Are you a Parrot?

[0soyoung]

good material

What is it?

capture what bonsai is supposed to capture.

What is it?

As for the two bonsai specimens, the first is only a fancy tepee on a stick. It makes me think that Bjorn must have spent a couple of days wiring that puppy and does nothing else for me - meh, seen it a thousand times. The forest composition feels primitive. Even though I think someone has probably spent a lot of time to make it look so primitive, it just makes me think 'what would I do to make this look better?' just like I spend endless hours doing in my garden.



... now, gimme a cracker

 

[Lorax7]

Tell me you understand which can really be the only way forward when trying to capture what bonsai is supposed to capture.

I think this gets right down to the core of your argument. You think there is only true way to do bonsai (realism). There’s no room in your worldview for abstraction, modernism, etc.

Here’s the thing though: the Japanese people have been doing this a lot longer than you. Their trees are highly stylized, not because they don’t know how to make bonsai that look like natural adult trees, but because they’re just not that into the natural look anymore. Their culture’s already been there, did that, got the t-shirt and moved on. They’re into abstraction and modernity and you just don’t get it. You’re like a guy who goes to an art museum and praises all the Titian, Caravaggio, Botticelli, Ingres, etc. but howls in disgust, “My five year old kid could do that!”, every time they see a Picasso, Matisse, Kandinsky, or Rothko.

You don’t have to like abstraction in bonsai. That’s your prerogative. But, that’s just your opinion and others are entitled to disagree. Railing against it isn’t going to make abstraction and modernity go away.

I like natural looking trees too, but I’m not opposed to other approaches. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a revolution in bonsai aesthetics. Bring on the avant-garde! I’m very curious about what, for example, a Cubist bonsai masterpiece would look like. I think it could be amazing if someone used grafting to create a Japanese maple with fall colors reminiscent of Fauvism. There are so many unexplored possibilities.

 

[Adair M]

What is it?

What is it?

As for the two bonsai specimens, the first is only a fancy tepee on a stick. It makes me think that Bjorn must have spent a couple of days wiring that puppy and does nothing else for me - meh, seen it a thousand times. The forest composition feels primitive. Even though I think someone has probably spent a lot of time to make it look so primitive, it just makes me think 'what would I do to make this look better?' just like I spend endless hours doing in my garden.



... now, gimme a cracker

Oso, that was Owen Reich’s work. He was at the same garden as Bjorn in Japan, but that was Owen’s work. (Although I’ve seen a lot of Bjorn’s trees look like this, too.). I’m thinking that styling in that manner may be a specialty of that particular garden.

 

[MichaelS]

I think this gets right down to the core of your argument. You think there is only true way to do bonsai (realism). There’s no room in your worldview for abstraction, modernism, etc.

Here’s the thing though: the Japanese people have been doing this a lot longer than you. Their trees are highly stylized, not because they don’t know how to make bonsai that look like natural adult trees, but because they’re just not that into the natural look anymore. Their culture’s already been there, did that, got the t-shirt and moved on. They’re into abstraction and modernity and you just don’t get it. You’re like a guy who goes to an art museum and praises all the Titian, Caravaggio, Botticelli, Ingres, etc. but howls in disgust, “My five year old kid could do that!”, every time they see a Picasso, Matisse, Kandinsky, or Rothko.

You don’t have to like abstraction in bonsai. That’s your prerogative. But, that’s just your opinion and others are entitled to disagree. Railing against it isn’t going to make abstraction and modernity go away.

I like natural looking trees too, but I’m not opposed to other approaches. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a revolution in bonsai aesthetics. Bring on the avant-garde! I’m very curious about what, for example, a Cubist bonsai masterpiece would look like. I think it could be amazing if someone used grafting to create a Japanese maple with fall colors reminiscent of Fauvism. There are so many unexplored possibilities.

 

[MichaelS]

Lorax7,

I think this gets right down to the core of your argument. You think there is only true way to do bonsai (realism). There’s no room in your worldview for abstraction, modernism, etc.

No. No room for abstraction in bonsai = lack of representation. IMO. There is no such thing as modernism in nature.
There is plenty of room for these things in art but not bonsai. If you include them in bonsai, well them you aren't really doing bonsai are you. You are doing art. That's fine but let's please separate the pursuit of the natural and art.
Remembering always that bonsai is an illusion (not nature) the aim in BONSAI is to try to capture that nature. It you make it more elastic than that, it becomes the pursuit of something else entirely. You can do that by all means. But why use a living tree to do that? Why wire a branch and prune it so as to make it look like a real tree and then stop there? What are you trying to say? Do sculpture instead maybe.

Here’s the thing though: the Japanese people have been doing this a lot longer than you. Their trees are highly stylized, not because they don’t know how to make bonsai that look like natural adult trees, but because they’re just not that into the natural look anymore.

I don't know about that. I have a collection of quotes from Japanese bonsai masters who argue the exact opposite. That in the pursuit of ''excellence'' ,''prestige'' and sophistication, many have lost touch.

Their culture’s already been there, did that, got the t-shirt and moved on. They’re into abstraction and modernity and you just don’t get it. You’re like a guy who goes to an art museum and praises all the Titian, Caravaggio, Botticelli, Ingres, etc. but howls in disgust, “My five year old kid could do that!”, every time they see a Picasso, Matisse, Kandinsky

,

Now you're just fishing and being ridiculous.

You don’t have to like abstraction in bonsai. That’s your prerogative. But, that’s just your opinion and others are entitled to disagree.

When have I suggested that your not entitled to disagree? You can (and do) disagree all you like. This is just a stupid thing to say.

I like natural looking trees too, but I’m not opposed to other approaches. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a revolution in bonsai aesthetics. Bring on the avant-garde! I’m very curious about what, for example, a Cubist bonsai masterpiece would look like. I think it could be amazing if someone used grafting to create a Japanese maple with fall colors reminiscent of Fauvism. There are so many unexplored possibilities

.

I'm sure something like that is already under ''construction'' but I for one will never call it bonsai. If I did, the word bonsai would lose it's meaning and the new meaning would become ''art using a tree''. How would you distinguish that from art using plastic or steel? And then what word would you use for those who want to pursue the same thing as me?
No, diluting the meaning of bonsai is to diminish it. It has a special and unique place in human activity. Just leave it alone. It's too special to f**k up with silly fly-by-night modern conceptual thinking. It's very simple but very profound at the same time. Don't go distorting it.

 

[Tycoss]

I think the main point that Smoke is trying to make is that we have no business quoting others advice about techniques we have never tried ourselves. We need more threads of the "this is my tree before I did the work, these are the results of the work". We need less "try this or that because Ryan Niel/Walter Pall etc. Said...". For example, I shouldn't be giving advise or commenting on refinement techniques that I read or heard about because I have no trees at that stage yet. I ought to shut up and learn from those who have actually done it, and not post on something that hasn't been applied to my own trees. Smoke, I have only been at this a few years, and I know you believe I ought not be allowed to post on the site until I have some showable trees and 20+ years of experience, but just trying to clarify.

 

[0soyoung]

Oso, that was Owen Reich’s work. He was at the same garden as Bjorn in Japan, but that was Owen’s work. (Although I’ve seen a lot of Bjorn’s trees look like this, too.). I’m thinking that styling in that manner may be a specialty of that particular garden.

My apologies to Owen. I think I've watched every episode of Bonsai Art of Japan at least twice. The styling of a varietal hinoki is what I most noted of Owen. Bjorn is always styling junipers, it seems.


The point I was trying to make was my immediate, visceral, emotional responses to the two bonsai.

 

[MichaelS]

You seem very motivated to push an anti Japanese and anti traditionalist agenda. To the point of bigotry. It’s fine to have personal preferences. Everyone has them. But to say that my personal preference is wrong, that I have no eye for art, I have no appreciation for nature, that I don’t “get it”, is simply childish on your part.
.

Once again Adair, you miss by a mile. I happen to be preparing a talk at the moment in which I have included many Japanese quotes. If you actually try comprehending what you read you will have realized that I'm not anti anyone in particular. I'm anti a particular movement or direction or whatever you want to call it. It is world wide and yet the argument against it is also worldwide. I have not said that your personal preference is wrong. I'm arguing that there is a purity in bonsai which we all lack because of our own desire more than anything else. When I argue against something I'm also arguing against what I have and continue to do myself. The only difference between you and me is that I'm seeing it and I'm trying to get you (meaning whoever) to see it too.
Get it? We are ALL parrots. OK? We are all parrots and we get taught by parrots and we teach others to become more parrots. That's my point!!!!!!!!

I challenge anyone to go into their backyards and look at what's on their benches and tell themselves they are not parrots. If you can say that, my hat off to you!

 

[MichaelS]

You’re like a guy who goes to an art museum and praises all the Titian, Caravaggio, Botticelli, Ingres, etc. but howls in disgust, “My five year old kid could do that!”, every time they see a Picasso, Matisse, Kandinsky, or Rothko.
.

I love some Picasso. The crying woman for example is a masterpiece IMO. I have seen it in person several times. You should think before you write.

 

[Tycoss]

No. No room for abstraction in bonsai = lack of representation. IMO. There is no such thing as modernism in nature.
There is plenty of room for these things in art but not bonsai. If you include them in bonsai, well them you aren't really doing bonsai are you. You are doing art. That's fine but let's please separate the pursuit of the natural and art.
Remembering always that bonsai is an illusion (not nature) the aim in BONSAI is to try to capture that nature. It you make it more elastic than that, it becomes the pursuit of something else entirely. You can do that by all means. But why use a living tree to do that? Why wire a branch and prune it so as to make it look like a real tree and then stop there? What are you trying to say? Do sculpture instead maybe.


I don't know about that. I have a collection of quotes from Japanese bonsai masters who argue the exact opposite. That in the pursuit of ''excellence'' ,''prestige'' and sophistication, many have lost touch.
,

Now you're just fishing and being ridiculous.


When have I suggested that your not entitled to disagree? You can (and do) disagree all you like. This is just a stupid thing to say.
.

I'm sure something like that is already under ''construction'' but I for one will never call it bonsai. If I did, the word bonsai would lose it's meaning and the new meaning would become ''art using a tree''. How would you distinguish that from art using plastic or steel? And then what word would you use for those who want to pursue the same thing as me?
No, diluting the meaning of bonsai is to diminish it. It has a special and unique place in human activity. Just leave it alone. It's too special to f**k up with silly fly-by-night modern conceptual thinking. It's very simple but very profound at the same time. Don't go distorting it.

I really have no idea why you have to be so combative. You prefer a naturalistic style, we all understand, but we appreciate certain things in natural trees that make them beautiful to us. Strength, perseverance, ballance etc. Traditional styles often go further than most natural trees to emphasize certain of these qualities. Look with real honesty at Adair's pines. If you see through what you perceive as "plasticness", you will see a form of stately strength and balance that you also see in big trees. Traditionally styled trees are small, so the proportions must be exaggerated or idealized to some extent. Almost like drawing a superhero or carving a Greek god. Not entirely realistic, but wrong? Without value? I too prefer naturalistic trees in most cases, but I can appreciate the skill and artistry of traditional bonsai. I certainly don't need to rant, argue or call names over it.

 

[Tycoss]

Your perception of what I see natural or beautiful also has a lot to do with the trees you are acostomed to looking at. I love Micheal Hagedorn's spruce and hemlock because they look so similar to the alpine spruce and firs I see in our Rocky Mountains. I'm sure the trees you see over in Oz are radically different, so you may appreciate a different aesthetic. At the end of the day, it's about seeing the most striking and valuable features in your tree and emphasizing them. Some material "wants to" be naturalistically styled, some "wants to" be classically styled, depending on which best emphasizes it's best features.

 

[Saddler]

We are ALL parrots. OK? We are all parrots and we get taught by parrots and we teach others to become more parrots. That's my point!!!!!!!!

I challenge anyone to go into their backyards and look at what's on their benches and tell themselves they are not parrots. If you can say that, my hat off to you!

I don’t think you know what a parrot is. I am not saying it hasn’t happened, but I have never heard of a parrot teaching. I’ll put a $1000 CDN down that a parrot has never grown, cared for and wired a tree in a pot. Besides the furry community, teaching someone to be a parrot isn’t a thing.

You said earlier in post #196

You need to see past the literal meaning and try to understand my point.

Maybe you could take your own advice on this one. What I *think* Smoke means is that some people talk the talk without walking the walk. You work on your trees and show it, you give advice (I think, your writing style (angry) isn’t easy when it comes to overall comprehension) with what you know and have done, I think. That’s not a parrot. A parrot sits in a cage and regurgitates what it has heard, but hasn’t/doesn’t use the information.

Go back though all my posts and I would be surprised if you found me offering a peice of advice without me explaing how it worked for me. I work in an industry that has so many parrots, it’s made me almost bitter to them (in my definition). Passing along experience does not make one a parrot.

If I'm a parrot, shoot me and eat me. I’ll give you a couple recipes.

 

[MichaelS]

I really have no idea why you have to be so combative. You prefer a naturalistic style, we all understand, but we appreciate certain things in natural trees that make them beautiful to us. Strength, perseverance, ballance etc. .

That does not mean anything to me. (meaning it makes no sense to me) Elaborate...

 

[MichaelS]

. Some material "wants to" be naturalistically styled, some "wants to" be classically styled, depending on which best emphasizes it's best features.

No it doesn't. That's total nonsense. Think about what you are saying!

 

[MichaelS]

"Saddler, post: 574209, member: 19719"]


Maybe you could take your own advice on this one.

Maybe you should?
I don't mean we are literally parrots Ha ha ha. I mean that we all copy without thinking.
By the way, I'm sorry my writing comes across as ''angry'' Believe me it's not. I'm not. Not in the slightest. Will a smiley face help? I'm only here because it's cold outside and I'm bored.

 

[Lorax7]

No. No room for abstraction in bonsai = lack of representation. IMO. There is no such thing as modernism in nature.
There is plenty of room for these things in art but not bonsai. If you include them in bonsai, well them you aren't really doing bonsai are you. You are doing art. That's fine but let's please separate the pursuit of the natural and art.
Remembering always that bonsai is an illusion (not nature) the aim in BONSAI is to try to capture that nature. It you make it more elastic than that, it becomes the pursuit of something else entirely. You can do that by all means. But why use a living tree to do that? Why wire a branch and prune it so as to make it look like a real tree and then stop there? What are you trying to say? Do sculpture instead maybe.


I don't know about that. I have a collection of quotes from Japanese bonsai masters who argue the exact opposite. That in the pursuit of ''excellence'' ,''prestige'' and sophistication, many have lost touch.
,

Now you're just fishing and being ridiculous.


When have I suggested that your not entitled to disagree? You can (and do) disagree all you like. This is just a stupid thing to say.
.

I'm sure something like that is already under ''construction'' but I for one will never call it bonsai. If I did, the word bonsai would lose it's meaning and the new meaning would become ''art using a tree''. How would you distinguish that from art using plastic or steel? And then what word would you use for those who want to pursue the same thing as me?
No, diluting the meaning of bonsai is to diminish it. It has a special and unique place in human activity. Just leave it alone. It's too special to f**k up with silly fly-by-night modern conceptual thinking. It's very simple but very profound at the same time. Don't go distorting it.

Bonsai is art.

Bonsai is sculpture in the same way that sonnets are poetry.

Bonsai can be representational, whether you like it or not. Here’s a tree that survived Hiroshima and was later given to the United States: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/1508050-japanese-bonsai-survived-hiroshima-bombing/. Do you think it’s accidental that the tree is styled in a shape suggestive of a mushroom cloud?

Look up Marshall McLuhan and consider his statement, “The medium is the message,” in the context of bonsai. Really meditate on this for a while and you’ll be rewarded with a deeper understanding of what you are really doing in bonsai, what it is that bonsai means, why you are working with living trees and not some other medium.

What the Japanese masters are doing with many of their trees is something akin to impressionism or, in the more extreme cases, perhaps surrealism (a dream about a tree rather than a real one).

 

[Anthony]

To be the bee in the bonnet.

Bonsai is craft.

Bonsai uses a few aspects of sculpture, and ideas from Fine Art

Bonsai is a craft used to inspire ideas for High Art [ also Prose......]

Bonsai will become an Art when we fuse Hologram technology,
so when your plant is at it's pinnacle, it will be seen in 3d, and not
just a memory of what was.Museum time.
Stay tuned we are working on it.

A few secrets - The Old Master work is good craftsmanship will
last as time passes.
Picasso / other moderns, falling apart physically.
Will wipe themselves out, physically.

Second secret - letters show they were mocking the Art Crowd,
it's a farce,

History, will decide, who stays on, and, restoration

Lets talk a painting/bonsai
Good Day
Anthony

 

[Tycoss]

No it doesn't. That's total nonsense. Think about what you are saying!

I was anthropromorphizing of course. Perhaps this makes it more clear: let's say you have two trees and aren't just going to use them as firewood. The first has a trunk like this, and is perhaps a trident maple or elm:
Now how do you suppose we would make a purely naturalistic tree from these bones? Would you make huge sacrifice whips to reduce the taper? Carve out the curves? That would remove the taper and curves that make the tree interesting or appealing. To my eye, this sort of material "wants" to be classically styled, since this takes best advantage of it's existing characteristics.
The second is a collected conifer and has a trunk like this:
How could one make a classically styled tree out of this? Remove the dead spike? Try to wire curves into the living trunk? Trying to fit this into a traditional mold will also take away the aspects of the tree that make it interesting and unique. To emphasize it's best points, this tree "wants" to be styled naturalistically like an alpine conifer. Get it now?

 

[Saddler]

Maybe you should?
I don't mean we are literally parrots Ha ha ha. I mean that we all copy without thinking.
By the way, I'm sorry my writing comes across as ''angry'' Believe me it's not. I'm not. Not in the slightest. Will a smiley face help? I'm only here because it's cold outside and I'm bored.

While I myself am not a big fan of emojis, they can easily convey the sentiment when it is difficult to find the words that do. It might help people focus on what you are saying rather then how you say it. It’s just a thought.

I was using reductio ad absurdum to try to make my point. Somewhere we need to drawn a line between doers and talkers. Civilization was built from 99.99% (I just made that number up) student/teacher learning the last .01% was new invention, that inevitably ends up in the student/teacher learning system. A parrot on the other hand does not invent, does not teach and is not a student. A talking parrot is just a fancy party trick meant to get ooohhhhss and ahhhhhhs from others. It’s and attention grabber. That is no different for the most part, than people who give advice on topics they have no experience with, they are just trying to get attention, whether they know it or not. Of course there are exceptions, sometimes in a complete lack of information, any information as a starting point is good.

Michael, in the post I am responding to, you didn’t sound angry at all. You sounded like you were just trying to make yourself be understood. I only read it once and knew exactly the message you were trying to convey. You have a lot of great information to teach us and I usually understand what you are trying to say, even when it seems like half the forum is attacking you because they are focused on how you are saying it. It kind of sucks when all I want to read is a discussion of your ideas, techniques and your work, but all I am reading is people attacking you, sometimes justified.

I go back to this XKCD comic often. It reminds me that the other person might not be the problem. I may have posted this already in this thread, but i really like it.

 

[music~maker]

Well number 1 is irrelevant.
Number 2 is the problem. There is often too much artificial purpose, planning and intention. Same with number 3. I'm trying to point out, that the way I see it, too much intentional ''design'' is intruding. You seem to waste to much time with semantics. I chose the word design because I have a limited vocabulary. You need to see past the literal meaning and try to understand my point. Let's use one of these words instead....
control
kənˈtrəʊl/
noun
noun: contro

"the whole operation is under the control of a production manager"
synonyms:jurisdiction, sway, power, authority, command, dominance, domination, government, mastery, leadership, rule, reign, sovereignty, supremacy, ascendancy, predominance, hegemony; More

I spend time on semantics because I think the words we choose matter. And especially a word like design, that has a clear set of definitions that people use regularly. If you use it differently than people expect it to be used, they're going to necessarily be confused by what you're trying to say. I know it's not always easy to choose the right words, but if you want people to understand your thoughts, it really does matter.

That said, I do actually understand where you're coming from on this. I've read many of your comments, and my impression is that our philosophies on growing trees are actually very similar. Overly controlling the tree very often results in an inferior tree, in my opinion. I wire judiciously (but only when necessary), and I prune judiciously (but only when necessary), but I'm careful to be sure and let the tree have it's say.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.