thumblessprimate1
Masterpiece
I love these different styles, and I think about them frequently. Curious what others prefer and their reasons why. Please offer your opinions.
These:
Compared to these:
These:
Compared to these:
Please Offer Style Preference and Why
- Thread starter thumblessprimate1
- Start date
River's Edge
Masterpiece
I prefer the top row based on what i perceive as more careful refinement technique that has created better balance. Harmony and openness with a higher level of refinement.
The lower row to my eye appears more that the bonsai practitioner has allowed the tree to do its thing to more of an extent, creating more congestion and a style that would be more difficult to maintain ongoing as a healthy tree form.
Having said that they all were likely winners and treasures in someone else's experience. On the bonsai continuum of older style versus newer style within a cultural framework of art.
My bias is for tree's that " birds can fly through" .
Joe Dupre'
Omono
For pure artistic form, I prefer the top row. For more naturalistic form, I prefer the bottom row. However, they all have too much ramification for my taste. My first impression is "Wow, that's a big mass of tiny branches. It doesn't really look natural . " I find they're just too "done" for me. Kind of like the deciduous version of "helmet " conifers. Saying that, I think the artists accomplished the styles they were going for.
thumblessprimate1
Masterpiece
Very good insight, guys! Thanks!
0soyoung
Imperial Masterpiece
It is going to take a bit longer for me to figure out why I like the bottom row more than the top.
Even though all have fine ramification, the trunks are much more the feature in the second row - it could be just lighting. The trunks in the second row seem to be much heavier than the top, whereas the top row tends to have more gradual taper.
The canopies of the top row are very smooth, like the shapes I shear azaleas in my landscape to look like rocks. The canopies of the second row are irregular by comparison (less predictable and therefore more interesting?), but every bit as finely ramified.
Lastly for now, the proportions of the bottom row are what I would expect of smaller trees than the top row, even though they clearly are not. Rather they must be far more massive considering the ramification.
... gee, I dunno. Maybe it is just that the top row is more familiar and I'm falling for the novelty of the second. Interesting question, nonetheless. ?
Even though all have fine ramification, the trunks are much more the feature in the second row - it could be just lighting. The trunks in the second row seem to be much heavier than the top, whereas the top row tends to have more gradual taper.
The canopies of the top row are very smooth, like the shapes I shear azaleas in my landscape to look like rocks. The canopies of the second row are irregular by comparison (less predictable and therefore more interesting?), but every bit as finely ramified.
Lastly for now, the proportions of the bottom row are what I would expect of smaller trees than the top row, even though they clearly are not. Rather they must be far more massive considering the ramification.
... gee, I dunno. Maybe it is just that the top row is more familiar and I'm falling for the novelty of the second. Interesting question, nonetheless. ?
BobbyLane
Imperial Masterpiece
although both are outstanding levels of refinement, i prefer the irregularity of the bottom row. to my eye this is more natural. i also think there becomes a point where some of these heavily refined trees can just become too dense and you get a sense of birds flying in and becoming entangled in the masses of fine twigs. especially in the upper crown of third tree, top row.
the outline of the canopies in top row, almost too 'perfect'. you definitely see the hand of man here.
the outline of the canopies in top row, almost too 'perfect'. you definitely see the hand of man here.
amatbrewer
Shohin
From a overall look/feel perspective, I like the last one best followed by maybe the first.
For me the last one has the best balance of intricate refinement and slight imperfection. While I appreciate the uber-refined trees (if nothing else for the skill/effort that went into creating them) my preference is for a bit of wildness to keep it interesting. I personalty find bit of randomness and/or imperfection to add an element of surprise and keep a composition from becoming boring.
If nothing else it gives me an excuse for all the imperfections in my own crappy trees: "Wild and naturalistic? um...Yeah, sure, lets go with that."
For me the last one has the best balance of intricate refinement and slight imperfection. While I appreciate the uber-refined trees (if nothing else for the skill/effort that went into creating them) my preference is for a bit of wildness to keep it interesting. I personalty find bit of randomness and/or imperfection to add an element of surprise and keep a composition from becoming boring.
If nothing else it gives me an excuse for all the imperfections in my own crappy trees: "Wild and naturalistic? um...Yeah, sure, lets go with that."
D
Deleted member 21616
Guest
did you want us to choose between the two groups of pictures that you posted and explain why we prefer one of those two groups, or were you inviting others to share pics of any style(s) out there in the world that they personally like?
I think everyone is assuming the former, but for some reason i initially understood the latter and was excited to photo-bomb with a bunch of maples
Bonsai Nut
Nuttier than your average Nut
Top row they are all styled like oaks, regardless of their species.
Bottom row they are all styled more naturally as "general deciduous".
They ALL seem to focus overmuch on foliage ramification (to me) versus styling clusters of foliage. You wouldn't be able to view any of these trees with leaves... they would all look like mops. I know deciduous are supposed to look best with bare branches so you can see the branch structure... but these trees seem to emphasize ramification above all else.
I prefer to enjoy four seasons of deciduous trees - with a different look each season.
Bottom row they are all styled more naturally as "general deciduous".
They ALL seem to focus overmuch on foliage ramification (to me) versus styling clusters of foliage. You wouldn't be able to view any of these trees with leaves... they would all look like mops. I know deciduous are supposed to look best with bare branches so you can see the branch structure... but these trees seem to emphasize ramification above all else.
I prefer to enjoy four seasons of deciduous trees - with a different look each season.
Last edited:
thumblessprimate1
Masterpiece
Yes, the former. ?did you want us to choose between the two groups of pictures that you posted and explain why we prefer one of those two groups, or were you inviting others to share pics of any style(s) out there in the world that they personally like?
I think everyone is assuming the former, but for some reason i initially understood the latter and was excited to photo-bomb with a bunch of maples
thumblessprimate1
Masterpiece
That is something great to consider. Great points!
D
Deleted member 21616
Guest
in that case, and if personal taste if what you're after:
preference: neither
reason: 1) trunks are too massive for my taste; 2) the dense ramification is not at all interesting to me
thumblessprimate1
Masterpiece
Might your taste be in literati style?
thumblessprimate1
Masterpiece
Again, really good comments, guys! Very helpful. For me, I like both styles. I agree with what you have said. But at times I like one then another time I like the other. Reason for wanting more trees, because when my deciduous get to a certain point, I must decide with a direction to take them.
D
Deleted member 21616
Guest
at this stage in my learning/experience, i tend to be drawn to tall, thin trees, without aggressive ramification. dennis' deciduous that won nationals was really my jam in terms of height, branch work and ramification (last pic). first pic stolen from web? second pic posted by peter warren on instagram
Attachments
Shima
Omono
Me too
Forsoothe!
Imperial Masterpiece
I prefer the bottom 3. I like to be able to see the architecture rather than just a canopy, but they're all great trees. Personal preference is like colors: is one better than another? There are many situations, and in each we would have different preferences. We like red here and blue there and green somewhere else.
Wilson
Masterpiece
Definetly prefer the second group, but also love the traditional moyogi deciduous as well. I will repeat what others have said in a preference for less dense ramification. Sometimes I look at hyper ramified trees and think, looks like a hedge not a tree.
coh
Imperial Masterpiece
To me, the hyper-ramified branches combined with the large trunk is what give the appearance of a huge old tree. It's the contrast between that thick trunk and the fine thin outer branches that
seems to really convey that huge tree feeling. Of the initial group of 6 I find the last 2 in the second row to be most impressive though I think the last one could use a bit more space opened up
in the canopy (sometimes ramification can be taken too far). Why do I prefer these two trees...to me they look more like real trees you might see in the landscape or trees that I am familiar with
and that's what I currently like. My tastes may change with time.
Of the trees in the first row I'm most attracted to the structure of the first, that one is most similar in my eyes to the last 2 in the second row. However I do not care for the exaggerated
root base/plate which looks overdone and a bit artificial. I kind of like the 4th but the pattern in the branching seems repetitive and somewhat unnatural.
seems to really convey that huge tree feeling. Of the initial group of 6 I find the last 2 in the second row to be most impressive though I think the last one could use a bit more space opened up
in the canopy (sometimes ramification can be taken too far). Why do I prefer these two trees...to me they look more like real trees you might see in the landscape or trees that I am familiar with
and that's what I currently like. My tastes may change with time.
Of the trees in the first row I'm most attracted to the structure of the first, that one is most similar in my eyes to the last 2 in the second row. However I do not care for the exaggerated
root base/plate which looks overdone and a bit artificial. I kind of like the 4th but the pattern in the branching seems repetitive and somewhat unnatural.
Zach Smith
Omono
I think it's fair to say that these trees have all been grown for their winter silhouettes. Which is another way of saying that in leaf they probably look like shrubs from a hedge. For my taste, this isn't the purpose of bonsai but I do understand what they're trying to accomplish. Just not for me.
Similar threads
