are "great maples" chopped ? - come share your thoughts

[Deleted member 21616]

would anybody else be able to say whether trunk chopping is/was at all common in high level, let's say "kokufu-level" maples? I realize that most of those trunks were developed before most of us were born, with the developper long gone in most cases, but is there any record of how it was done 150-80 years ago?

these aren't the best examples, but i quickly attached 2 photos that Omiya posted (from the recent event) and 1 from kokufu 2018.

when i see trees like this, i struggle to reconcile what i see with my eyes with what appears to be a strong emphasis/concern with chopping and taper on this forum.

Above all, the tapering of these trunks is minimal, and none of the trees in this style seem to have been chopped.

With no slight intended, is chopping a 'western' practice? (i realize that it is done, today, in japan)

Or is it a practice for people in a relative hurry?

I am asking because i am not well-travelled when it comes to bonsai, and base myself on what I have seen at the Montreal bonsai collection and at local growers: some of the most impressive trees i have seen here in Montreal were never chopped: their trunks were given shape at a very young age, and by means of a fairly straightforward and risk-free cycle (growing out branches, removing them before they got too big, and re-growing other branches, remove those branches before they get to big, etc.) exceptional trunks with incredibly natural-looking taper and minimal scarring (if any) were developed over 15-to-40 years (depending on the tree).

I ask this question with full awareness that there are very many exceptional trees that have been grown by chopping.

I'm not even sure what question i'm asking here. I just thought it might be fun to hear everyone's thoughts on this

please include pictures in your posts if possible! pictures make the online world go round

 

[leatherback]

I have just a few weeks ago seen two amazing maples: I was told these were grown over the course of 8 years in a pot. In that time they went from pencil to 2 inches. No chops bigge~r than that seasons growth were applied. And they have now the basic setup to over the next decade become great maples.

I would guess there are ways that are not common knowledge, and do not have to take lifetimes.

 

[Adair M]

would anybody else be able to say whether trunk chopping is/was at all common in high level, let's say "kokufu-level" maples? I realize that most of those trunks were developed before most of us were born, with the developper long gone in most cases, but is there any record of how it was done 150-80 years ago?

these aren't the best examples, but i quickly attached 2 photos that Omiya posted (from the recent event) and 1 from kokufu 2018.

when i see trees like this, i struggle to reconcile what i see with my eyes with what appears to be a strong emphasis/concern with chopping and taper on this forum.

Above all, the tapering of these trunks is minimal, and none of the trees in this style seem to have been chopped.

With no slight intended, is chopping a 'western' practice? (i realize that it is done, today, in japan)

Or is it a practice for people in a relative hurry?

I am asking because i am not well-travelled when it comes to bonsai, and base myself on what I have seen at the Montreal bonsai collection and at local growers: some of the most impressive trees i have seen here in Montreal were never chopped: their trunks were given shape at a very young age, and by means of a fairly straightforward and risk-free cycle (growing out branches, removing them before they got too big, and re-growing other branches, remove those branches before they get to big, etc.) exceptional trunks with incredibly natural-looking taper and minimal scarring (if any) were developed over 15-to-40 years (depending on the tree).

I ask this question with full awareness that there are very many exceptional trees that have been grown by chopping.

I'm not even sure what question i'm asking here. I just thought it might be fun to hear everyone's thoughts on this

please include pictures in your posts if possible! pictures make the online world go round

Great deciduous trees are grown. Not chopped.

You described the process, let it grow, cut back. Repeat.

It’s difficult to make a chopped tree feel as natural as one grown into shape. But it can happen. This year’s “Best deciduous” tree at the Nationals in Rochester was developed from a chop. Frankly, I was surprised, because even though the chop is completely healed over, the movement of the trunk still reflects the chop. But what do I know? Mr Ebihara built his famous “Million Dollar Zelkova” from a chop. But he also put on a bunch of grafts.

So, it can be done.

Chops are the fast track to getting a decent sized trunk. It still takes a lot of “grow and cut back” to develop a proper deciduous structure with movement and taper.

 

[dirk hoorelbeke]

Good question. I think your examples were grown without a big shop. How many scars do you want on your trunk? If the answer is 0 you have to build it slow. If you want to go faster, let it grow longer and deal with the consequences.

 

[rockm]

Funny all three of the trees you've posted were developed using chops. They're very well done, but you can tell where they were "reduced." The first one with the twin trunks is obvious. The chop was where the two trunks meet. The grower used two new shoots from the chop to make the twin trunks. (edit--a closer look at the first one could show a chop and a graft, in any case, the entire tree was NOT "grown out" with no reduction cuts.)

Same goes for the third tree. The tree in the middle shows the signs of numerous reduction chops.

Chops are not a bad thing if they're done sensitively and used correctly. Only snobs ;-) will say "you can only 'grow' a great deciduous tree...Not true. there are numerous paths to greatness.

 

[Bananaman]

We also don't have the privilege to look at the tree from all angles. I agree with Mark.

 

[Adair M]

Funny all three of the trees you've posted were developed using chops. They're very well done, but you can tell where they were "reduced." The first one with the twin trunks is obvious. The chop was where the two trunks meet. The grower used two new shoots from the chop to make the twin trunks. (edit--a closer look at the first one could show a chop and a graft, in any case, the entire tree was NOT "grown out" with no reduction cuts.)

Same goes for the third tree. The tree in the middle shows the signs of numerous reduction chops.

Chops are not a bad thing if they're done sensitively and used correctly. Only snobs ;-) will say "you can only 'grow' a great deciduous tree...Not true. there are numerous paths to greatness.

Bullshit.

@rockm, all deciduous trees will need a lot of cutting back to become effective bonsai.

A “chop” generally refers to taking a tree and reducing its height severely, cutting off 75% or more of the mass of the tree. Sometime accompanied by remove all the branches, and starting over from just a stump.

Cutting back is selectively reducing trunk and branch lengths at nodes, to induce new growth lower down or closer to the trunk.

The first tree: probably not a chop. I see no chop scar. The two trunks are fusing as the get taller. Perfectly natural. Probably NOT a graft.

The third tree, yes, shows evidence of having been cut back repeatedly over several decades. But no “chop”.

I’m not a snob, @rockm. The unpleasant truth about deciduous bonsai is it takes much longer to develop high quality deciduous bonsai than it does conifers. Ask Bill Valavanis. He has been growing his Japanese maples for 50 years. They’re magnificent. Grown from cuttings. But never chopped. Totally container grown.

You, or anyone, can rant and rave about “American bonsai”, but the fact is the Japanese have been doing this for generations, and their methods for producing deciduous bonsai have not been replicated here in the US. Yet. We can do it. It just takes knowledge, time, dedication, commitment, attention to detail, patience, and perseverance.

There are a few US deciduous Masters, Bill V and Matt Ouwinga come to mind, but we, in general, do better with our conifers. Hopefully, our D trees will progress.

 

[rockm]

Bullshit.

@rockm, all deciduous trees will need a lot of cutting back to become effective bonsai.

A “chop” generally refers to taking a tree and reducing its height severely, cutting off 75% or more of the mass of the tree. Sometime accompanied by remove all the branches, and starting over from just a stump.

Cutting back is selectively reducing trunk and branch lengths at nodes, to induce new growth lower down or closer to the trunk.

The first tree: probably not a chop. I see no chop scar. The two trunks are fusing as the get taller. Perfectly natural. Probably NOT a graft.

The third tree, yes, shows evidence of having been cut back repeatedly over several decades. But no “chop”.

I’m not a snob, @rockm. The unpleasant truth about deciduous bonsai is it takes much longer to develop high quality deciduous bonsai than it does conifers. Ask Bill Valavanis. He has been growing his Japanese maples for 50 years. They’re magnificent. Grown from cuttings. But never chopped. Totally container grown.

You, or anyone, can rant and rave about “American bonsai”, but the fact is the Japanese have been doing this for generations, and their methods for producing deciduous bonsai have not been replicated here in the US. Yet. We can do it. It just takes knowledge, time, dedication, commitment, attention to detail, patience, and perseverance.

There are a few US deciduous Masters, Bill V and Matt Ouwinga come to mind, but we, in general, do better with our conifers. Hopefully, our D trees will progress.

Oh Lord, I'm not ranting about anything, including "American Bonsai." This seems to be some kind of burr under your saddle.

I fully understand what's going on. I've been doing bonsai for at least as long as you have my friend. I have not, however, taken lessons. I know all the people you're talking about. I've Been to Matt's place, I've seen what he's doing with deciduous trees. I stand by my post. There is more than one way to skin a cat...

 

[MACH5]

There is a room in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where the famous painting "Young Woman with a Water Pitcher" by Vermeer hangs. Around it, there are many beautiful paintings of other 17th Century Dutch artists. As I have walked into that room countless times, I am immediately struck by this painting. One can say, that all other paintings in this same room are as well, or even better painted than the Vermeer itself. But something about this painting strucks a cord. Is it the light, is it the composition, the color, the expression on the woman's face. Or maybe all of the above? No other painting in that room has the appeal or power that this small painting exudes.

In the same manner, when I look at a bonsai, it either speaks to me or it doesn't. Either excites me or bores me and simply walk away. I ask, does it really matter how it was created? Chopped, not chopped. Seed or collected from your backyard. Who cares I say. In the end, it needs to communicate something, tell a story and captivate. "Perfection" is not all what it's cracked to be and as elusive as the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. I have seen countless "perfect" paintings that are simply stale and lackluster. So yes, in my humble opinion, one can create a great piece of bonsai using any and all methods. It all comes down to the skill and artistry bestowed.

 

[coh]

There is a room in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where the famous painting "Young Woman with a Water Pitcher" by Vermeer hangs. Around it, there are many beautiful paintings of other 17th Century Dutch artists. As I have walked into that room countless times, I am immediately struck by this painting. One can say, that all other paintings in this same room are as well, or even better painted than the Vermeer itself. But something about this painting strucks a cord. Is it the light, is it the composition, the color, the expression on the woman's face. Or maybe all of the above? No other painting in that room has the appeal or power that this small painting exudes.

In the same manner, when I look at a bonsai, it either speaks to me or it doesn't. Either excites me or bores me and simply walk away. I ask, does it really matter how it was created? Chopped, not chopped. Seed or collected from your backyard. Who cares I say. In the end, it needs to communicate something, tell a story and captivate. "Perfection" is not all what it's cracked to be and as elusive as the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. I have seen countless "perfect" paintings that are simply stale and lackluster. So yes, in my humble opinion, one can create a great piece of bonsai using any and all methods. It all comes down to the skill and artistry bestowed.

Interesting comments Sergio, and I tend to agree. I will say that I sometimes come across trees that have trunk directional changes that were obviously achieved by chopping. This can be found on both deciduous trees and pines and it definitely looks somewhat unnatural to me (maybe the same way that junipers with wild deadwood and simple green crowns look somewhat unnatural). Maybe these kinds of abrupt trunk movements tend to soften with time as the overall tree continues to grow. In any case, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy the tree, but I do think the ones that have less obvious evidence of the "hand of man" are more impressive to me.

 

[Deleted member 21616]

interesting post @MACH5 , and it reminds me that i probably should not have been as divisive as I was in posing the question!

@Adair M @rockm truly great contributions, thank you! It's equally nice to see people openly take a firm stance one way or another. This is an important part of the discourse too

I attached two photos of Dennis' maple that won best deciduous at nationals this year. Photos take from this thread:

https://www.bonsainut.com/threads/us-national-bonsai-exhibition-sept-8-9-2018.31003/

I have to agree with @Adair M , indeed my own initial reaction to seeing this tree was an appreciation of its beauty but frustration of its terribly distracting transition (it's a case of borderline inverse taper? - see view from above). The question that arises for me: do we even want to be able to say that the 'overall' aspect of the tree makes up for that less-than-ideal transition, or perhaps allows it to recede into the background of our experience of it? I don't know. Unless i'm assuming too much - is this transition 'ideal' to anybody?

I think that Peter Chan's tree (third picture) does a better job at handling a similar transition.

I wish i had a picture of a third tree with a similar structure but with a still smoother (more natural?) transition.

I guess the question i'm asking is whether a 'flaw' should inherently also be a 'feature' of the tree, or should the flaw be something to hide or make up for otherwise? What comes to mind here, for example, is Sergio's Maple #5: the tremendously scarred trunk is probably my favorite part of the tree (fourth picture; @MACH5 i hope you don't mind me using your tree as an example)

pic taken from here: https://www.bonsainut.com/threads/japanese-maple-5-progression.10700/page-11

A “chop” generally refers to taking a tree and reducing its height severely, cutting off 75% or more of the mass of the tree. Sometime accompanied by remove all the branches, and starting over from just a stump.

I should say that when i referred to "chop" vs. "no chop" this is precisely the definition i had in mind. I realize now there may be a bit of a gray area, and that I should have specified.

The unpleasant truth about deciduous bonsai is it takes much longer to develop high quality deciduous bonsai than it does conifers. Ask Bill Valavanis. He has been growing his Japanese maples for 50 years. They’re magnificent. Grown from cuttings. But never chopped. Totally container grown.

This is what I have been told, and I admittedly started this thread with the assumption that trees that were not chopped were, in some sense, 'truer' to the notional or imagined 'ideal' of itself

Only snobs ;-) will say "you can only 'grow' a great deciduous tree...Not true. there are numerous paths to greatness.

I like what you're advocating. You're saying there are more than one way to create a "great maple". Dennis Vojtilla's tree is an obvious example to point to, but I would have to say that there is certainly more disagreement about this decision than most people would be willing to put down in ink, so to speak.

As you were writing, did any tree in particular come to mind? Are there trees that were chopped to a stump, more or less, that turned out to be 'world class' specimens that you could supply pictures of? Not intending to challenge you here of course! As I said in the first post, pictures are always helpful, and i'm posing questions out of a genuine interest in the topic. I without a doubt have more to learn from your side of the debate (since i find myself with one foot already in the other based on what i've been taught over the past 3 years)

 

[rockm]

Don't know if we're still talking exclusively maples, or chops in general. Anyway, both are below...

Pick one from here:
https://www.bonsai-nbf.org/chinese-collection/
Zelkova, toringo crab, Prince Takamatu's trident maple, the Carpinus tschonoskii, Tanekichi Isozaki's trident maple, Ginnosuke Sakuma's camellia...oh any ANY of the root over rock trees.
https://www.bonsai-nbf.org/japanese-collection/

 

[rockm]

"and I admittedly started this thread with the assumption that trees that were not chopped were, in some sense, 'truer' to the notional or imagined 'ideal' of itself"

FWIW, this is a silly statement. It's worthless. the Japanese GLUE FRUIT TO THEIR TREES and no once gives a shit. It all boils down to what looks good. There is no "truer" path to the final image. It is either convincing or it is not. Quibbling about whether its more authentic if it's been chopped or not is elitism.

 

[coh]

The Vojtilla maple is an interesting case. There was quite a bit of talk about it at the National Exhibition. To me, it is a tree that does show obvious evidence of a chop, but it has healed well and is not jarring (others may feel differently). Perhaps having that secondary low trunk/branch on the right side helps in this regard as I think it softens the angle that would otherwise be present. Many of the chopped maples (including tridents) are more obvious with sharper angle changes that don't look good to me. Again, this may just be a matter of time to some degree...perhaps some of these trees with the obvious chops will look better as they age. Perhaps not...

 

[Deleted member 21616]

"and I admittedly started this thread with the assumption that trees that were not chopped were, in some sense, 'truer' to the notional or imagined 'ideal' of itself"

FWIW, this is a silly statement. It's worthless. the Japanese GLUE FRUIT TO THEIR TREES and no once gives a shit. It all boils down to what looks good. There is no "truer" path to the final image. It is either convincing or it is not. Quibbling about whether its more authentic if it's been chopped or not is elitism.

it's not a silly statement. I was describing what i genuinely believed prior to the discussion, and I did describe it as a past belief. i was politely weighing what @Adair M said, before declaring in the next paragraph that i appreciated your 'more than one way to skin a cat' approach. Maybe this was overly subtle.

to be honest @rockm I did not find the links you supplied very helpful. like @coh said, the Vojtilla example is not straightforward. Do you have any straightforward examples @rockm

 

[rockm]

it's not a silly statement. I was describing what i genuinely believed prior to the discussion, and I did describe it as a past belief. i was politely weighing what @Adair M said, before declaring in the next paragraph that i appreciated your 'more than one way to skin a cat' approach. Maybe this was overly subtle.

to be honest @rockm I did not find the links you supplied very helpful. like @coh said, the Vojtilla example is not straightforward. Do you have any straightforward examples @rockm

Don't really understand your question. Straightforward? Helpful? You asked for pics of world class trees with chops. The photos in those links contain more than a few. Heck the first one is nothing BUT trunk chops, repeated. that is the Lignan School of penjing. Hard reduction, followed by growth, followed by hard reduction...

 

[Deleted member 21616]

@rockm thanks for your help

i hope others chime in, it would be nice to hear other opinions on the topic too

 

[Cosmos]

How the Chinese do it. Must be the reason why they don’t have any great deciduous penjing.

 

[Adair M]

Here is some development pictures of Mr Ebihara’s zelkova:




Sorry about the second picture being sideways.

He started with a chop. No branches at all. 40 years after he started, he was offered $1million for it, which he declined. It CAN be done.

The problem I see with most of our D trees is “we” tend to chop, let a few branches extend, then immediately go to ramification. As if ramification is the goal. Lots and lots of tiny branches, and small leaves.

What I see missing is. The subtle little curves. Short internodes, branches with taper.

What we get instead are straight branches with little taper. Long internodes. Straight sections of branches between internodes. Abrupt changes of direction where branches were cut, and the new leader(s) grow out in a new direction.

It’s not snobbish or elitist to appreciate the qualities of a well done D bonsai vs one prepared less skillfully. Is it snobbish or elitist to be able to discern and appreciate the sound of the New York Philharmonic playing a Beethoven symphony than a high school orchestra playing the same piece? Both pieces of music can be beautiful to listen to, but there will be subtleties and nuances that the professionals can make that less experienced musicians cannot achieve.

 

[Adair M]

Don't really understand your question. Straightforward? Helpful? You asked for pics of world class trees with chops. The photos in those links contain more than a few. Heck the first one is nothing BUT trunk chops, repeated. that is the Lignan School of penjing. Hard reduction, followed by growth, followed by hard reduction...

And that’s why the Japanese are considered the pinnacle of bonsai. They took something the Chinese invented, and perfected it.