in the Olive tree. You forget that much of what art is depends on recognizing opportunities.

That is a good point Vance but incomplete. Recognizing an opportunity is part of art yes, but using someone else's recognition of an opportunity is not. 9 times out of 10, that is what is happening, and I would bet London to a brick that's what happened here.
Once again, monkey see, monkey do.

One could say that Mozart did not create art from music because so much of his stuff was composed around folk tunes and children's songs, therefore using your definition or understanding of art Mozart just wrote show tunes. It is easy to see the art in front of your face but it is not so easy to look at a crumpled up old Olive stump and build a beautiful image around it. This stuff does not happen by magic. I would like to see some examples of your work and your explanation how you got your tree/trees from one piece of raw material to a good bonsai.

Mozart did what no one has ever done before. He ''composed''. True creation of something that was not there before. Of course no one can create anything if they have no tools to do it. You always need to observe before you create. You need to hear music before you can create more.
Bonsai practice is not the same. At least MOST bonsai practice is not the same. I liken it more to someone sitting at a piano and playing a Mozart tune. That is not art by my definition. It's not original, it's using someone else's idea to express.

But besides all that, why is it so important to bonsai people that they need to think they are artists? What's wrong with being master craftsmen? (just like a master stone mason or whatever) After all, master craftsmen have much higher inherent value than mediocre artists, and as we all know, there's no shortage of those!

 

[MichaelS]

Limiting: some trees take forever to develop the character to make really good bonsai.

Right there you have a skewed view of what ''really good bonsai'' are.

Bonsai is first of all a journey. The age comes when it comes, it does not have to come while you are alive. In the mean time, you can appreciate other trees made before your time. That ''gotta have it now'' attitude is what is really limiting. It misses the whole point. I know people like that. One in particular has never started any tree. He has just bought big mature ones and says ''I don't have the patience'' I say, he's also missing the point and missing the best part.

 

[Vance Wood]

But still one major aspect seems to have eluded the conversation. Bonsai almost more than any other art form seems to require an active familiarity with the art. In short if you find it necessary, and in your own mind helpful, to criticize or critique other people's work it is by necessity, in my mind, that you must be willing to open your arms to the same kind of criticism from others meaning put up some examples of your own work. You wrote: That is a good point Vance but incomplete. Recognizing an opportunity is part of art yes, but using someone else's recognition of an opportunity is not. 9 times out of 10, that is what is happening, and I would bet London to a brick that's what happened here.
Once again, monkey see, monkey do. This was a response to my observation about the Olive tree pictures. By saying this you are at one and the same time acknowledging that it indeed takes art to identify opportunity, but you bet that this was not the case here. How do you know? At what point in a critique are you willing to acknowledge opportunity and therefore art, or because you don't know, evereything is Monkey see, monkey do to you?

 

[Adair M]

Right there you have a skewed view of what ''really good bonsai'' are.

Bonsai is first of all a journey. The age comes when it comes, it does not have to come while you are alive. In the mean time, you can appreciate other trees made before your time. That ''gotta have it now'' attitude is what is really limiting. It misses the whole point. I know people like that. One in particular has never started any tree. He has just bought big mature ones and says ''I don't have the patience'' I say, he's also missing the point and missing the best part.

Well, maybe for you developing is the best part, but for others refinement is the best part of bonsai. Other people like to propagate, but not develop or refine. I have a client who LOVES bonsai, but she will absolutely not repot one!

Me, I personally don't care to propagate. But, I'll buy rough stock and take it from there. I have also purchased some "finished" bonsai. And refine them further. My favorite way to aquire bonsai is the buy something that used to be good, but has been neglected or mismanaged. And bring it back.

 

[MichaelS]

Yeah, I am comfortable with my level of authority in the subject and your pie in the sky made up ideas about what is and what is not art are your opinions that you toss around as though they are fact. That is why I can say with absolute certainty you are WRONG. Wrong in how you define it, wrong in how you describe your OPINIONS as though they are somehow proven facts and wrong in your bullshit elitist attitude, condescending others who actually had the guts to put out there what they like, and talk about why, which... You won't do obviously because you know you are talking out of both side of your mouth on the subject and there is no such thing as a tree that adheres to your definitions of art..

Beyond that to speak to specifics of your comments on the Olives My Neli posted- you also do not know if those trunks were completely sculpted by nature... were YOU the one who collected those trees? If they had SOME deadwood, and the ARTISTS enhanced the features of that wood to make it more visually appealing, would it then be a work by his own hand? What if they simply applied chemicals to make them a different color and stand out more aesthetically? What if they had NO deadwood when he started work on them? You don't know any more about them than anyone else who saw the pics... by your comments nobody can claim a tree as their own work of art unless they grew it from seed because nature did most of the work for them, right? Well even with a seedling grown in my yard, does nature not intervene to cause it to sprout, have some determination in the exact genetics of the plant, it's growth rate, the color of it's leaves...? Where does it end? Pretty much what you are speaking to below:



Don't want to get into that again? Then why did you bring it up? That is a huge jump to scratching ourselves in the morning being art. Over exaggeration to make a point, belittling others' opinions to make them seem trivial... Getting awfully defensive... All from someone who said they didn't want to get into all this again AFTER getting into it? Your ideas about what is and is not art and what is or is not a good bonsai, are your own OPINIONS. You are certainty entitled to them, but yes. I am an authority on art. I have been practicing in multiple mediums since I was a child- over 30 years ago- I have a four year degree in the arts and I have done it professionally through government and private agencies. With that stated, I can tell you my very well informed OPINION is that your opinions are wrong, and your constant blathering on the subject any time it is brought up is boardering on desperation.

As Thumbless said- art is in the eye of the beholder... an old, cliche statement perhaps, but that is the best "definition" you will find. Because, there is not a CLEAR definition out there.. if you look it up, Webster says something about a creative work made by human hands, generally speaks of some level of beauty or measurable interest or inspiration... but the truth is that all of that is subjective- how much of an influence the human hands had in creating the work of art, how much "beauty" a work possesses... All mean something different to different people. So you tossing your weight around on the subject, acting like YOU get to tell others what is and is not art because of what YOU believe... That is why I react so negatively to your posts on the subject. That is why it is WRONG to ME. Because you, nor I, nor anyone else on the forum gets to tell someone their work of art is not art. That is in stark contrast to what art is all about. You seem to be railing against the "cookie cutter" designs some people fall into with Bonsai when by doing so you are pigeon holing the requirements of what would fit your deffinition into such a tight criteria, you have made it much more restrictive than the rules you are against.

Sorry to take this one off on such a tangent, I made my point, don't have much more to say on the matter. Brian, I will try to find a few pics to post soon to do my part to get it back on track.

Very passionate Eric although needlessly hysterical. To say that art is indefinable is an often heard comment which I find a total cop out. Answer me this.
Do you believe art exists or not? By your superficial and feeble rantings, I will assume you do. You say there is no CLEAR definition. Art is either ''something'' or it's ''nothing'' Right? I think we can agree that it is something. If it is as you say, undefinable, (the word ''unclear'' means the same thing), it means there is no line where art starts and non-art stops. Then every activity of man must be art. How can it be any other way? (Or are you saying that you know art is out there but you just don't know what it is?) Personally, I think that's bullshit and as I said earlier, renders the word art meaningless. It means pure existence is art. Total nonsense.
If you do not know how to define art, then you do not know how to define that which is not art. In that case you have no right whatsoever to assume others don't know what they are taking about when it comes to defining art do you. You said it yourself that to you there's no definition. No CLEAR definition means no definition.
Well at least I do have a definition which is much more than I can say about you.
If you don't know what art is, maybe you can try this one. Tell me what you think is NOT art. You can't do that either can you? If you cannot define it in your own mind, you have no right to even use the word.
I'm quite comfortable with my own definition and have every right to express it regardless of what you think.
''Art is an original idea''..... That is very broad but at the same time it can in theory be examined and determined.

 

[Eric Group]

I suppose in MichaelS's world, Michelangelo was not an artist. After all, David was inside that slab of marble all the time! All Michelangelo had to do was remove the parts of the slab that didn't look like David!

Exceptionally well said!

 

[MichaelS]

But still one major aspect seems to have eluded the conversation. Bonsai almost more than any other art form seems to require an active familiarity with the art. In short if you find it necessary, and in your own mind helpful, to criticize or critique other people's work it is by necessity, in my mind, that you must be willing to open your arms to the same kind of criticism from others meaning put up some examples of your own work. You wrote: That is a good point Vance but incomplete. Recognizing an opportunity is part of art yes, but using someone else's recognition of an opportunity is not. 9 times out of 10, that is what is happening, and I would bet London to a brick that's what happened here.
Once again, monkey see, monkey do. This was a response to my observation about the Olive tree pictures. By saying this you are at one and the same time acknowledging that it indeed takes art to identify opportunity, but you bet that this was not the case here. How do you know? At what point in a critique are you willing to acknowledge opportunity and therefore art, or because you don't know, evereything is Monkey see, monkey do to you?

I can't reach that point. In fact, the more I get grilled on the subject and think about it the more I'm leaning to the idea that there is no art in bonsai whatsoever. Either it's all art or none of it is. Think about it. What IS bonsai. The desire to capture a bit of nature. We manipulate a living organism until it pleases us. Well we do the same thing when we mow the lawn. We do the same thing when we breed more colour into a tropical fish. What's the difference?
Years ago, our club was stopped at exhibiting our trees in a very high ended art gallery because the people who ran it (supposed art experts) did not consider what we did art. I was appauled at the time. Now, I understand them.

 

[ArtistWolf]

Maybe the bonsai creator is not an artist, but rather, the bonsai viewer.

 

[Eric Group]

Very passionate Eric although needlessly hysterical. To say that art is indefinable is an often heard comment which I find a total cop out. Answer me this.
Do you believe art exists or not? By your superficial and feeble rantings, I will assume you do. You say there is no CLEAR definition. Art is either ''something'' or it's ''nothing'' Right? I think we can agree that it is something. If it is as you say, undefinable, (the word ''unclear'' means the same thing), it means there is no line where art starts and non-art stops. Then every activity of man must be art. How can it be any other way? (Or are you saying that you know art is out there but you just don't know what it is?) Personally, I think that's bullshit and as I said earlier, renders the word art meaningless. It means pure existence is art. Total nonsense.
If you do not know how to define art, then you do not know how to define that which is not art. In that case you have no right whatsoever to assume others don't know what they are taking about when it comes to defining art do you. You said it yourself that to you there's no definition. No CLEAR definition means no definition.
Well at least I do have a definition which is much more than I can say about you.
If you don't know what art is, maybe you can try this one. Tell me what you think is NOT art. You can't do that either can you? If you cannot define it in your own mind, you have no right to even use the word.
I'm quite comfortable with my own definition and have every right to express it regardless of what you think.
''Art is an original idea''..... That is very broad but at the same time it can in theory be examined and determined.

I am beginning to wonder if they speak and read English in Australia!
I never said a I could not define art, I DID... in the post you quoted... what I was saying is there is a blurred line around what you were trying to do- tell people their creations or their admired trees were NOT art. It is going to be different depending on who you ask, so you spouting your opinions, which- again I said in the post you quoted, you ARE entitled to- but LABELING THEM FACTS, is just not TRUE. Your opinion is just that... an opinion, and I think it is clear it is in stark contrast to what most people would agree with regarding what is art and what is a good bonsai. The only hysterics I ever see on this subject on this forum- be it this thread or many others- is your attempts to force that opinion on other people.

This thread as @Brian Van Fleet said a few times though should not get so mired down in people trying to force opinion on each other... what I like about this thread is it is a valuable method for teaching art used in classes I have taken in multiple mediums! Art can be so many things, so vastly different to so many people it can be difficult to "rate" or "grade", so rather than telling a student "paint a picture" then slapping a grade on it that's is purely subjective based off the instructors appreciation... they give definable parameters to the student. "Paint a realistic image of ___ (a specific subject)." Or "take a picture using leading lines/ vectors..". Then the teacher can communicate to the student what the differences or short comings are and give instruction on how they could improve... this excercise is similar- show what you WANT your trees to look like, then let's see what your trees DO look like, and talk about what you can do to get there, or CLOSER at least...

This is how people can improve... so, again- I feel like I made my point pretty clear: trying to push your opinion on others here is way off subject and counter productive because MOST the people who do Bonsai don't agree with your opinions on what art/ good Bonsai are, but honestly that is fine! WHATEVER MAN, make some ugly ass trees if that is what you like! What a I find attractive, or what others find attractive and want in their collections will all be different... the point here is to help people figure out how to get where THEY want to go, not where YOU want them to go...


And that my friend IS what art is all about. "The eye of the beholder". Just as some love chocolate, some don't... we all like different stuff and art celebrates that, puts no boundaries on it and encourages the person to make what they want to make...

 

[music~maker]

That is a good point Vance but incomplete. Recognizing an opportunity is part of art yes, but using someone else's recognition of an opportunity is not. 9 times out of 10, that is what is happening, and I would bet London to a brick that's what happened here.
Once again, monkey see, monkey do.



Mozart did what no one has ever done before. He ''composed''. True creation of something that was not there before. Of course no one can create anything if they have no tools to do it. You always need to observe before you create. You need to hear music before you can create more.
Bonsai practice is not the same. At least MOST bonsai practice is not the same. I liken it more to someone sitting at a piano and playing a Mozart tune. That is not art by my definition. It's not original, it's using someone else's idea to express.

But besides all that, why is it so important to bonsai people that they need to think they are artists? What's wrong with being master craftsmen? (just like a master stone mason or whatever) After all, master craftsmen have much higher inherent value than mediocre artists, and as we all know, there's no shortage of those!

I feel like we come back to this again and again. You have a very, very narrow definition of what art is, and you throw it around as if its a fact. It's certainly a high standard, and I applaud you if you can hold yourself to it. The idea that only some unique composition that has never been seen or heard before is art. Something like that ... I would argue that even those at the highest levels of this game are still practicing in a field where certain things are standardized. The type of pots that get used, the fact that branches are wired, the horticultural techniques that are used to keep the tree healthy, etc.

In the same way, great painters and rank amateurs still can use the exact same materials ... one could easily argue that both are creating art, just that one is arguably better than the other at it right now. But it's so strange to me that one can have such a precise and limiting definition of what is essentially indefinable. Where exactly do you draw that line where the master painter is suddenly doing art and when he/she was not? I could see drawing a line for when somebody's works suddenly start becoming "good", but "art" is just SOOOO subjective.

Every bonsai tree, even the crappy ones, is still a unique entity, and no two are exactly alike. I don't like the cookie cutter stuff any more than you do, but I can't bring myself to impose my definition of art on them. They are all somebody's unique expression of bonsai, even if they're not producing world class trees. Similarly, there are musicians who specialize in performing other people's songs. Those people are usually still considered artists by the vast majority of people. Who's to really say that they're not?

I've noticed that you also have a pretty strict definition for how trees should be developed as well. We had a recent discussion about it in another thread. I said it there, and I'll say it here. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and similarly, there's more than one definition of art. Nobody gets a monopoly on the right answer for something that is by definition entirely subjective.

You can pretend to know the right answer on these things, or maybe you even think that you do, but the more stubbornly you hold onto the idea that certain things are art and others are not, the less seriously I can take the things you say. I don't say this with any malice or disrespect - I mostly just find you a bit confusing.

You're so adamant about these things that I'm starting to think you're maybe a performance artist akin to those who go around spray painting "NOT ART" on things.

 

[amcoffeegirl]

This was a brilliant exercise on self reflection. If you can't see where you want to go then how will you know when you get there? I have some work to do.
I should spend more time viewing trees again. There is a gathering Saturday maybe I will attend. It would be good for me probably.

 

[Vance Wood]

It seems to come down to the argument about art and all the crappola we have hashed over for years around here. Nothing new has been said and for the most part minds have not been changed. For the sake of what we do around here and why this post came up in the first place depends on whether or not you are justified in judging other people's work without offering work of your own for the rest of us to treat in a like manner. If bonsai has in some small way given us mear mortals the opportunity to soar with the Gods in producing what we imagine as art really is not dependent upon you or your opinion unless you truly do believe bonsai is art. So--- if at some point you make up your mind what bonsai is or is not, you might become a bit less pedantic and a bit more generous in spirit in accepting what people do, especially if you still refuse to demonstrate your ability, your real ability not what you think you can do in time.

We have had people come around here from time to time that believe they have it all figured out even after two or three years. They are quick to tell us how we are doing this wrong and that wrong and how we have to do it this way and that way when in fact when pressed they only believe they know the secret of bonsai but don't have any yet. We used to have what we called the All Smoke No Fire Club for individuals that were truly legends in their own minds. Some of them were even students of well known teachers thinking just the association legitimized their position and level of skill.

 

[Eric Group]

Now- to get into what the thread is really is about-
My favorite tree? Hard to nail it down to just one.. I like such a wide range! Maples were my favorites for a long while and I always loved @Walter Pall 's big JM post here earlier by another person, so I guess I can just use that one for the purpose of discussion.. but I have REALLY gotten into Azaleas Lately... big time and there are so many gorgeous ones floating around the old interwebs... again, hard to pick just one!
Here are a couple pulled off a quick image search:


Just examples of what I wanted in an Azalea Bonsai- lots of beautiful flowers, nice trunk, good nebari, feeling of age..

So I bought one I felt was of that caliber:
https://www.bonsainut.com/threads/kakou-satsuki-azalea-newest-best-tree.24815/
Many pics in that thread to see the whole tree...

A blooming pic snapped with my phone, will take some better pics this weekend:


So the final piece- what am I doing about it? Well I DID most of it already! I purchased a tree close to the level I wanted to own! For most of us, that is the easiest/fastest/ most common option! Right? But I could post pics of a dozen other projects I was working on, trying to get to this caliber of tree! This one is still a little rough around the edges right now. Took it easnpruning last in hopes I would get the kind of flower show it is putting on right now!! The pic above is ably about 60/70% of full bloom. Today it is much fuller! The only short coming this tree will have once I refine it a bit more this summer? It doesn't have the multi color, star contrast of blooms you see in the first one Inposted above and that is what I really love! I have some good ones that have those multiple blooms but they are nowhere near where this tree is..
I am constantly working to get better at Bonsai but learned a lesson some years ago- you need good material to make great trees! Stop wasting your time with inferior stuff! Unless you have some specific goal or style you just cannot find, or what to try some crazy shape, need grafting stock... or just flat cannot afford anything more than a tiny budget... buy BETTER TREES!!

Maybe I could do one with my best JM compared to WP's Maple too... any advice on how I can improve the Azalea to take it close to the level I want it to be?

Thanks for looking!

 

[amcoffeegirl]

I like the second photo a lot. I think it's good advice to buy better material.
Thank you for sharing. I'm off to visit the link you shared of this tree.

 

[Carol 83]

I thought the purpose of this thread was to show trees that inspired you and what you felt was your best tree. No criticism necessary for peoples personal opinions. Some people like tropicals, some shutter at the thought. Some like purple, some like green. How could any be wrong?

 

[drew33998]

I don't really have a favorite. I can appreciate any well done work of art. How about the Chinese quince at 4:10 of this video of the kokufu ten. Pretty nice.

My best tree




What am I doing to get to a level that the quince at the kokufu is at? Learning as much as I can on this website, in books, and in practical application. I don't have the time, money, nor inclination to do otherwise at this point.

The people that have the best trees are the people that spend the most money or there is a small chance you can create something great given enough time. Look at bill v for instance. 40 years to get some of the stuff that he has from cuttings.

 

[MichaelS]

I feel like we come back to this again and again. You have a very, very narrow definition of what art is, and you throw it around as if its a fact. It's certainly a high standard, and I applaud you if you can hold yourself to it. The idea that only some unique composition that has never been seen or heard before is art. Something like that ... I would argue that even those at the highest levels of this game are still practicing in a field where certain things are standardized. The type of pots that get used, the fact that branches are wired, the horticultural techniques that are used to keep the tree healthy, etc.

In the same way, great painters and rank amateurs still can use the exact same materials ... one could easily argue that both are creating art, just that one is arguably better than the other at it right now. But it's so strange to me that one can have such a precise and limiting definition of what is essentially indefinable. Where exactly do you draw that line where the master painter is suddenly doing art and when he/she was not? I could see drawing a line for when somebody's works suddenly start becoming "good", but "art" is just SOOOO subjective.

Every bonsai tree, even the crappy ones, is still a unique entity, and no two are exactly alike. I don't like the cookie cutter stuff any more than you do, but I can't bring myself to impose my definition of art on them. They are all somebody's unique expression of bonsai, even if they're not producing world class trees. Similarly, there are musicians who specialize in performing other people's songs. Those people are usually still considered artists by the vast majority of people. Who's to really say that they're not?

I've noticed that you also have a pretty strict definition for how trees should be developed as well. We had a recent discussion about it in another thread. I said it there, and I'll say it here. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and similarly, there's more than one definition of art. Nobody gets a monopoly on the right answer for something that is by definition entirely subjective.

You can pretend to know the right answer on these things, or maybe you even think that you do, but the more stubbornly you hold onto the idea that certain things are art and others are not, the less seriously I can take the things you say. I don't say this with any malice or disrespect - I mostly just find you a bit confusing.

You're so adamant about these things that I'm starting to think you're maybe a performance artist akin to those who go around spray painting "NOT ART" on things.

Can I ask just one thing of all you artists? Give me one example, just one, of something you think is definitely not art.

Music maker, I also was a music maker for a while. I played jazz and rock bass for 25 years. We played original music in one band. The rest of the time I played covers in other bands. (most bonsai are covers by the way - yes Eric a fact!) The only time I thought I was creating something (being an artist) was when I was asked to write a bass line by the keyboard player who composed the main music. That was mine, it was unique. I selected and arranged the notes. Other times I would sit at the piano and do a similar thing. Good or bad is not the issue. When I was playing covers, I did not feel I was doing art, I was repeating someone else's. Yes that is narrow definition but without that definition, there is no art. There is no such thing as a blurred line. A blurred line is no line. Just because we cannot easily grasp a concept does not mean it doesn't exist. You seem to be missing the point that if there is no line separating one thing from another both things are the same. Like Yin and Yang. One constantly evolving into the other. I'm not saying that I can tell for certain that every branch manipulated by someone on a tree is not unique but taking the overall outcome of the finished product, a vast majority of the time I can see that it isn't. That's what I 'm talking about. In a PRACTICAL sense. In a theoretical sense, I guess you could say there are ''degrees'' of art. Like someone playing covers as opposed to the one who created them. But we are not concerned with theoretical ideas when we look at trees. And THAT's why I think it's a waste of time trying to label bonsai as art. Even if there are some elements of it there.

So I ask once more. If you believe in art, and you think you can recognize it, give me an example of human activity which you can definitely say is not art.

Finally in practical terms look at these and tell me they are all art pieces. if that's not enough, look at a thousand more.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...=1920&bih=910#tbm=isch&q=bonsai+pine+&spf=427

 

[music~maker]

Despite the rat holes, this was a great idea for a thread @Brian Van Fleet.

I'm going to skirt the rules a bit and submit multiple photos for each because I think it better illustrates things. For me, the pinnacle of bonsai are trees that make me believe them. Trees that I could imagine actually occurring in nature.

I would submit any number of trees from @Walter Pall in this regard. I love the naturalistic style, and his deciduous trees often remind me of trees I see around me where I live.

On a related, but slightly different note, I could submit any number of trees from Dan Robinson. They tend to be wild, rough, and reminiscent of ancient trees one might run into an old growth forest somewhere. Not surprising, either, given that he collects most of his from the wild.

I started in this hobby over 20 years ago, but spent the first 10 years essentially just trimming branches and not really understanding how one gets to these kinds of end states. 12 years ago, I set out to figure it out, and I've been working on the intricacies of developing trunks and branches ever since. I wanted to truly understand what it takes to develop every aspect of the tree.

I feel like this is a lifetime project at this point, but I have definitely made progress in various areas on various trees. The biggest thing I've discovered is that setting a tree up at a particular scale, then gradually scaling it up and occasionally scaling it back down again seems to be a recipe for consistently interesting and natural trunks and branches. It's kind of what happens to natural yamadori that have been browsed by animals, except with a lot more intention. So that's my answer to "what am I doing about it?" In the past few years, I've been seeking out new material that's further along in the trunk department so I can get to finished trees sooner, but some of the trees I consider my best are ones that I have developed from very early stages.

For example, this juniper may not look like anything too fancy:

But I did grow it from this state over 7 years:

And I know every branch on that tree, and there's nothing currently there that isn't serving some purpose. Once I have sufficiently scaled it up into the pre-bonsai material I really want, I plan on really adding some age to it. But I'm in no hurry at all.

Similarly, this acer has tremendous potential to eventually be a good tree, and I consider it one of my best, but it probably doesn't look like so much now:

Unless one considers that I re-grew the entire thing from this over a similar timeframe as that juniper:

So given the path I took in each case to get from point A to point B, I have a pretty good idea for where and how I'm taking them to point C. But by a lot of people's subjective standards, they wouldn't look like much as is. But I was there for their past and I can see their future, if that makes sense.

But I guess I wouldn't consider these my current best on my bench, since I know what a long way to go they still have. That title probably goes to the little seiju elm in the middle in this photo:

It's also the one in my profile photo. Of the trees I have, I think that one currently most accurately depicts a miniature tree at scale that makes me believe it's a larger tree. I have quite a few like the two I showed above that will probably catch up and significantly exceed this in another 5-10-20 years or so, but as you know, developing trunks takes time. =)

My inspirations will continue to be other people's trees that actually look like trees, and more important, actual trees in nature that I find interesting. Nature has left behind a hell of a crib sheet if one stops and looks around.

Thanks again for the thought-provoking thread.