Don't agree with Mirai's new re-styling

[Joe Dupre']

I don't often wholly disagree with Ryan Neil on styling, but this time I do. He started with an amazing specimen and managed to turn it into something I don't like at all. This latest tree had taper, nebari, jin and style out of sight. He managed to compact it down (yes, it is more compact) but take away its unique movement.

Where he bent the apex down to the left, he left the illusion of a small branch just stuck onto a trunk.......a very inelegant transition. The jin at the same level going out to the right gave the illusion of almost a bar branch and served to make the trunk to appear thicker there.

I know sometimes we want to change a tree to make it "better", but sometimes it pays to leave a world class bonsai like this alone.

 

[Glaucus]

It is art. You can debate the horticulture aspects. You can discuss technique. You can have an opinion on someone's artistic vision. But in the end this will always just be one opinion vs another.
One tried so achieve the freedom to create the art you want, unconstrained by technical and horticultural limitations. If someone prefers something else, then sure you can have a debate on that as well. But you can't really 'disagree' with it.

 

[KikurageOtomo]

To offer an opposing opinion. The previous front showed more trunk, sure. But I don't necessarily agree that's always for the best on material this developed, especially when you have a contiguous foot of it visible before any foliage. Its old front was very reminiscent of the nursery stock "Three dimensional S" and changing the angle while pulling down the apex creates a more subtle and dynamic movement relative to its height. Personally I feel the jin elements have been highlighted by the work, before it seemed like an afterthought. Now they feel in balance with the foliage and create quite a bit of asymmetrical interest.

 

[Joe Dupre']

It is art. You can debate the horticulture aspects. You can discuss technique. You can have an opinion on someone's artistic vision. But in the end this will always just be one opinion vs another.
One tried so achieve the freedom to create the art you want, unconstrained by technical and horticultural limitations. If someone prefers something else, then sure you can have a debate on that as well. But you can't really 'disagree' with it.

I understand where you're coming from, but I can disagree with his idea that it's better. That opinion and a couple of dollars may buy you a coffee somewhere. It may be more accurate to say that I don't like it. I would never say that it's bad art. That would be a faux pas.

My eye just locks in on to the clumsy transition of the apex/trunk/jin. It just looks more clunky than before he started.

 

[IzzyG]

There’s definitely stylistic tendencies with different practitioners and I’d probably summarize Ryan’s as more towards asymmetrical designs that accentuate age. The initial design lacked commitment on its foliage direction and protruding jin on the right side further weakens the overall structure as a counter balance of the foliage. Frankly it doesn’t even add any weight/character as far as a narrative goes(there’s just a dead outstretched branch?).

The redesign fully commits to an asymmetrical shape of the foliage while compacting the tree(adding better proportions to the whole tree and an improved base) and the reduced Jin to the right actually adds interest to the character/story of the tree. Like everyone with a belly button however, that’s just an opinion of mine and I’ll openly admit that my preference is towards a similar design direction vs the more traditional symmetrical shape.

 

[ZombieNick]

The initial design lacked commitment on its foliage direction

The redesign fully commits to an asymmetrical shape of the foliage while compacting the tree

I think you nailed it here. His new style commits to an asymmetric design that is much bolder. A more bolder design is sure to invoke stronger opinions for or against it, but I think that's what makes it interesting. The original tree was by all means a specimen, but there weren't many "risks" taken in the design - it is your standard S shaped informal upright (albeit well done). I prefer the more compact apex over the "hook" branch it was before, and I actually think the new angle gives it more unique movement than before.

@Joe Dupre' I think even if he wanted to keep the original design, he would need to address the dead branch. What would you have done with this?

 

[Joe Dupre']

I think you nailed it here. His new style commits to an asymmetric design that is much bolder. A more bolder design is sure to invoke stronger opinions for or against it, but I think that's what makes it interesting. The original tree was by all means a specimen, but there weren't many "risks" taken in the design - it is your standard S shaped informal upright (albeit well done). I prefer the more compact apex over the "hook" branch it was before, and I actually think the new angle gives it more unique movement than before.

@Joe Dupre' I think even if he wanted to keep the original design, he would need to address the dead branch. What would you have done with this?

I think I would have pruned off the down-facing part of the dead branch and cut back the other part drastically. Just that would have given it a more asymmetrical shape, which is what he was striving for.

Does anyone else feel the transition to the apex section is clunky? It jumps out at me. Also, the horizontal line of that section aligns with the jin on the right side giving a foot-long horizontal line that just puts me off. The apex now feels in conflict with the jins on the right, giving a lesser prominence to the apex.

 

[Colorado]

I’d disagree, I feel like the work improved the design.

 

[KikurageOtomo]

The apex now feels in conflict with the jins on the right, giving a lesser prominence to the apex.

Tenjin aren't considered particularly unusual. I'd say the volume of the deadwood relative to the foliar mass on the apex is quite nicely balanced as well.

 

[Hartinez]

I love the lemons, lemonade analogy. But he started with much nicer material than what the analogy implies. I’ve seen him transform far more “lemons to lemonade” material that would have fit the analogy better.

 

[Wulfskaar]

I happen to agree with you, @Joe Dupre' .

It looks very lopsided and awkward now.

But hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This beholder thinks he messed up.