This tree as you stated breaks all conventions as we know them, but yet is extremely appealing. ...
Rick
Well, it doesn't break ALL the conventions, but it is a good example of work arounds that are more successful than a conventional tree. For example, there is still a really good triangular outline of foliage, no rule breaking there. No distracting crossing branches, etc. There are still dozens of rules followed, but what comes through isn't instantly identifiable conventions, but rather beauty through tension, for want of a better phrase.
This tree probably started out as a problematic piece of junk, a couple steps above roadkill bonsai. Such trees are not amenable to traditional treatments and require complex problem solving to achieve a desirable outcome, but when they work, they REALLY work, as here. Walter Pall points out such work arounds because he works with collected material so much. The normal methods just aren't available, you get what you get. He says it doesn't matter where the branches come from as long as they end up where they belong. So, with a collected tree with all the branches coming from high up, just pull them down to put the FOLIAGE where it belongs. Is this rule breaking? I don't think so, just an expansion. The artistic principle is the same because it's the result that matters.
It's the same thing here. This tree is way off balance, but is it? The countermoves in the trunk and the foliage placement bring it back into the world of the acceptable in such a way that a potential fault becomes a pleasing and mystifying aspect. This is the hardest stuff to pull off. Unfortunately, beginners see trees like this and read descriptions like this and take it as license for rule breaking or not learning the rules, it isn't. It's not rule breaking; it's rule
transcendence.
Brent