Forms, and naturalistic too!

[chappy56]

If Bonsai is an "artistic representation of a tree" then why do we have such a hard time accepting what one Bonsai artist represents? And why is it we so readily accept paintings of the same subject matter with little regard to how "accurate" they really are?

 

[Smoke]

Absolutely, no better place for inconsistencies, misinformation, and general misconceptions!



Will

Well at least you understand the words since thats the way you do bonsai. Look now thats been annpunced...geeesh what a hack.

 

[Smoke]

If Bonsai is an "artistic representation of a tree" then why do we have such a hard time accepting what one Bonsai artist represents? And why is it we so readily accept paintings of the same subject matter with little regard to how "accurate" they really are?

1. because bonsai appreciatation is subjective

2. artistic representation is abstract

 

[bwaynef]

Look now thats been annpunced

I'd nominate this as best post ever.

 

[greerhw]

Okay, I will (no pun intended, ) attempt to contribute something worthwhile to this thread. Since Will likes to hear his own voice so much, I will keep my comments to a minimum and use visual aids not available to Will. These are two Ponderosa's I own, one is as it was collected, in a natural state the other a creation by man, a quite talented man I might add, Colin Lewis. My perception of a natural state would be to leave the unstyled tree as is and put it in a pot, you can't be more natural than that, how can you style a natural tree to look more natural than the way it was collected. Next and my favorite, is to style the tree with a Japanese flair, nothing natural about that, you will never see a Ponderosa in the wild like that, you may not like the styled tree, that of course is your prerogative, say what you will about the trees, that's why I posted them and to answer Al's question from my perspective.

Keep it green,
Harry

 

[catfish chapstick]

c'mon people

1. because bonsai appreciatation is subjective

2. artistic representation is abstract

i fully believe that this comment hits the nail on the head.

forms in bonsai are relative to personal taste as well as poppular trends trends. if you believe bonsai is an "art" then there will be lots of possible outcomes and not everyone will agree on what is best. art is often abstract.

i know everyone has an ego to defend but seriously do you hear youself? i wish people here would stop this sort of thing. it looks bad and hinders discussion.

 

[Attila Soos]

John Naka said: "Don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like a tree".

I said that statement was asinine. My opinion...I will explain.

It would read better if it said;

"Don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like an artistic representation of a tree".

Too wordy I think, but I can live with it. In my opinion bonsai don't look like trees at all. Sure they represent trees and some do a better job at looking like a tree found in nature than others. This does no negate the fact that even trees as bonsai that don't look like natural trees can be beautiful. I just look at them with a different set of ideals.

In recent posts it has been brought up that styling D trees with foliage pads is not the right thing to do. Phooey, if you want to make a D tree with foliage pads then do so. As it ramifies, unless all the twigs are cut off it will fill in and become a mass of foliage, something D trees are supposed to have, anyway.

Below are some traditionally styled black pines in the true Japanese way. Do they look like trees in nature?
No.
Can I appreciate them equally with trees that look more natural in appearance?
Yes, of course I can

I think that John Naka's advice should not be misinterpreted. As it is often the case in the Oriental tradition, an advice coming from a wise person needs to be understood in the right context, and it would be a great mistake to take it literally.

Here is a simple example from the Tao Te Ching:

"In Tao, the only motion is returning
The only useful quality, weakness."

Or the first line of the book:

"The Way that can be told is not the uvarying way."

In fact, the entire book, if taken literally, is nothing but nonsense. Obviously, weakness is not the only useful quality that we can have. Quite the opposite, weakness is not really a useful quality. But what the text means, is that being flexible, open minded, and humble, are very useful qualities, and thinking of ourself as invincible and allmighty is in fact a much greater weakness.

Language is a funny thing. In our contemporary society, with our complicated laws and technology talk, we tend to mean exactly what we say. But we forget that language can also be used as an artistic medium (literature, poetry, theater, rhetoric), and as such, is open to interpretation.

By the same token, John Naka doesn't mean that we need to shape our bonsai to look literally (and exactly) like a natural tree. As his trees have shown, this is not the case. A bonsai is always an artistic representation, and not an exact copy of a tree.
What Naka means, is that nature should be a strong inspiration, and observing and understanding natural trees should be a top priority of a bonsaist.
I don't think that Al would disagree with the above.

As to the use of foliage pads, my point was that the pads are not the only alternative when stying a deciduous tree. They should be used with good judgment, and not as an automatic and infallible solution.
I don't think Al disagrees with this either.

 

[Klytus]

Make your Bonsai look like a Totem Pole,i'm guessing that's all new.

I break out my rattle and sing the Aya-Aya!

 

[Smoke]

I think that John Naka's advice should not be misinterpreted. As it is often the case in the Oriental tradition, an advice coming from a wise person needs to be understood in the right context, and it would be a great mistake to take it literally.

Here is a simple example from the Tao Te Ching:

"In Tao, the only motion is returning
The only useful quality, weakness."

Or the first line of the book:

"The Way that can be told is not the uvarying way."

In fact, the entire book, if taken literally, is nothing but nonsense. Obviously, weakness is not the only useful quality that we can have. Quite the opposite, weakness is not really a useful quality. But what the text means, is that being flexible, open minded, and humble, are very useful qualities, and thinking of ourself as invincible and allmighty is in fact a much greater weakness.

Language is a funny thing. In our contemporary society, with our complicated laws and technology talk, we tend to mean exactly what we say. But we forget that language can also be used as an artistic medium (literature, poetry, theater, rhetoric), and as such, is open to interpretation.

By the same token, John Naka doesn't mean that we need to shape our bonsai to look literally (and exactly) like a natural tree. As his trees have shown, this is not the case. A bonsai is always an artistic representation, and not an exact copy of a tree.
What Naka means, is that nature should be a strong inspiration, and observing and understanding natural trees should be a top priority of a bonsaist.
I don't think that Al would disagree with the above.

As to the use of foliage pads, my point was that the pads are not the only alternative when stying a deciduous tree. They should be used with good judgment, and not as an automatic and infallible solution.
I don't think Al disagrees with this either.

I had the priviledge of working with John Naka when he was not an old man and still very witty. Not many people on this forum go back far enough to have worked with him or live back east and may not have worked with him. Some old timers like Dale Cochoy and Mike Page have worked side by side with John, but not many. What I remember about John was that he always had a witty saying for any event. Many out here on the left coast refer to them as Nakaism's.

In any event the saying referred to here and many others like finding the front of a tree...

" When looking for the front of a tree on a difficult subject, find the back, the front is on the other side".

A funny quip for sure and often true, but also often untrue. Many times a tree may have twenty backs and still no front. I have worked on trees like that...for a few minutes, and then put them on the raffle table. In any event they are not words to live by.

So yes while I understand what you are saying Attila, I still say that the saying is asinine. This is no disrespect to John Naka for saying it, it's for all those that keep repeating it as some kind of mantra to perfect bonsai. It's not that simple. Stop useing this quote said during a funny moment in time as being a quote to the way to make perfect bonsai. The basics are there but much of the mechanics are missing. The saying was funny and appropriate then but not so much twenty years down the road.

John was an awesome teacher did so much to help promote bonsai for the USA. I sat a few seats down from him during the 1999 convention when Marc Noelanders was here as a headliner. I sat next to Harry Hirao and John was about two seats from him. John had two chopsticks in his pocket. Marc had spent about twenty minutes wrapping a huge branch about an inch thick with raffia in preperation for bending. Two assistants held the tree while Marc got up on a bench to bend it. With both hands he began bending the branch, grimicing while grunting. Soon a loud crack was heard as John broke both chopsticks together. The crowd let out a huge sigh. Then John stood up, showed the two broken chopsticks and everyone laughed as only John could do. Funny man.

I hope we all have a better understanding of how John saw the world. He was not black and white, that was not John. RIP my friend.


A picture of John Naka at that same convention during his demo creating Goshin II, his last demo.

 

[Anonymous User]

geeesh what a hack.

Take it easy on yourself Al, at least you can admit you're a hack.

Now that you have your usual attempts at insults out of the way, how about answwering the question so we can see if you even have a clue what you are talking about...

What exactly are you trying to say Al? Are you saying that trees should be based solely on how they grow in nature or are you saying they need artistic representation and as such, nature need not be observed?

 

[Smoke]

yes...err no...I mean maybe..you know what I mean.

Is that clear enough for ya!

Ignore now...done with you.

here, save yourself the effort.

I knew it, dodge the question, when confronted just goes away with his tail between his legs.

Your a broken record Will..we all know the drill.

Got anymore pictures with the wrong name on it Mr. editor?

 

[Anonymous User]

Okay, I will (no pun intended, ) attempt to contribute something worthwhile to this thread. Since Will likes to hear his own voice so much, I will keep my comments to a minimum and use visual aids not available to Will.

Nice way to have an intelligent discussion Harry, starting off with a insult, and in reply, a very poor one at that...I can't hear my voice on the forum Harry, using the term, likes to read his own words, would have been more apt, but just as asinine.

These are two Ponderosa's I own, one is as it was collected, in a natural state the other a creation by man, a quite talented man I might add, Colin Lewis. My perception of a natural state would be to leave the unstyled tree as is and put it in a pot, you can't be more natural than that, how can you style a natural tree to look more natural than the way it was collected.

I understand Al missing the point, but I am disappointed in you Harry. Naturalistic has very little to do with what exists in nature, more so having the appearance of being untouched by man. In bonsai we force perspective, create near or far views, play with proportions, and otherwise stretch reality to create an illusion of a mature tree instead of a little young tree in a pot. The reason just collecting a tree and placing it in a pot does not work for bonsai is that there is no illusion (expect possibly in very rare cases) of a mature, full grown tree. This is why Al's skinny trunk theory is flawed, we use ratios that give the illusion of a full sized tree because using actual ratios of trees in nature will not present the image needed for a bonsai to be successful.

yes...err no...I mean maybe..you know what I mean.

As usual, you sprout off that mouth and can't even explain what the hell you were trying to say, most likely because once again, you have no clue.

I knew it, dodge the question, when confronted just goes away with his tail between his legs.

Al, the question put forth to you was simple, "What exactly are you trying to say Al? Are you saying that trees should be based solely on how they grow in nature or are you saying they need artistic representation and as such, nature need not be observed?" Do you have a answer or are you, as usual, going to dodge the question and fill the thread with insults, jibs, and other garbage to cover your own ignorance?

 

[Smoke]

Nice way to have an intelligent discussion Harry, starting off with a insult, and in reply, a very poor one at that...I can't hear my voice on the forum Harry, using the term, likes to read his own words, would have been more apt, but just as asinine.


I understand Al missing the point, but I am disappointed in you Harry. Naturalistic has very little to do with what exists in nature, more so having the appearance of being untouched by man. In bonsai we force perspective, create near or far views, play with proportions, and otherwise stretch reality to create an illusion of a mature tree instead of a little young tree in a pot. The reason just collecting a tree and placing it in a pot does not work for bonsai is that there is no illusion (expect possibly in very rare cases) of a mature, full grown tree. This is why Al's skinny trunk theory is flawed, we use ratios that give the illusion of a full sized tree because using actual ratios of trees in nature will not present the image needed for a bonsai to be successful.


As usual, you sprout off that mouth and can't even explain what the hell you were trying to say, most likely because once again, you have no clue.


Al, the question put forth to you was simple, "What exactly are you trying to say Al? Are you saying that trees should be based solely on how they grow in nature or are you saying they need artistic representation and as such, nature need not be observed?" Do you have a answer or are you, as usual, going to dodge the question and fill the thread with insults, jibs, and other garbage to cover your own ignorance?

You better get out your slide rule Will cause you just fell off the deep end and ruined what little credibility you were trying to save.

 

[Smoke]

In bonsai we force perspective, create near or far views, play with proportions, and otherwise stretch reality to create an illusion of a mature tree instead of a little young tree in a pot. The reason just collecting a tree and placing it in a pot does not work for bonsai is that there is no illusion (expect possibly in very rare cases) of a mature, full grown tree.

This quote will come to haunt you for the rest of your dimutive bonsai life.

 

[Anonymous User]

This quote will come to haunt you for the rest of your dimutive bonsai life.

Oh, that line again, really Al, I've been hearing the same thing from you for five years, I won't last a year, AoB will fail, the contests will never be successful, I'll never be published, I'll never be published again, yada yada yada, honestly, you sound like Debbie Downer from SNL, with all your whining and doomsaying......every year I go on, every year I contribute more and more, and every year, there you are crying about it.

Please Al, dispute this quote of mine, haunt me, this ought to be interesting.

Oh, and it's "diminutive" not "dimutive" ...for the sake of all that is good, use a spell check (they are free, ya know) or at least buy a dictionary, must we decipher everything you say?

You better get out your slide rule Will cause you just fell off the deep end and ruined what little credibility you were trying to save.

Well Al, here's your chance to prove it. what are you waiting for?

Let's recap....

John Naka said: "Don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like a tree".

I said that statement was asinine. My opinion...I will explain.

It would read better if it said;

"Don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like an artistic representation of a tree".

I don't know Al, I would much rather have a bonsai that looked like a tree than a tree that looked like a bonsai.....I think we commonly call those types, cookie cutters.

Before we get into this, could you explain exactly what an artistic representation of a tree is? What is the difference between representing a tree and representing an artistic tree or artistically representing a tree, is it the tree that is artistic or the representation?

This is good timing, I have been pounding out an article on something similar and I am curious as to your thoughts as expressed above.

First you called Naka's words asinine and changed his oft quoted words "don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like a tree" to "Don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like an artistic representation of a tree." It is obvious you agree with Naka that a bonsai should look like a tree, but you simply added the word "artistic" to his words. I could argue the point that "art" should be a given in bonsai, and creating artistic trees is the ultimate goal, and counter by simply telling you that you are preaching old gospel here, but something else is on my mind....

You then went on about trunk sizes, claiming that "most trees in nature do not have sumo trunks with massive taper" and that "most of the more natural looking trees I find have rather thin trunks. More bunjin in appearance." This is odd, considering that you just said that bonsai should be an artistic representation of a tree, are not sumo trunks, thin trunks, oddly twisted trunks, split trunks, and the like, simply artistic representations (not copies) of trees which may or may not actually exist in nature?

Point being that if you truly believe that bonsai should be artistic representations of trees, as you claim, then what exists in nature actually has no relevance to bonsai design. In fact, what is natural would also play no role what-so-ever and be simply optional.


and....

Call um what you want, I still appreciate them (cookie cutters) and find room for bonsai no matter it's form. I don't hold one in higher regard becasue of it's shape or form. If it's good then all the labels mean nothing to me.

But were you not just claiming artistic representation? Can't have it both ways Al, which is it?

I have been told by you numerous times that my thoughts mean nothing to you so I guess you'll have to do a litlle more research.

No, that would be your opinions......my research is done, if yours is then maybe some intelligent discussion will develop, if not, then allow me to point out the obvious flaws in the "opinions" you posted.

...no, you keyed in on artistic..."my" key word is representation, always has been always will be. I made that clear in the beginning of the thread. Remember it said MY OPINION. You are entitled to yours...

Sorry Al, this makes no sense, you changed Naka's words "don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like a tree" to "Don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like an artistic representation of a tree." Naka's "...look like a tree" is "representing" a tree, you added the word "artistic" in your rewrite.

You stick with your opinion Al, I search for more valuable things....

Exactly, so whats your point? I think I said that and do find that trees in nature have vastly small trunks for canopy spreads.

Point being that if you truly believe that bonsai should be artistic representations of trees, as you claim, then what exists in nature actually has no relevance to bonsai design. In fact, what is natural would also play no role what-so-ever and be simply optional.

You used some trees from nature as examples and said, "Odd that somehow most of the more natural looking trees I find have rather thin trunks. More bunjin in appearance. This is how trees are in nature." Are you aware Al that the Bunjing or Literati style of bonsai is the only style that was not taken from trees in nature? I find it somewhat enlightening that the one style of many that you chose to use as an example of how trees grow in nature is the only style that wasn't based on nature at all.


All the inconsistencies aside, what exactly are you trying to say Al? Are you saying that trees should be based solely on how they grow in nature or are you saying they need artistic representation and as such, nature need not be observed?


After the discourse above, you have done little but toss insults.....are you capable of having an intelligent discussion Al, or are your thoughts and "opinions" not formed enough yet to defend them without resporting to bullying and name calling?

Can you back up your expressed beliefs with anything at all?

 

[Smoke]

..........everty year I go on, every year I contribute more and more, and every year, there you are crying about it..

spell check huh...I'm not the editor Will. It's every not everty.

come on...you said the stupid quote..I think you need to defend it. I can't wait for Walter to read that one.

 

[Anonymous User]

spell check huh...I'm not the editor Will. It's every not everty.

Al, check the time stamps on your post and my last edit of mine.

come on...you said the stupid quote..I think you need to defend it. I can't wait for Walter to read that one.

(emphasis mine)

You call it stupid, can you explain why you think so and why you feel this will haunt me, as you claimed?

Here it is again...

"Naturalistic has very little to do with what exists in nature, more so having the appearance of being untouched by man. In bonsai we force perspective, create near or far views, play with proportions, and otherwise stretch reality to create an illusion of a mature tree instead of a little young tree in a pot. The reason just collecting a tree and placing it in a pot does not work for bonsai is that there is no illusion (expect possibly in very rare cases) of a mature, full grown tree. This is why Al's skinny trunk theory is flawed, we use ratios that give the illusion of a full sized tree because using actual ratios of trees in nature will not present the image needed for a bonsai to be successful."

 

[Smoke]

Ha..caught it before you removed it.

I stated my opinion in the opening of this thread. I stand by it, and based on the views and those that have been imvolved in the thread before you came and ruined it, it was understood by those reading it.

I have no need to add anything more to those less learned in this endeavor. The last quote you made pretty much sums up your experience in bonsai. You have nothing to show for yourself, you use borrowed pictures for your ideas, and you can't even get your name correct on your big chance in the big time. Yes I'm going to keep bringing it up till you finally explain it.

I know you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Smoke]

I tried to quote the whole post but it wouldn't let me. You must have been editing it away or changing it all together. I just cut and pasted the misspelled part.

See we all make mistakes. You pull your pants on same as I do. No need to attack every typo, you leave so much good stuff on the table I don't need to sink that low.



There is much here to chew on...I will sit back now and see how your quote fairs. This should be entertaining.

 

[Anonymous User]

Ha..caught it before you removed it.

I stated my opinion in the opening of this thread.

Yes, and I not only disagreed with it, I showed why it was flawed, you were unable to defend your own thoughts, or even answer simple questions defining your beliefs. This leaves no other option but to assume you have no clue whatsoever about what you were talking about.

You have nothing to show for yourself, you use borrowed pictures for your ideas, and you can't even get your name correct on your big chance in the big time. Yes I'm going to keep bringing it up till you finally explain it.

I know you know what I'm talking about.

Here we go, okay, let's do it.....first, yes I use borrowed pictures to portray the thoughts I wish to express, successfully so in fact. With articles published in most major bonsai magazines and translated into multiple languages, this has worked quite well for me, thank you. What I have to show is what I have done for the community, what you have to show is only a few purchased trees someone else did all the thinking on for you. Thanks Al, but I wouldn't choose your path for money.

And Al is referring to my picture that heads up the preface I wrote for Robert Stevens new book, "Mission of Transformation" on which William Valavanis's name is under it. Al, not having a clue about writing, publishing, or working with publishers, printers, etc somehow thinks I was so stupid as not to put my own name under my own picture, when in fact the pictures of Walter, Valavanis, Robert, and myself were added after the final edit was sent back to Robert who added a few sections, sentences, and paragraphs to the final edit before sending it to the printer who then mixed up a couple things, my name under the picture for example. Ah well, things happen, and life goes on, at least they got my name on the cover right.

Now Al, is in all his wondrous glory, running around naked, laughing like a banshee, hugging strangers, kissing strange men, believing he has something big to bash me with, but it is nothing, I don't care and it is my name, why should he?

So Al, you have tried everything under the sun to dodge the question I posed at the beginning of this thread, you have insinuated, insulted, changed the subject, focused on anything but defending the misinformed statements you made, please see my recent post #37 and try to stay on subject, will ya, this gets old.