Design: Golden Mean Case Study #2

[Bonsai Nut]

Here's another case study. To save people the work, image #1 is based on the Golden Mean establishing the foliage level on both sides of the tree, relative to the base of the trunk and the height of the tree. It isn't a bad start... but the trunk of the tree is bent indicating that you need more foliage weight on the left side of the tree to balance the design.

Which of the two alternatives do you prefer?

#1


#2


#3

 

[Gene Deci]

Neither. I would take off the lowest branch on the right side

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Shhhh... I was originally doing that as an option, but I ran out of time

 

[qwade]

3---the same amount of foliage as tree 2 but the branch spacing on the left side of tree 3 seems more natural.

 

[wireme]

I really like the way direction and flow are carried through the main trunk by the apex and left branch, I feel it most strongly with 3.

Thanks for posting these, its a fun game while trees are buried in the white stuff.

 

[coh]

Neither. I would take off the lowest branch on the right side

Yeah, I was working on a virt of that and thought it looked better than any of the options given. But of the three...I'm leaning toward #3. First one is out as being way too symmetric. Second also seems a little too symmetric (I'm talking about the levels of the lowest pads). On three, there may be a little too much extension on that lower left branch.

 

[Anthony]

Bnut,

if you are really hoping to teach / discuss Design.
Maybe some real trees and why they are appealing.

If you keep showing finished bonsai, you may just end up with folk who will stagnate and copy others for the rest of their life. Mannerism.

Sorry to be a pest.
Good Day
Anthony

 

[edprocoat]

I like #3 myself.

ed

 

[lordy]

I feel that of the last two, #2 is most balanced given the movement of the trunk. #3 seems too contrived to me.

 

[wireme]

Bnut,

if you are really hoping to teach / discuss Design.
Maybe some real trees and why they are appealing.

If you keep showing finished bonsai, you may just end up with folk who will stagnate and copy others for the rest of their life. Mannerism.



Sorry to be a pest.
Good Day
Anthony

I like to think that we're smarter than that and there's not too many sheep in the flock, I guess you never know though eh?

Real trees are nice to look at and discuss, plenty of ugly trees out there too, another avenue of discussion?

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Bnut,

if you are really hoping to teach / discuss Design.
Maybe some real trees and why they are appealing.

If you keep showing finished bonsai, you may just end up with folk who will stagnate and copy others for the rest of their life. Mannerism.

You're not being a pest - that sounds like a great idea.

One thing I have learned about "design" threads is that it is far to easy to get off topic. I am trying to keep my current series of threads specifically focused on considering the Golden Mean as a design tool. I want to stay on topic because otherwise we'll get lost... but your idea is a really good one.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Ok let's try this again. I had a little time this afternoon to create Option 3 which we can call "Gene's Option"

Starter image


Design options. Which do you prefer?

#1


#2


#3

 

[coh]

As I said earlier, "Gene option" feels best, especially seeing them all together. Foliage mass on the lower left branch might need adjusting though, it seems kind of heavy.

 

[Smoke]

You're not being a pest - that sounds like a great idea.

One thing I have learned about "design" threads is that it is far to easy to get off topic. I am trying to keep my current series of threads specifically focused on considering the Golden Mean as a design tool. I want to stay on topic because otherwise we'll get lost... but your idea is a really good one.

Maybe you need to clarify what you mean by design tool. So far you have shown two trees and both are better when they "don't" fit the golden mean.

Is this sort of like a horseshoes kinda thing where being close to the golden mean is good enough.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Maybe you need to clarify what you mean by design tool. So far you have shown two trees and both are better when they "don't" fit the golden mean.

Is this sort of like a horseshoes kinda thing where being close to the golden mean is good enough.

I don't know Al. I am playing with this as a design idea. The idea of the Golden Mean is supposed to be the most "in balance". But "in balance" can also mean "boring" or "expected". The idea is that your eye is supposed to "expect" the Golden Mean. If you move away from it, it generates a sense of "tension" or "energy" in your design. Too far, and it feels out of balance and uncomfortable. That is the principle, at least.

One thing that is an interesting outcome of all of this... is that at least right now, it doesn't seem that people see the pot or the soil. If you buy into this design theory, people's eyes are evaluating the tree, and the dimensions of the tree, from the ground level up. I'm trying to have a discussion around this and am creating specific options to test specific ratios to see how people respond to them...

 

[Smoke]

I don't know Al. I am playing with this as a design idea. The idea of the Golden Mean is supposed to be the most "in balance". But "in balance" can also mean "boring" or "expected". The idea is that your eye is supposed to "expect" the Golden Mean. If you move away from it, it generates a sense of "tension" or "energy" in your design. Too far, and it feels out of balance and uncomfortable. That is the principle, at least.

I was under the impression based on your rather stern exuberance here that this was "the" way to style bonsai. Yet here we find that your "playing" with it as a design medium. I think this is where the breakdown in communication is falling apart.

There has already been one here that thinks that balance is the way to go and that tension in bonsai does not create movement.

I think before this can be used as a tool everyone has to be on board with basic art concepts and its terminology and what they actually mean.

For instance balance with white space only becomes a point of interest when the tree is photographed as a two dimensional image. Photography art. If shown on a 10 foot long table with 20 feet of white space on either side kinda moots the point. Seeing it in real life, not rendered.

There are actually people that will continue to prune branches on a tree to make them look better in a photograph ruining what might be a wonderful tree in real life with its actual depth of field.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Well since I already mentioned the proportions, there is no secret.

Let me follow up on Al's question by stating it in a different way. Let's say I gave you this image and said "there is a branch there on the left that I'd like you to complete by drawing on the blue box. I want you to draw a branch that hangs down so that the entire design is in balance":



If you buy into the theory of the Golden Mean, you will draw Gene's design... which EXACTLY fits the proportions of the Golden Mean. Note that I didn't even INCLUDE that option (at least initially) and yet someone suggested it.



Is this the "only" design? Of course not! Is this the "perfect" design? That is up to interpretation. But it is a ratio that people are drawn to... and if you understand it you can use it in your work - to either match it or distance yourself from it.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

There are actually people that will continue to prune branches on a tree to make them look better in a photograph ruining what might be a wonderful tree in real life with its actual depth of field.

Absolutely. It is this very question that I think is going to come up in Sawgrass' thread about perspective. Bonsai is an art form in three dimensions. Photos are not. I feel like I am talking about basic arithmetic when bonsai is calculus. But all calculus is based on arithmetic...

If you reread my "stern exuberance" it started with a simple statement "consider the Divine Proportion as it applies to bonsai". Why do people gravitate to these ratios? Who knows?

 

[wireme]

Ok let's try this again. I had a little time this afternoon to create Option 3 which we can call "Gene's Option"

Still prefer the third image (option 2)

 

[coh]

Well since I already mentioned the proportions, there is no secret.

Let me follow up on Al's question by stating it in a different way. Let's say I gave you this image and said "there is a branch there on the left that I'd like you to complete by drawing on the blue box. I want you to draw a branch that hangs down so that the entire design is in balance":

If you buy into the theory of the Golden Mean, you will draw Gene's design... which EXACTLY fits the proportions of the Golden Mean. Note that I didn't even INCLUDE that option (at least initially) and yet someone suggested it.

Is this the "only" design? Of course not! Is this the "perfect" design? That is up to interpretation. But it is a ratio that people are drawn to... and if you understand it you can use it in your work - to either match it or distance yourself from it.

The problem, though, is that you're only measuring one aspect of the tree.

The very first picture that you posted (in post 12) perfectly satisfied the golden mean in one sense (the ratio of the bottom of the foliage mass to the height). But most of us don't like it. On the "Gene tree", the left side still fits the golden mean, but the right side does not. Many of us seem to like that tree quite a bit. The big difference is the asymmetry in the foliage mass across the trunk between the two trees.

I think the "true" (or truer, perhaps) test of the golden ratio would be to take tree image #1 from post 12 and bring the foliage mass both up and down, changing the ratio but keeping the symmetry - because by introducing the asymmetry you're really changing many other factors in the design.

And that's where the complexity really comes in with real trees. How does one quantify the effects of asymmetry and how it relates to or interacts with other measurements?

Maybe that's a topic for a later thread.