Styling deciduous trees

[Redwing]

Interesting!

Perhaps it's helpful to put this into context. From Andy's old website: http://bonsaijournal.com/worlds-2-deciduous.php

These are nice, and range from very pine-like in the structure of the primary branches to very not-pine-like, as in the following image.

http://web-japan.org/kidsweb/ja/virtual/bonsai/images/momiji.jpg

I prefer the latter, especially with momiji, but the former -- as your tree is -- may be better suited for kaede.

-rw

/To the best of my knowledge, neither Will Heath, Red Truck, nor I took any of the pictures linked above.

 

[grizzlywon]

Seems to be that when you grow a deciduous tree to look like a pine, you have the foundation for the branching you will need later. Almost like pouring the foundation. Getting the branches to divide over and over again filling out the horizontal plain. Once this is basically all there, you can start growing more branches upward thus removing the pine look and making it look more like a mature deciduous tree. Am I wrong?

Or are we just saying that all deciduous trees have to be broom style?

Many of the maples in the Peter Adams book (even the tree on the cover) to me look like they have pads and yet I think most on here would agree they are beautiful. Even some of Walter's trees have pads. Are all the ones with pads still very young and headed to a future of being a broom?

I'd like to see more variety and think all trees looking like mushrooms is lame and not true to the fact that even mature deciduous trees can have some pads in nature.

I say, make it look like a tree, not a bonsai.

 

[Smoke]

Interesting!

Perhaps it's helpful to put this into context. From Andy's old website: http://bonsaijournal.com/worlds-2-deciduous.php

These are nice, and range from very pine-like in the structure of the primary branches to very not-pine-like, as in the following image.

http://web-japan.org/kidsweb/ja/virtual/bonsai/images/momiji.jpg

I prefer the latter, especially with momiji, but the former -- as your tree is -- may be better suited for kaede.

-rw

/To the best of my knowledge, neither Will Heath, Red Truck, nor I took any of the pictures linked above.

I for one do not have a problem with pictures being used for educational purposes. I don't think anyone engaged in these discussions is making a book about bonsai to steal and get rich with

 

[Redwing]

I for one do not have a problem with pictures being used for educational purposes. I don't think anyone engaged in these discussions is making a book about bonsai to steal and get rich with

And I don't have a problem with people providing links to anything, copyrighted or not. If I give you directions to the library, that doesn't make me a plagiarist.

-rw

 

[Smoke]

I think a tree can be styled in any form one wants. There is not much difference in styling technique between momiji or kaede. The only exception would be rate of growth. I think either could be styled very free form or very pine like.

I think pine styled maples all tend to diminish this look with age. when the ramification is so dense the pine effect seems to melt away. The better identifier between these forms is trunkline. I think trunkline will dictate how a canopy should be designed. Even then, it is easy to pick out those first branches so many years ago and how funny any well developed tree would look when young and only primary and secondary branching.

Some Kaede exhibiting a more Momiji look

 

[grizzlywon]

Isn't that also the whole point of having tree styles? To mimic what nature does to different trees. Lets face it, in nature not all pine trees look like a finished bonsai and neither do deciduous trees. But I'm still trying to make any of my trees look like something, so what do I know?





On a side note, GOZTEK I agree with the others in that your comment was way out of line. I hope there are some administrative repercussions. I'd like to see this site stay classy and safe for all.

 

[Smoke]

Isn't that also the whole point of having tree styles? To mimic what nature does to different trees. Lets face it, in nature not all pine trees look like a finished bonsai and neither do deciduous trees. But I'm still trying to make any of my trees look like something, so what do I know?

Well...thats the whole meat of the matter isn't it. Just how far will we go to consider a tree in a pot a bonsai. We don't make a tree fit a particular style. We style a tree to fit a particular form. There are not tree styles per se.

All of us have a different mental model as to what a bonsai is. Like the Supreme courts view of pornography, "they know it when they see it".

What about these? Are these not formal uprights in containers? What is it that makes a bonsai a bonsai? This photo represents real trees in pots. How can one realistically make a bonsai look like a real tree. I think the saying is asinine. "don't make your tree look like a bonsai, make your bonsai look like a tree."

Well I have shown trees in pots any takers?

 

[Redwing]

Well I have shown trees in pots any takers?

Wrong forum. You want someone to praise the taper on these, you'll need to hit up bonsaisite.

-rw

 

[Rick Moquin]

Well I have shown trees in pots any takers?

... now who's being asinine.

 

[Smoke]

Hi Rick, want to enter the discussion or just take shots..I am very able to do both at your level.

 

[grizzlywon]

Let me rephrase what I thought I meant. "Make it look like a mature tree." The nursery trees you showed are upright trees, but there are at least two things I notice. 1. there has been very little if any training done. I believe, all bonsai I have seen in shows have been under a lot of traning.
2. You can instantly recognize that these trees are very young. They don't really have any apearance of great age.

To me in short, bonsai is a tree that has been grown and trained to look like its a full grown mature tree that has been shrunk and carefully placed in a complementary pot. But I also know the literal definition of Bonsai and that there are about a million other definitions out there, that are not necessarily wrong.

This post has been good and I think it asks a question we need to answer (at least one I am still learning). And that is. Do we in the West have to do what they are doing in Japan? If all the deciduous trees in their top show all look the same, so what? I don't know about you, but I don't plan on entering any trees into that show and never will.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, I think we learn from the ones who created this wonderful art and make it our own. Use our own native trees and make them look beautiful. And to me beautiful in most cases, looks like its 100+ old and tells a story of those 100 years in its appearance.

 

[Anonymous User]

So, I am not sure what Andy meant by pot colors appropriate for leafless state. In the catalog, I saw yellow, cream, orange, brown, blue, and various darker earth colors. I am sure that I could instinctively point out examples where the pot color is wrong in a certain display (it did not happen in the Kokufu catalog) but it probably has to do with the color of the bark of the tree, and not because the existence of a general guideline in this regard.

Pot color is often determined by what part of a tree is to be highlighted. A flowering tree that one wishes to show in flower would have a pot color that compliments the color of the flowers, or fruit, or foliage, and in this case, since the tree is shown leafless, the bark. Although not a concrete guideline, it is one often observed. It should also be remembered that many of the Kokufu-ten exhibit trees are shown in antique pots.

It becomes more and more clear to me why the Japanese insist so much on displaying their trees leafless: due to the lack of clear-cut pads, the negative spaces disappear, when displayed in leaf. So the result, as you said, is like a mushroom. Not very interesting.

Not to mention showing a tree leafless displays the true talent of the artist, leaves can hide flaws and lack of ramification.



Will

 

[Attila Soos]

Good observations, thanks for the heated discussion. Since the thread takes on a life of its own, I wouln't insist on trying to sway it back to any particular viewpoint.

But just to rephrase my view on this, I don't believe at all that deciduous tress should not have pads. Andy's statements that "a tree should look this an cannot look that" is too extremist for my taste.

But I do belive that we are overusing these pads, it is a knee-jerk reaction to hang these pads on our trees as if they were Christmas decorations. I think that if we get rid of this mindset, and consider other alternatives, we will leave more room for creativity. A pad is just one artistic tool amongst many others.

I've read some very good observations about the pads being only the first step, and later, time will make them disappear and look more naturalistic. This is not entirely true. Time can only make these pads transform into more natural-looking forms IF the tree is under the hans of a skillful artisan, who wants to achieve this natural look. If not, time can also lead to the exact opposite effect. I've seen very old trees where the constant pinching and trimming of pads created an extreme topiary effect: the pads became so dense, that they almost looked like one solid mass. They looked extremely manicured, like a very old topiary. These trees probably looked better at an earlier stage, when the pads were more loose and less artificial. So, time can work both ways, depending on what you are doing. Pads will not start to look more natural by themselves, as time goes by. You have to make them do so. And this involves a very good understanding of how to distribute visual mass on a tree, to achive certain effects.

Also, in a leafless state, the direction of tertiary and quarternary branches have to be consistent with the direction of primary and secondary branches, and this needs careful consideration and understanding of how branches grow in nature.

By the way, to be truthful to my opening post, as I looked through the rest of my Kokufu-ten album, I did find examples of trees where the deciduous trees displayed pads. So, not all of these trees were without clear pads. It all depends on the vision of the individual artist who styled the tree for the exhibit. But these deciduous trees with pads were the minority.

 

[lennard]

Wrong forum. You want someone to praise the taper on these, you'll need to hit up bonsaisite.

-rw

If you have any trees, and if with nice taper, I would love to see them. .....and try taking a picture showing more than the candles you have plucked.

Dont talk down on other forums - there is a place for everyone. Many members of Bonsaisite are members of this forum - some of us are on a learning curve and bonsaisite is a nice forum for beginners.

Lennard