Pot School

Here is a banded pot that is beautiful, but it confuses me a bit. Can you talk about the elements of this pot please? I pulled this off the web, and forgive me, but don't remember the potters name. This pot seems very strong to me, but incorporates a number of details that seem to go against it's own strength. What type of tree would this work with, and why?
 

Attachments

  • fancy oval.jpg
    fancy oval.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 153
I think we should talk pot shape before lips, or perhaps at the same time, as it seems that different shapes, don't work with all lips.

Concave as opposed to flat sides, and angle or flair from bottom to top. It's easy on a purse shape, as that is super curvy. Seems to me that there are some angled straight sides on ovals and rounds that can go either way.

And then there are the lips. The most confusing part I think for me other than feet. (although I think I got the feet now.)
To me the curve that the lips add to the pot would seem like a feminine touch, but most of what I've read tells me the opposite. :confused:
 
I think we should talk pot shape before lips, or perhaps at the same time, as it seems that different shapes, don't work with all lips.

Concave as opposed to flat sides, and angle or flair from bottom to top. It's easy on a purse shape, as that is super curvy. Seems to me that there are some angled straight sides on ovals and rounds that can go either way.

And then there are the lips. The most confusing part I think for me other than feet. (although I think I got the feet now.)
To me the curve that the lips add to the pot would seem like a feminine touch, but most of what I've read tells me the opposite. :confused:

Judy, I like all of your observations. Confusing.... yes. Many of the design element that others have brought here are quite true and based on the science of how our eyes work. For instance, complimentary color purple/yellow, blue/orange, etc. To prove this, try the after-image experiment. Take a color chip and stare directly at it for one minute. Now take a piece of plain, white paper and stare at it. Magically, the shape of the color chip will appear on the paper, with one important difference...the color will be its complimentary opposite. These elements are quantifiable. However, the masculine/feminine is a social construct as much as pink=girl, blue=boy. These elements may not work in other cultures. This color equation only started very recently. Given these constructs can work on their own, when mixed they become muddled. If you mix pink and blue, what do you get and what does it mean? I believe that sometimes we try to make aesthetics to linear i.e A+B =C. If we follow the rules it will be beautiful? I think one problem many of us have is that we equate beauty with popularity. Ultimately it is our own eyes and soul that will decide what looks good and from what I've seen of yours, you do a very good job. The rules can help but........
 
Judy,

as unpopular as this might be, I will pass on what was taught to me and it has never failed.

The pot supports the tree, as frame does for painting.

The first time someone walks up to you in a bonsai exhibition and says - nice pot - the above will make sense.

This is why I try to stick to classical Yi-Xing shapes for the larger trees and for the 3" and under anything goes. The eye delights in bright colour in small things [ jewels for example ] as I am repeatedly told.

AND as you often read, buy a pot you like and in no time something in your collection will climb into it, hand to glove. You designed the tree, and you chose the pot.
Good Day.
Anthony
 
I agree, that there are vast nuances in this subject that are not quantifiable. I just want a deeper understanding of the basic principals of the ideas that are behind the reasons that some things work and others do not. Part of this desire to understand is practical, so I don't make (expensive!) mistakes, and some of this has become an intellectual search, it's a pretty interesting subject.
The color test is another interesting nugget! Thanks ABC.

I hope that other people that are reading this thread throw their observations, and questions out there.
 
I've often wondered how and when to use intricately carved and/or painted pots as well. It seems to me they would be appropriate for very detailed and "busy" trees so that your eye is not immediately drawn to the pot. Still, it's difficult for me to judge when these types of pots are useful for overall compositions.
 
Thams,

if you ever get a chance to look at the Show Catalogues out of Yi Xing, the pots that have carving or elegant decoration, are meant for display only. They are works of Art.

Yes, you can put a very [ for example ] twisted, lots of driftwood and eye catching effects as a penjing goes, but generally pots that are very visually attractive, would compete with the tree.
This is why the simple shapes, and various quiet browns, pastel colours are used for Bonsai or other.

A bushy tree would probably get a remark like - needs tidying for display or looks too much like a bush.

The best way to train the eye for pot use is to start simple, with simple tree designs, and as the skill increases, just go up with the quality of the pot, but still stay simple.
Good Day.
Anthony

* Old Chinese saying -- to a man overburdened with highly seasoned foods, a simple soup is very refreshing.

A simple informal upright in a simple pot says much for the refined taste of the owner.
 
General Response,

and this is probably the least popular response.

Unless a tree is ready for exhibition, the normal situation is to use some sort of generic pot. On our side the brown and off brown plastic pots are suitable.

When a tree reaches the status of exhibition quality, you choose the most admirable feature, say flowers - colour - shape and so on, and normally ask an older head/s to help choose the pot.
At that time, expense should not be factor, just making the tree look good.

This is why Bonsai is supposed to be the plaything of rich old men.

You purchase what you need [ or you make what you need].
Good Day
Anthony
 
Rummaging through my index of articles in various bonsai magazines I have, this topic is covered in more or less depth in:

Bonsai Today #5, 25, and 31.
BCI's magazine 5- 1998; 7-1998; 9-1998 and 1 - 2000;
International Bonsai - #3 in 2006 and #3 in 2011
 
I will not engage in an argument with you Anthony, but your ideas about when a tree deserves a pot are outdated and not useful to this discussion.

Thanks JKL for looking those issues up!
 
Judy,

I am not sure what the argument part is about. I have just left a few ideas, and as I said they might not be popular. There was no need to respond.
Good Day
Anthony
 
Thams,

if you ever get a chance to look at the Show Catalogues out of Yi Xing, the pots that have carving or elegant decoration, are meant for display only. They are works of Art.

Yes, you can put a very [ for example ] twisted, lots of driftwood and eye catching effects as a penjing goes, but generally pots that are very visually attractive, would compete with the tree.
This is why the simple shapes, and various quiet browns, pastel colours are used for Bonsai or other.

A bushy tree would probably get a remark like - needs tidying for display or looks too much like a bush.

The best way to train the eye for pot use is to start simple, with simple tree designs, and as the skill increases, just go up with the quality of the pot, but still stay simple.
Good Day.
Anthony

* Old Chinese saying -- to a man overburdened with highly seasoned foods, a simple soup is very refreshing.

A simple informal upright in a simple pot says much for the refined taste of the owner.

I feel that much of what's being said here is display in a traditional sense. There are plenty of examples where non-traditional works. Walter P. has a number of them that I find both beautiful and fascinating. They are skilfully executed although some may not believe that.
http://walter-pall.de/larcheuropean_larch_nr__13.jpg.dir/index.html
http://walter-pall.de/pinesmugo_pine_nr__12.jpg.dir/index.html

Nick Lenz is another. He pushes the envelope. For me they're a refreshing delight from the norm. Many times we get so used to looking at things as we form our taste for beauty we lose sight of the other stuff out of habit. Example: music. How many of you over 50 listen to hip hop? Tradition is a very warm and fuzzy place to be. How do things ever change unless somebody puts something new out there. Literati was probably quite avant-garde in the beginning.

Judy, get a book on the elements of 2 or 3 dimensional design (or both). All of the
''how your eye works" is there. And.....it's not confined to bonsai.
 
ABC,

always remember, where I am new tree types are coming forth. If we go too far, and we are true tropical, folk will not take us seriously. So we can keep the traditional, because the trees are the adventure.
Thanks for the clear mind.
Good Day
Anthony
 
ABC,

without confusing Judy's discussion. I wanted to say, that what we have been doing is slowly bringing in new tree types, and it takes a while to decode them. The design possiblities, however will have to go to those now starting bonsai down here at say 18 or so.

One age will decode for use, and the next age will push the limits.The age after that will probably push the pot designs.

Judy, I believe mentioned cost factor. For us, with our clays, it will be that of the firing. For the time being, simple plastic pots, colanders and drilled clay pots. If you keep the cost factor on pots down, the mind is free to explore designs.

However, it normally takes 10 years to get to a design that works.

You may be amused to note that the Tamarinds down here were designed on those in nature and not from outside influences.

For Bonsai to grow down here, and continue to grow, folk have to see us as serious. The moment it goes off into any other, we will lose all of the Government support or support period.

Plus one can always fall back on the simpler use of the colour wheel and opposites etc.
if one is using coloured glazes. Muted browns or greys from clay will cause no problems.
The classical shapes of Chinese pots will also hold out well.

Thank you Judy for your patience.

Good Day
Anthony
 
Abc, part of what got me started on this line of thought was looking at the European show pictures. They seem to not be as traditional, but some of the combinations fit together so well, that they really allow a synergy between tree and pot. This is what I'm looking for, whether it be traditional or more eclectic. It's the fusion between tree and pot that is hard to hit and harder to explain.
 
Abc, part of what got me started on this line of thought was looking at the European show pictures. They seem to not be as traditional, but some of the combinations fit together so well, that they really allow a synergy between tree and pot. This is what I'm looking for, whether it be traditional or more eclectic. It's the fusion between tree and pot that is hard to hit and harder to explain.

It's what I'm looking for and it's hard. Art is not for sissies. I don't know if it is just me, but I'm finding the pots for these trees mentioned above is what makes them memorable. "Penelope" by Nick Lenz is remembered by name and not species. Most people that have seen it remember it. They(status-quo) teach that the pot should be quietly in the composition. These new ones are anything but that.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people have looked at this thread "Pot School" and thought it was about bonsai cannabis:)
 
Back
Top Bottom