Then for God's sake, if a subject makes no sense to you or does not interest you, skip it, ignore it, avoid it, don't whine and moan about it all day. Forbidden subjects? What's next? Burning books?
Look, if you are going to purposely change and twist people's words, how can anyone have a logical discussion about an issue? Who brought up forbidden subjects? Your buddy!
What do you do if the TV has a program on you don't like, scream at the screen or change the channel? There are many threads here on all subjects, pick one you like and participate in it, let those who like other threads participate in them as well. Trust me, not every word you discuss is valued by others either.
Television (and forums) have hundreds of choices for a reason, so there are choices and options for everyone at every level, what I like, you may not, so be it, we simply watch different channels. People need to stop screaming at what others choose to watch and demanding that only their program be allowed and that it be the only program on every channel, 27/7.
This is why it's so difficult to voice a different opinion on some web fora. Minutiae and philosophical bits picked from the teeth after dinner are bandied back and forth (all with proper decorum and don't vary from the subject, thank you very much!) with thousands of words, so many that the average person does not have the strength to raise an objection.
Only one of us seems to be bothered when someone disagrees with us. I have my views. Here's one you'll like. I don't think bonsai can be classified as art in the same way the schools of art have sprung up through history. To believe that, one would have to come to some very fantastical conclusions, including that found objects are art because an artist says they are, that the same found objects claimed as art by a plebeian would not be art, that something becomes art when placed in an artistic setting, or that something becomes art when an "expert" says it is. One would have to come to the conclusion that "talent" trumps technique, and that a tree owned by someone who did not design it can never truly be "theirs."
Who are we? We are bonsai enthusiasts. We are bonsai artists. We are bonsai craftspersons. And the main reaon I come to bonsai fora is to learn and share knowledge of styling, technique, and display. I don't care what someone's political leanings are or what axe they have to grind. I care about taking my bonsai to the highest level I possibly can. And I hope to buy some really great trees some day. So I get the best of both possible worlds. And yes, I realize, I am an artist. I have a lot to learn. But I will learn what it takes see the best possible tree in a piece of material, and I will learn what it takes to bend the tree to that vision.
As far as I know, there is only one person whining and complaining.
Hmm, I wonder if he would say the same about other art form classifications, such as Impressionism, Expressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, etc... should these classifications all be thrown into the "trash can" also? Should they be divided and simplified into good or bad art? I find it hard to believe that all the art historians and critics are wrong Chris, excuse me if I go with historical basis on this one.
Like it or not, Will, I doubt any of those people would be on your side in this debate. Those schools of art are what they are, and are defined by art critics and historians. There is some debate as to the artistic value of some of them, but that debate is largely quashed by the art establishment that favors the avant garde.
Good or bad art, that's obvious. What type of good or bad art, that is the question. Why do we divide Shohin from Mame? Formal upright from cascade? According to Boon, it is just good or bad, right?
Boon goes on to say in that same interview, "Most people who are attached to these classifications often are not good bonsai artists--and they hide behind rules."
Well the only person I know of that is seriously attached to the naturalistic classification brought up by Boon would be Walter Pall, who is certainly a good bonsai artist and certainly does not hide behind the rules at all.
Will
Boon says a lot of things in that interview. And AoB's own Andy Rutledge came down squarely in this camp with his article, "
Classical vs. Naturalistic = Useless Debate." Yes, Walter is squarely in your camp, and of course is entitled to his view of bonsai. Many of the trees that he calls "Naturalistic" are great trees.
But even Walter agrees that most debate about the subject is useless! Now before you make some fantastic allegation that Boon denigrates Walter's trees, Walter has been a guest at Boon's and they got along famously. Boon's comments are obviously pointed at hangers-on and wanna-bes who produce faulty bonsai and call it "Naturalistic." Find your controversy elsewhere.
