deciduous branch structure

[Attila Soos]

For typical silhouettes of trees, take a look at Petrides' A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs which has a section devoted to that. They are pictures of trees as they would (or might) look growing by themselves in the open. Keep in mind that trees "in nature" will be a LOT messier, with odd and broken branches, etc.

Here is an example:

Yes, I always select the tree guides with the pictograms of the trees that you are showing as examples. It gives us a good idea of the natural growth habits.

The disclaimer is, of course, that you take a tree from its ideal enviroment, and place it into a harsh habitat, like a mountain cliff at higher elevation, and the growth habit may change. So, there is always room for getting creative with the design.

 

[catfish chapstick]

I am familiar with Walter's trees. I like them and I tend to find myself leaning towards naturalistic as far as taste. A lot of the more penjing-styled trees seem to look very natural to me. I guess, for me, the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to really put my finger on what looks natural to me. Does that make sense?

I don't know whose tree this is but I think it looks very natural.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

I am familiar with Walter's trees. I like them and I tend to find myself leaning towards naturalistic as far as taste. A lot of the more penjing-styled trees seem to look very natural to me. I guess, for me, the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to really put my finger on what looks natural to me. Does that make sense?

I don't know whose tree this is but I think it looks very natural.
View attachment 30831

That quince is incredible. It was part of a 3-4 quince display, at the Taikan-ten Exhibition. It had a large banner running part of the length of the display, but I couldn't read it. Here was another of the trees from the same display. Maybe Bill V. will share some insight?

 

[Attila Soos]

That quince is incredible. It was part of a 3-4 quince display, at the Taikan-ten Exhibition. It had a large banner running part of the length of the display, but I couldn't read it. Here was another of the trees from the same display. Maybe Bill V. will share some insight?

Awsome tree. Looking at the angle of the primary branches - it's very easy to see that they don't grow at 90degrees from the trunk. It's important to establish that angle when the branch is still very young, since it becomes harder and harder to correct it as they thicken.

But the tree also suffers from the "green helmet syndrome", in spite of its naturalness. This is where the penjing-style trees are more superior - they have clearly defined negative spaces, which makes a bonsai more interesting and unique.
But this tree has such an amazing trunk, that this feature makes up for everything else.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Awsome tree. Looking at the angle of the primary branches - it's very easy to see that they don't grow at 90degrees from the trunk. It's important to establish that angle when the branch is still very young, since it becomes harder and harder to correct it as they thicken.

But the tree also suffers from the "green helmet syndrome", in spite of its naturalness. This is where the penjing-style trees are more superior - they have clearly defined negative spaces, which makes a bonsai more interesting and unique.
But this tree has such an amazing trunk, that this feature makes up for everything else.

"Superior" is a rather subjective term...

 

[Attila Soos]

"Superior" is a rather subjective term...

Yep. That's why I'm expressing only my opinion.
BTW, pretty much everything is subjective, when it comes to bonsai design.

(I should have added IMO, but I thought that this is understood without saying).

 

[elliott]

Harry Harrington is a great bonsai artist from Europe. I believe England. Anyways, he has written two books which are excellent. The first book especialy will help you with this problem. He realy gets into the way to develope branches on many specie of broad leafs and he uses his own trees as examples from the time they are bought at a nursery or dug from the field, he shows their developement to bonsai pot.
His website is bonsaiforme.com or google Harry Harrington bonsai. A little of what's in his books can be found on his website. order the first book at least, you will be glad you did, I promise!

 

[BigDave]

His website is bonsaiforme.com

http://www.bonsai4me.com/

good Stuff, Big E...thanks

big D

 

[Poink88]

The problem I see is that some people rarely see really old trees now...what they see may be old but not 100 or 300 year old trees....probably more like 50-80 years. The branches of the really old trees rarely look like the posted bonsai (as great as they are). These are more like the trees in their prime age...not really old.

Two sets of ideas...both think they are right (and they are) but like comparing apples and oranges.

If you want old looking trees, the branches eventually droop. I should take sample pics esp now since they are showing great silhouette still.

We should have tree samples per specie...say 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300, etc. years old and show the tree/branch characteristic.

To me, there is nothing more revealing than going under a majestic tree and study the branches. Even the gnarly branches, muscle, and knots as well as deadwood.

 

[davetree]

I agree that you need to look at really old trees if you can. I started looking for old deciduous trees to see what their branches looked like. The bottom branches were often horizontal, even next to the trunk. The top branches sprouted at a more upward angle, and the middle ones were in between. You can see on old maples how the oldest branches will twist over time to become horizontal. I guess that's how they support weight without breaking.

 

[Zach Smith]

One thing I think we all have to keep in mind is that the objective of bonsai is not to create an exact copy of a large tree on a small scale, but rather to create an impression of a large tree on a small scale. This requires some degree of artifice. A bonsai may have 10 or 20 main branches, a tree in nature could have 100. We must achieve forced perspective in the span of a few inches to a few feet. Leaf size must be small but there is a smallness limit (meaning you can't have the smallness in scale when compared with the full-sized counterpart).

Should the branches of a deciduous bonsai sweep upward, lie horizontally or droop downward? All can work in bonsai if they work. We've seen examples just on this thread, and there are countless others out there. No one way is "right" or "wrong," as long as it creates the illusion we seek. You know it when you see it.

Zach

 

[catfish chapstick]

The problem I see is that some people rarely see really old trees now...what they see may be old but not 100 or 300 year old trees....probably more like 50-80 years. The branches of the really old trees rarely look like the posted bonsai (as great as they are). These are more like the trees in their prime age...not really old.

Two sets of ideas...both think they are right (and they are) but like comparing apples and oranges.

If you want old looking trees, the branches eventually droop. I should take sample pics esp now since they are showing great silhouette still.

We should have tree samples per specie...say 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300, etc. years old and show the tree/branch characteristic.

To me, there is nothing more revealing than going under a majestic tree and study the branches. Even the gnarly branches, muscle, and knots as well as deadwood.

I would love to see some examples of ancient deciduous trees. I agree that they are different. The old trees I have been looking at in my area (Eden Park, Cincinnati) are maybe around 100 years old roughly. Maybe not even that old but how would I know?

I get the sense that oaks develop a little different from other deciduous trees. I saw many ancient ones when I was in Tallahassee Florida. Here is an image of an oak that is said to be 300+ years old.

 

[catfish chapstick]

One thing I think we all have to keep in mind is that the objective of bonsai is not to create an exact copy of a large tree on a small scale

the objective is subjective.

do all artists have the same objective?

I know what you mean though. It couldn't possibly be an exact copy. or could it?

 

[Poink88]

the objective is subjective.

do all artists have the same objective?

I know what you mean though. It couldn't possibly be an exact copy. or could it?

You cannot make an exact copy. Sorry. As Zach mentioned you can only do so much but to reduce a 100 foot tree down to 2 feet means reducing EVERYTHING down 50 times proportionately...it can NEVER be done. (unless you invent a shrinking ray or some sort).

Not all artists have the same objective...you will be hard pressed to find 2 who shares everything the same. Otherwise, they are not artists...just copy cats.

 

[GrimLore]

You cannot make an exact copy. Sorry. As Zach mentioned you can only do so much but to reduce a 100 foot tree down to 2 feet means reducing EVERYTHING down 50 times proportionately...it can NEVER be done. (unless you invent a shrinking ray or some sort).

Not all artists have the same objective...you will be hard pressed to find 2 who shares everything the same. Otherwise, they are not artists...just copy cats.

Oh... Now there is something I might be able to accomplish in my lifetime! A "Shrinking Ray" Seems a more reasonable goal then trying to learn and apply all this "Bonsai" stuff

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

Here is another massive oak to enjoy. A registered national champion tree, burr oak about 15 miles outside of Kirksville, Missouri. Those are my 20 something neices and nephews standing under the massive tree. Mind boggling big. Somewhere in the 500 year old range. Notice, none of the branches come out at a horizontal. "A Loose Broom" might apply for style. In its youth there may have been space between the branches, but now the branches are so thick it looks like they all come out of the trunk at almost the same point. Quite the sight to see. Worth a couple hour drive to see it.



The kid [20 something, but compared to me, a kid, when he moves out of his mother's house, I'll stop calling him kid ;-) I'm the surly uncle]
the kid that is still standing on the edge of the road is 6 ft, 4 inches tall. Just to give you a sense of scale.

I agree, generally, a naturalistic look works well. and no two artists have the same goals. Actually, I don't have the same goals for any two of my trees. For example I have a few satsuki azalea, which are a shrubs with gaudy flowers that overpower all else, so for them I am styling them more into shapes that show the flowers well, rather than the leggy shrubs they would turn into with no human intervention.

 

[Zach Smith]

the objective is subjective.

do all artists have the same objective?

I know what you mean though. It couldn't possibly be an exact copy. or could it?

It could be pretty close to an exact copy, but you'll always run into an issue with leaf size. An 80-foot tall tree with 4-inch leaves reduced to a 3-foot tall tree would need to have 0.15-in leaves (that's 3.8 mm). You literally couldn't see any defined leaves unless you were really up close. But if the leaves are 1/2-inch, all is well.

Our objective is more or less subjective, though we know that by following certain established rules we'll end up with a nice looking representation of a mature tree in nature - a bonsai.

Zach

 

[Anthony]

As the human eye/mind works, if you draw the tree in nature, the information tends to remain in the mind and can be pulled up from the imagination.

We see shapes as masses first and details much later.

So a tree's silhouette is what comes first and then since Bonsai is a shortened statement, you may only need 6 to 10 branches and numerous branchlets.

It also helps to observe if a tree has surface roots, or the roots have come to the surface through erosion. This is why observing a tree on flat land, a field, is important if you are working to a natural effect.

Trees grow according the -order of light being received- which is why often to our eyes, the tree looks like a mess and without order.
Just observe a little closer and it all becomes clear. [ also look and see if there were other trees standing closer some long time ago, blocking light.]

Also how do you intend your tree to be seen, full canopy with leaves or winter viewing.
Good Morning.
Anthony

 

[catfish chapstick]

Qingquan Zhao

In his book (Penjing: Worlds of Wonderment) Qingquan Zhao says that we "need to spend considerable time in nature and sensitizing ourselves to the eternal rhythms of the universe"

He has a chapter about learning from nature where he gives photographic examples. He also goes on to say "I do not wish to imply that the penjing artist's main objective is to imitate nature. Learning about and studying nature is the beginning. Observations are analyzed and filtered through the artist's own feelings and aesthetic preferences"

In general I don't find that my personal taste is all that consistent. This makes sense I suppose since I also like many different kinds of music and art and I am generally open minded to change. Another consideration is how much does one's own personal taste change over time? Has anyone experienced this? After all, bonsai does take a long time... I seem to remember that as a beginner I had an entirely different taste and perspective. Should I anticipate that in twenty years my taste will have evolved?

 

[Poink88]

Yes your taste in art changes/evolves in time depending on your exposure.

Just like food...you can have acquired taste.