All this critiquing...can someone show me a tree that is perfect

[ColinFraser]

So browsed thru this thread and diddnt see many examples. I guess Ill go out on a limb here. This is a larch I collected a couple years ago. cut back once at collection and once a couple weeks ago. Lots of bar branches =not perfect, not very thick trunk for a 24 inch tree=not perfect, some flaky bark not enough to be perfect, and the slightest hint of taper.View attachment 142080but it was the perfect tree to dig with plenty of good enough attributes. Anyone that knows larch knows theyr straight poles with no taper, so maybe not perfect, but perfectly nautraulistic in shape, size , and a perfectly good start to train as a future bonsai. Soooooooo it may not meet certain standards to be perfect. But it was the perfect tree to dig that day, and the perfect tree to pursue a training plan for. I plan on wiring in 2018, but until then it seems pretty perfect for my level and goals to make something out of what was already almost perfect. Thoughts?

Cool; I wish we could grow larch in this climate - that's the only thing that makes living in a cold place even remotely appealing to me
Since we (almost) all agree that criticism can be constructive, and that criticism of a tree is not necessarily criticism of its owner, I'll proffer a thought per your request.
Branch Thickness - it appears that the thickest branch on this tree is near the upper right (though it's hard to tell for sure from the photo). At the minimum, the lower branches aren't any thicker than the upper ones. This is something to keep in mind as you begin to develop the tree. Since I can't grow these, I can't offer specific horticultural advice, so this is only aesthetic commentary, but growing out the lower branches while keeping the top ones in check might be the next step . . .

Edit: Oh, also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, shorter branches are a good way to go on a tall skinny trunk - pulling and pruning them in tight near the trunk (in the long run) will often really improve the image.

 

[herzausstahl]

@Anthony ...good points.

The maple I used for my inspiration...I've been told by a few...the base of the tree on the left is not of a true raft. Yet...the entire piece works for me. I love everything about this piece. What I love...I love this even more without a single leaf on it.
View attachment 141996

I like it because it looks natural & tells a story I've seen a few times. The tree has been knocked over (not roots out if the ground, but can't remember if I've seen those survive) & continues to grow and thrive!

 

[herzausstahl]

The Last Samurai.
And you're so right.
I thought of this exact scene when I saw the title to thread.

One of the few Tom Cruise movies I can still watch and enjoy without seeing that fool scientologist jumping around on Oprah saying I'm in love!

 

[herzausstahl]

You are all WRONG!

I see @Eric Group is still fired up from the other thread!

 

[CamdenJim]

This is a distinction without a difference (at least in the common usage), and equivocating in this way is counterproductive.

Not equivocating, just a half-century of being involved in arts education. And you are right that in common usage there is no difference. Maybe that's something we should think about.

One of the things I learned during the first three-year sentence I served as the Chair of Fine Arts was how differently visual art students treated "critiques" from the way music performance students treated criticism. The art students didn't always like what their contemporaries and/or professors said in a critique session, and it was sometimes harsh, but they knew to take the substance of those critiques into account as they started another creation. The music students went off to another room to cry, sometimes even during a performance class or private lesson.

Anyway -- I realize the distinction is not only academic, but also false in most situations. The difference isn't always important to the critiquer/critic; it's the recipient who chooses to use the information offered to better the next creation who makes the difference.

Unfortunately, published reviews of exhibition openings, concerts, dramatic performances, etc. aren't really offered to the artist in either sense--critique or criticism. They serve a different purpose entirely, being pitched to the public. Their effect on the artist's next creation is less important and usually ignored.

Edit: The strongest critique I ever received about a tree was, "That tree makes me want to vomit." It was said to me, and it did make a difference in the way I approached taking a tree to a workshop.

 

[Don Blackmond]

So the thread of what bonsai inspires you...and your best tree. Sort of went into a critiquing of what one seen as flaws in a person's chosen inspirational bonsai. Which had me thinking...I believe to a degree ALL/MOST trees would hold some flaw. They are a living thing we are offering bonsai techniques to...to get to a desired finish. But...there are something's that...the tree has, that with technique the flaw goes away to a degree. (Depending on the flaw...you still want to start with somewhat decent material.)

But can someone show me a tree without flaw? Do they exist? That said...when pointing out a flaw in say...superb material...maybe a twist is to share why one feels the piece's overall appearance trumps the flaw to other viewers. If one can critique...take it to the next level...explain to us...why ones can still admire it. Is it the strengths of the tree that pulls it off? What are the strengths of said tree?

Food for thought...

No because one person sees a flaw while another person sees character. The bigger question is what are your trying to achieve with your tree? Look at trees in nature. They are chalked full of bonsai "flaws". We try to follow rules that nature doesn't follow while we are trying to create trees. Its actually pretty stupid if you think about it.

 

[milehigh_7]

No because one person sees a flaw while another person sees character. The bigger question is what are your trying to achieve with your tree? Look at trees in nature. They are chalked full of bonsai "flaws". We try to follow rules that nature doesn't follow while we are trying to create trees. Its actually pretty stupid if you think about it.

Bingo!

 

[milehigh_7]

A quote oft attributed to John Naka is, “Don’t make your tree look like bonsai, make your bonsai look like tree”.

 

[Adair M]

A quote oft attributed to John Naka is, “Don’t make your tree look like bonsai, make your bonsai look like tree”.

And yet, his books that many treat as "the Bible of bonsai", describe the "rules"!

There are many great bonsai that break the rules. There are many so so bonsai that follow all the rules.

Then again, there are great bonsai that follow the rules, and there are poor bonsai that break the rules.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Ok...several pages and not really a sincere example of a perfect tree. You had a chance. Here it is:

 

[ColinFraser]

Ok...several pages and not really a sincere example of a perfect tree. You had a chance. Here it is:
View attachment 142182

I'll bite
The first thing that jumps out at me is the drastic change in trunk diameter from the lower half to the upper half. It seems to go from thigh-size to forearm-size, skipping calf/biceps size in between . . . to use a completely variable and non-standard measure
Edit: It's gorgeous, by the way.

 

[ColinFraser]

what are your trying to achieve with your tree? Look at trees in nature. They are chalked full of bonsai "flaws". We try to follow rules that nature doesn't follow while we are trying to create trees. Its actually pretty stupid if you think about it.

That's fair. I think some might argue that bonsai artists are aspiring to make idealized and/or exceptional trees - or at the very least copy the most interesting or compelling trees in nature. Not every tree I see in nature stops me in my tracks and commands my attention; in fact, it's a rare tree that does (compared to how many I see driving nearly 40k miles a year). There are such things as a boring or crummy trees even out in the wild. To bastardized an Abraham Lincoln quip: 'I think nature must love the plain trees; she's made so many of them.'

 

[Don Blackmond]

That's fair. I think some might argue that bonsai artists are aspiring to make idealized and/or exceptional trees - or at the very least copy the most interesting or compelling trees in nature. Not every tree I see in nature stops me in my tracks and commands my attention; in fact, it's a rare tree that does (compared to how many I see driving nearly 40k miles a year). There are such things as a boring or crummy trees even out in the wild. To bastardized an Abraham Lincoln quip: 'I think nature must love the plain trees; she's made so many of them.'

That's my point. Is your bonsai supposed to look like a miniature real tree, or a conceptualized ideology of what you think a tree should look like?
And, again, "crummy" and "exceptional" according to whom? Those are subjective terms.
For example, look at the tree Brian says is an example of a perfect tree. There are probably a lot of people who don't like it, and think its too full, too short, branches too thin, trunk too fat, uniform, boring, broccoli, and on and on....

 

[ColinFraser]

That's my point. Is your bonsai supposed to look like a miniature real tree, or a conceptualized ideology of what you think a tree should look like?
And, again, "crummy" and "exceptional" according to whom? Those are subjective terms.

Totally agree about the subjectivity. I just want to reiterate - my point is that just because something appears in nature or looks like a tree in the wild somewhere, it isn't automatically good or valid or worthy of cultivation - those subjective judgements should have subjective justifications behind them: "it makes me feel peaceful" or "reminds me of a landscape where I grew up" or "what an interesting life it must have had." Justifying a feature or (perceived) flaw in a bonsai simply by pointing out that a natural tree shares it seems to miss something - namely why that feature is compelling (if it is) in the first place.

As an example, I can find trees in nature with serious reverse taper. I guess it's natural and wholesome and organic or whatever, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wanted to replicate that in a bonsai, and if you did, most of us would probably find it unattractive. Now consider a hypothetical budding bonsai artist who is defensive about the reverse taper "flaw" in his beloved bonsai. When it's pointed out to him, he counters that some wild trees have the same issue. Was he really inspired by a top-heavy tree in nature (in which, case more power to him), or is he using the naturalistic fallacy to justify something that he and most observers recognize as sub-par? That's the question I'm driving at when "nature" comes up in these kinds of discussions.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

For example, look at the tree Brian says is an example of a perfect tree. There are probably a lot of people who don't like it, and think its too full, too short, branches too thin, trunk too fat, uniform, boring, broccoli, and on and on....

But since this is a perfect tree, they would all be wrong.
Or....
Is it possible the logic is flawed to begin with in assuming there can be agreement on what is a perfect tree...?

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Well... I wouldn't ever use the term "perfect" but this particular tree of @Walter Pall is on of my favorite "close to perfect" bonsai trees. There is certainly a reason why it is globally famous:



I don't want to take anything away from Brian's pine example, but to me it looks unnatural and sterile. Walter's tree looks like a tree in nature, which is the look I prefer in my bonsai.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Sorry, you're wrong.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Sorry, you're wrong.

OMG... are you my wife posting in disguise?

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Wrong again dear...

 

[Anthony]

Why does Walter's tree have additional warm light ?