Art vs Craft. Thoughts brought up by recent podcasts/casters. From someone who went to art school.

JohnnyUtah

Sapling
Messages
44
Reaction score
73
Location
WNC
USDA Zone
7a

A Craft-Education Trilogy on Bonsai​


(For Teachers, Mentors, and Serious Practitioners)




I. Against “Getting Good” as an Educational Endpoint​


(What We Are Actually Teaching)


In bonsai education, one of the most common instructional refrains is: “Focus on getting good first.” It is offered generously, often as a way to protect beginners from overwhelm and to anchor learning in fundamentals.


As a starting point, this makes sense.
As an endpoint, it is pedagogically thin.


Within instructional settings, “getting good” usually means learning to produce trees that are healthy, proportionally correct, stylistically legible, and recognizably competent to experienced eyes. These benchmarks are useful. They give students something to aim at. They help teachers diagnose problems. They create a shared visual language.


But when education stops there, students are trained to mistake compliance for understanding.


In many bonsai classrooms and workshops, critique functions almost entirely as correction. Branches are moved. Apexes are reduced. Pots are changed. These interventions are not wrong—but they are rarely framed as choices. They are framed as answers. Intent is often secondary, if it appears at all.


From an educational standpoint, this produces skilled technicians who are excellent at following instructions but poorly equipped to make independent judgments. They learn how to avoid mistakes, but not how to decide what matters.


This is not a failure of bonsai.
It is a failure of pedagogy.


Craft education must teach more than how to meet standards. It must teach how standards function, where they come from, and when they should be questioned—not to undermine them, but to understand their purpose.


Without this, “getting good” becomes a ceiling rather than a foundation.




II. In Praise of Craft as the Core Educational Value​


(Why Bonsai Should Not Be Taught Like Art)


The pressure to frame bonsai as art often enters the classroom indirectly. Students want permission to be expressive. Institutions want relevance. Teachers worry about appearing conservative or restrictive.


But bonsai does not need to be rescued by art discourse.
It needs to be taught honestly.


At its core, bonsai is a craft of responsibility. It requires long-term care, delayed gratification, and an acceptance that decisions may not reveal their consequences for years. These demands are not ancillary to learning—they are the curriculum.


In a craft-education context, “getting good” means something quite different than achieving visual sophistication. It means becoming trustworthy. It means learning to make decisions that the tree can live with. It means understanding that consistency matters more than intensity.


These are educational values that many art programs struggle to teach, but craft traditions excel at transmitting.


Standards in bonsai—proportions, styles, conventions—are not there to limit students. They exist to slow them down. They create friction against which judgment can develop. Without shared constraints, instruction collapses into preference, and preference is not teachable.


From this perspective, repetition is not remedial. Refinement is not conservative. Mastery is not a betrayal of curiosity. They are the means by which attention deepens.


For students, this can be uncomfortable. Craft does not reward quick originality. It does not validate identity through expression. It asks instead for humility, patience, and endurance.


As educators, we should not soften this demand. We should articulate it clearly—and defend it.




III. Against Teaching the Quantification of “Art”​


(Why This Confuses Students and Degrades the Craft)


The most damaging move in bonsai education is the attempt to quantify artistic value.


Scoring systems, ranked evaluations, and aesthetic metrics make sense when they are used to assess care, structure, and long-term viability. These tools help teachers explain cause and effect. They belong squarely within craft instruction.


They do not belong in the assessment of meaning.


When educators attempt to quantify artistry—by ranking expression, measuring beauty, or scoring innovation—they send a confused message to students. They imply that expression can be systematized, that meaning has a correct form, and that deviation must justify itself numerically.


This teaches neither art nor craft well.


From an educational standpoint, this creates three problems:


  1. It replaces judgment with compliance
    Students learn how to please the system rather than how to think critically.
  2. It encourages premature self-expression
    Students feel pressure to “say something” before they have developed the capacity to sustain it.
  3. It undermines confidence in craft
    Craft becomes framed as preparatory or insufficient—something to move past rather than commit to.

The irony is that bonsai already teaches some of the most profound lessons craft education has to offer: care over ego, time over immediacy, responsibility over authorship. These lessons do not need artistic validation. They lose clarity when forced into that framework.


As educators, our task is not to make bonsai legible to art discourse. It is to help students understand why craft matters—and why it is hard.


If students eventually move toward art thinking, that transition should emerge organically, grounded in deep material responsibility. It should not be imposed through evaluative systems that promise objectivity where none exists.




A Pedagogical Reframe​


In a craft-education context, the essential questions are not:


  • Is this art?
  • Is this expressive enough?
  • How does this score?

They are:


  • Can this tree be cared for over time?
  • Does the practitioner understand the consequences of their decisions?
  • Is judgment improving?
  • Is attention deepening?

These are teachable.
These are assessable.
And these are sufficient.


Bonsai does not need to be defended as art to be meaningful in an educational setting. It needs to be taught as what it already is: a demanding craft that asks more of its practitioners than many art forms ever will.


If students learn to embrace that without embarrassment, the rest will take care of itself.



 
This all seems correct/accurate and that surprises me. But I think one thing is missing. Inspirational instinct. When you lay in bed thinking or look at a tree and SEE something that needs removed or moved that will give a better or great look or a better look. Some of us are short on fancy or fantasizing ability and can't see with inspiration. I think the folks that make green helmets and triangles and follow all the formal rules and over stylized norms are lacking in inspiration or creativity. They have great craft skills but these trees are boring and uninspirational. I find inspiration personally often missing but I have moments of clarity when it hits me and I know something is the right thing to change to do.😌
 
I think the whole "craft versus art" thing is overblown - like they are opposing ends of a spectrum, instead of being complementary.

Art without craft is not art. Craft without art is not craft. Reminds me of a favorite old quote "anything worth doing is worth doing well."

Hence why they teach design fundamentals at art school before anything else :)
 
They’re called artists when they paint (craft?) a painting, and a painting is art when hanging on the wall. Don’t think they’re mutually exclusive.

I also agree that the “why” is often missing in eastern apprenticeships and therefore the teaching here. But here, the “why” is what ends up being challenged by newcomers who think they aren’t subject to the rules. The rules really just codify working on trees in a way they can tolerate, and creating designs that are broadly esthetically pleasing.

Since many esthetics are generally universal, completion and judging; while subjective, can have objective qualities to measure.
 
The rules really just codify working on trees in a way they can tolerate, and creating designs that are broadly esthetically pleasing.

It is fun to think about a thought experiment where you grow an infinite number of (say) shohin black pines an infinite number of ways in parallel for 80 years (or 150, or whatever year + size class constraint you want) and then inspect all of the results that survived to the finish line while remaining within the size class and healthy. Which possible aesthetics and strategies are in the survivor set?

My guess would be that you'd see some truly weird results in there. But I bet that a number of the survivors would tend towards results with hemispherical dome canopies, terraced fanning shelves, binary branching, rapidly-bifurcating root structure, upward-facing needles, cleaned out junctions / crotches, tidy shoot spacing, etc.

Maybe the whole game is heavily constrained by nature and some asthetics are inevitable if the game is high longevity and volume constraints. My thought experiment doesn't account for bunjin very well, but, the way that size constraints + longevity are the "tail" that wags the technique "dog" becomes more apparent in the smaller size classes. Maybe the game is more constrained at certain sizes / species / etc than others.

There was a semi-recent Peter Tea interview on the Black Pondo podcast where he talked about the magic of shimpaku foliage and how it enables a much longer game of staying within a silhouette size and getting very good results from the thinning/wiring/pinching game. He made a (to me) compelling argument that shimpaku foliage is more or less "inevitable" for everyone playing the long term juniper game, especially if you want to get some specific well-known results. Some of Peter's old blog posts (from his time in Japan) really dial in close (w/ detailed pics) on the juniper shoot-thinning game and what it accomplishes so he's been thinking about this for a very long time. To me a significant part of the artistic result is woven into the technique itself. It is easy to look at Peter's IG account and see really distinct and telltale visual motifs that emerge when the techniques are done often/well, but also you can see that the aethetics are strongly connected to what he and his students and teacher are doing with their hands repeated many times across a tree/garden.

I guess I'm in the "why not both and also other stuff" camp when it comes to art vs. craft
 
We’ve strayed so far from the original term of art nowadays. You understand and practice the craft before you understand the art.

The term art has been compromised. Most see it as a term solidly defining a type of inner expressiveness with a medium or even a science. This is actually the least defining part of the term. Yet it gets all the focus in modern times.

I think when teaching someone a craft. First you should make sure they understand the actual definition of art. Which defines the next level, mastery of the subject.

That’s why the greats of history who wrote literature and pushed a subject further label their methodology as an art. At least a lot of the time they did. Sometimes it would be more definitive.

I think for many they find this subject interesting and also exhausting. It’s because we are struggling to find the idea that art should lean more expressive and creative vs its more mastery definition from times past.
 
When an ideological/philosophical-aesthetic result is the priority end goal it is art.

When a practical-aesthetic result is the priority end goal it is craft.

Artists are sometime craftsmen and craftsmen are sometimes artists and most times the practitioners and specimen modulate between art and craft.

This is why music is almost always art - there is rarely any practical purpose served.

This is why carpentry is mostly a craft, as the practical goals often are the priority.

Painting a picture is art. Painting a house is craft. Painting a mural in a house is somewhere in the middle.

Catch my drift here?
 
When an ideological/philosophical-aesthetic result is the priority end goal it is art.

When a practical-aesthetic result is the priority end goal it is craft.

Artists are sometime craftsmen and craftsmen are sometimes artists and most times the practitioners and specimen modulate between art and craft.

This is why music is almost always art - there is rarely any practical purpose served.

This is why carpentry is mostly a craft, as the practical goals often are the priority.

Painting a picture is art. Painting a house is craft. Painting a mural in a house is somewhere in the middle.

Catch my drift here?
If a professional musician gets paid to site read music for people to dance to jazz. Say the musician doesn’t really like jazz. They just need to get paid. They have very little personal expression involved. They are using music as a utility and they are an artist that understands the theory and physical written language of it. This is the more classical definition as a master of the craft. As they can perform the art for its intended purpose. Playing a specific genre on the spot for people to dance and enjoy.

I think music mostly serves practical purposes. Most arts do. It’s the modern definition that stripped its more mastery of a craft definition that is confusing our modern concept of it.
 
Lol must be winter. Trees all sleeping so the human need long philosophical discussions to keep us occupied.

I am also in the camp of the art vs craft debate is overblown and has been argued ad nauseum. I also agree its not mutually exclusive.

My opinion, bonsai is both. Why wouldn't it be?
 

A Craft-Education Trilogy on Bonsai​


Hmm… Can you please provide the original source of this document?

As a very long time science leadership, science educator and now a bonsai instructor with years experience, while I concur with some of the content it appears there glitches and sweeping assumptions in this treatise.

For example, mixing up global differences in educational pedagogy into a discussion on the teaching of art vs the teaching of a craft seems interesting to say the least.

Before commenting I would like to see the context and author(s) and their qualifications and/or experience. Can you please post these data and links in this thread?

Thank you. Cheers
DSD sends
 
Last edited:
The permanent collection of the Milwaukee Bonsai Society is housed at the Lynden Sculpture Garden, speaking to bonsai as a sculptural art. The permanent collection of the Chicago Bonsai Society is housed at the Chicago Botanic Garden, speaking to bonsai being an extension of the "craft" of horticulture.

Both views are valid. No need to debate.

Personally I find the setting of a sculpture park more appealing than the "walled off" courtyard display area of bonsai at the botanic garden, but bonsai on display, regardless of setting is good.
 
If a professional musician gets paid to site read music for people to dance to jazz. Say the musician doesn’t really like jazz. They just need to get paid. They have very little personal expression involved. They are using music as a utility and they are an artist that understands the theory and physical written language of it. This is the more classical definition as a master of the craft. As they can perform the art for its intended purpose. Playing a specific genre on the spot for people to dance and enjoy.

I think music mostly serves practical purposes. Most arts do. It’s the modern definition that stripped its more mastery of a craft definition that is confusing our modern concept of it.

Well, surely there is the "craft" of music as you mentioned, but most of the time, even these musicians who are reading music are performing from an artistic foundation first, especially in the genres in which site reading is most prevalent. Jazz musicians - they are often improvising, even if they are performing other's songs... they are playing in free time and making subtle adjustments... in classical, modern musicians performing other classical pieces are trying to interpret the sheet music in a certain way and with certain dynamics not always entirely as others have performed or felt to both represent the original composer's art and their own perspective. Sure, they are getting paid, but often the performers are choosing the music they are performing and it is not foisted upon them against their will. Maybe in some situations like broadway ensembles or hired touring musicians there is some argument to be had but even so its not as cold-hearted as you imply.

So I mostly disagree with that music is mostly craft... plus, the majority of music created and performed and recorded is original music and not recital fare.
 
Well, surely there is the "craft" of music as you mentioned, but most of the time, even these musicians who are reading music are performing from an artistic foundation first, especially in the genres in which site reading is most prevalent. Jazz musicians - they are often improvising, even if they are performing other's songs... they are playing in free time and making subtle adjustments... in classical, modern musicians performing other classical pieces are trying to interpret the sheet music in a certain way and with certain dynamics not always entirely as others have performed or felt to both represent the original composer's art and their own perspective. Sure, they are getting paid, but often the performers are choosing the music they are performing and it is not foisted upon them against their will. Maybe in some situations like broadway ensembles or hired touring musicians there is some argument to be had but even so its not as cold-hearted as you imply.

So I mostly disagree with that music is mostly craft... plus, the majority of music created and performed and recorded is original music and not recital fare.
My point was music can almost be purely seen as craft. And there is a utility with music. It can be used for all sorts of things. That’s the part I disagreed with the comparison between craftsmen and musicians. It doesn’t dilute the fact that music is an art. It definitely is.
 
… and I would also submit discussions on methods of instruction and the ways enthusiasts learn the craft and art is an different subject.

Best
DSD sends
 
I think the whole "craft versus art" thing is overblown - like they are opposing ends of a spectrum, instead of being complementary.

Art without craft is not art. Craft without art is not craft. Reminds me of a favorite old quote "anything worth doing is worth doing well."

Hence why they teach design fundamentals at art school before anything else :)
Recently I read a piece about a poor black woman who at 53 started painting on whatever material was available with scraps of paint. Whatever she could find for free as she was very poor. No teaching at all but just started painting. Today her art is in galleries and worth quite a bit. basically her craft was self generated. Apes also create art. So I've read. Bonsai is not art because a living tree is never finished. I believe anything considered art has to be finished. Arrogant occidentals seem to think they deserve the title of artist. Orientals where the trees originated are not so arrogant AFAIK.🤔 🤨
 
In many bonsai classrooms and workshops, critique functions almost entirely as correction. Branches are moved. Apexes are reduced. Pots are changed. These interventions are not wrong—but they are rarely framed as choices. They are framed as answers. Intent is often secondary, if it appears at all.
Might be locational. I do no see this is how bonsai workshops and courses are organized.
All workshops and courses I have attended, as well as run, deal heavily with the options the tree gives us, and what the different development paths as well as risks are.
 
Arrogant occidentals seem to think they deserve the title of artist. Orientals where the trees originated are not so arrogant AFAIK
bonsai-art-museum.jp/en/
1767428211972.png


Bonsai is not art because a living tree is never finished.

The Art of Bonsai​

Discerning the tree’s condition is an essential factor in nurturing bonsai into a beautiful shape. The beauty of bonsai is created through the conversation between the art of the grower and the life of the tree.
 
Back
Top Bottom