The "So?" response to bonsai rules.

[Glaucus]

Is there a rule that a bonsai tree should be alive? What about displaying a completely dead bonsai tree, and winning the top award. Would that be considered 'breaking the rules'?
And if someone stands in front of this dead prize winners, looks at it carefully and then says: "This is a nice design, but... isn't it completely dead?" and then the other guy just responds with: "So?".

Would that be exactly what the OP means? Does anyone have a stronger example?

Additonally, what about a plastic 3d printed one? There are some nice 3d digital renders of bonsai trees. We just need to invent a very good 3d printer to print them.

 

[FreshAirSunshine]

Is there a rule that a bonsai tree should be alive? What about displaying a completely dead bonsai tree, and winning the top award. Would that be considered 'breaking the rules'?
And if someone stands in front of this dead prize winners, looks at it carefully and then says: "This is a nice design, but... isn't it completely dead?" and then the other guy just responds with: "So?".

Would that be exactly what the OP means? Does anyone have a stronger example?

Additonally, what about a plastic 3d printed one? There are some nice 3d digital renders of bonsai trees. We just need to invent a very good 3d printer to print them.

Tanuki? Is that you?

 

[Cruiser]

With civility, there is a discussion worth having here. With examples, we can find common ground.

Here are some examples of what could be considered “rule breaks” by some, and perhaps a bit of what Joe was talking about.

This is a group of 4 bald cypresses.
A “rule” for some practitioners is to not have an even number of trees in a group and especially not 4.

To shake thing up further, you could remove a cypress and put a dawn redwood in its place. So then you’d have broken 3 “rules”. No even numbers, no using only 4 trees, and no using different species.


Here the unity “rule” is getting broken. One branch in the back grows at a downward angle. Nearly all the others grow upwards. Somebody might decide to break the “rule” and keep the downwards growing branch to add “tension”.



Another “rule” is that branches should alternate on a trunk. In this case, to follow the “rule”, the lower branch of these 3 would get removed. Probably the two below it as well.


Yet another elephant in the room. Some people have a “rule” against crossing branches.


We all interpret these rules, guiding principles, etc. differently and/or to varying degrees. That’s one of the things that makes this hobby so interesting.

 

[leatherback]

With civility, there is a discussion worth having here. With examples, we can find common ground.

Here are some examples of what could be considered “rule breaks” by some, and perhaps a bit of what Joe was talking about.

This is a group of 4 bald cypresses.
A “rule” for some practitioners is to not have an even number of trees in a group and especially not 4.
View attachment 486066
To shake thing up further, you could remove a cypress and put a dawn redwood in its place. So then you’d have broken 3 “rules”. No even numbers, no using only 4 trees, and no using different species.


Here the unity “rule” is getting broken. One branch in the back grows at a downward angle. Nearly all the others grow upwards. Somebody might decide to break the “rule” and keep the downwards growing branch to add “tension”.
View attachment 486067


Another “rule” is that branches should alternate on a trunk. In this case, to follow the “rule”, the lower branch of these 3 would get removed. Probably the two below it as well.
View attachment 486068

Yet another elephant in the room. Some people have a “rule” against crossing branches.
View attachment 486069

We all interpret these rules, guiding principles, etc. differently and/or to varying degrees. That’s one of the things that makes this hobby so interesting.

So, you consider that bonsai?
As asked before: What makes bonsai different from a plant in a pot?

 

[Cruiser]

So, you consider that bonsai?
As asked before: What makes bonsai different from a plant in a pot?

Yes. Are trees in development not considered bonsai? The intention here is to demonstrate the rules some people have so we can find something to agree on.

 

[August]

So, you consider that bonsai?
As asked before: What makes bonsai different from a plant in a pot?

You yourself have broken a rule here by insulting a tree in someone's collection. For that matter I think ettiquete rules are much more important to our hobby than aesthetic ones. I dont like how this smells.

 

[ZombieNick]

Yes. And the intention here is to demonstrate the rules some people have so we can find something we agree on.

I would consider breaking any of the "rules" you mentioned if it improved the trees. In this case, my personal opinion is, it hasn't.

 

[Baku1875]

With civility, there is a discussion worth having here. With examples, we can find common ground.

Here are some examples of what could be considered “rule breaks” by some, and perhaps a bit of what Joe was talking about.

This is a group of 4 bald cypresses.
A “rule” for some practitioners is to not have an even number of trees in a group and especially not 4.
View attachment 486066
To shake thing up further, you could remove a cypress and put a dawn redwood in its place. So then you’d have broken 3 “rules”. No even numbers, no using only 4 trees, and no using different species.


Here the unity “rule” is getting broken. One branch in the back grows at a downward angle. Nearly all the others grow upwards. Somebody might decide to break the “rule” and keep the downwards growing branch to add “tension”.
View attachment 486067


Another “rule” is that branches should alternate on a trunk. In this case, to follow the “rule”, the lower branch of these 3 would get removed. Probably the two below it as well.
View attachment 486068

Yet another elephant in the room. Some people have a “rule” against crossing branches.
View attachment 486069

We all interpret these rules, guiding principles, etc. differently and/or to varying degrees. That’s one of the things that makes this hobby so interesting.

I like it, there is a repetition of the pattern and angles as well that draw the eye in. It will be a cool forest as it develops, and there's many decisions to be made along the way.

 

[Cruiser]

I would consider breaking any of the "rules" you mentioned if it improved the trees. In this case, my personal opinion is, it hasn't.

Exactly. In this case, some of these rules will not remain broken. But the point is that they are “rules” that from time to time are broken.

And to be clear, I’m not team Joe or team anybody else here. This is about understanding each other instead of breaking into tribes of angry apes.

 

[nuttiest]

Is there a rule that a bonsai tree should be alive? What about displaying a completely dead bonsai tree, and winning the top award. Would that be considered 'breaking the rules'?
And if someone stands in front of this dead prize winners, looks at it carefully and then says: "This is a nice design, but... isn't it completely dead?" and then the other guy just responds with: "So?".

Would that be exactly what the OP means? Does anyone have a stronger example?

Additonally, what about a plastic 3d printed one? There are some nice 3d digital renders of bonsai trees. We just need to invent a very good 3d printer to print them.

Love it, great argument, and yes it would be awesome but that wasn't the original question, which was more like, "i'm a renegade and your'e not, piss of if you have anything to negative say to me"
If you choose a position of scrutiny, you must stand for it.

 

[dbonsaiw]

In the end, there's breaking rules and then there's breaking rules. My hot take is that a newb (not the OP, btw, let's not be sensitive) who discusses the "worthlessness" of rules is lost, likely frustrated and is going nowhere fast with his bonsai. When I think about legitimately "breaking bonsai rules", Nick Lenz and Walter Pall come to mind. Mr. Pall often discusses the "rules" of the "Japanese bonsai artist" and that he breaks these rules. To be sure, I watched a video from Mr. Pall yesterday where he discusses the fact that he has bonsai developed in all manner of style, typical Japanese included. That means he indeed followed rules of these Japanese artists to achieve the Japanese aesthetic. And then he breaks them with his "natural" styles - basically the informal broom. And if I wanted to achieve that result, there would be rules I need to follow.

To my untrained eye, many of Mr. Pall's trees are in fact difficult for me to understand, notwithstanding how much I enjoy looking at them and would love to develop one. I see reverse taper, no taper, crossing branches and more. My half-assed attempts to recreate this development style has only resulted in my failure. And I believe the reason is simple - I do not yet have a firm handle on the "basic" rules, so my attempts to reinvent the wheel is an exercise in futility. One attempt has actually yielded a half-decent tree, but the flaws are many. I too have reverse taper and the like, but I do not have a Walter Pall tree. I can take pics of the tree and post it with nothing other than the word "more" and I still don't have a WP level tree.

Not so sure if folks are breaking the rules as much as they are bending them. For whatever reason, this makes me think of fancy accounting methods. An expert who has a firm grasp on tax law can bend the rules to a client's benefit. A cowboy newb, wet behind the ears may think he is similarly bending the rules, but law enforcement may have a different view of what he is doing and will cry foul.

 

[FreshAirSunshine]

I’m with @Cruiser and think there could be some fun examples and discussion about what to do with things you don’t think (or know how it) can be turned into bonsai without breaking rules. I’ll give as an example my first collected tree (urbanadori) which is a gnarly crabapple loaded with deadwood and naturally dwarfed by a constant battle with the rabbits of the hillside. There’s little to no taper in either trunks (inverse due to exposed deadwood), the branchings a mess, yet I still find it extremely appealing and want to make something of it. Or someone with something not pre-pre-bonsai could add to the discussion

 

[leatherback]

You yourself have broken a rule here by insulting a tree in someone's collection.

You have me confused here. But for the sake of not burrying this thread in shit lets not discuss it.

I like it, there is a repetition of the pattern and angles as well that draw the eye in. It will be a cool forest as it develops, and there's many decisions to be made along the way.

I think this reflects exactly the point I was trying to make, but seems to have missed the mark, considering also the private reaching out to me. Somehow people feel that questions are insulting. I find questions lead to understanding and avoid assumptions.

There is a point where trees planted in a container or no longer a shrub of a bush, but become bonsai. I have asked this question several times, and not a single person has ventured into a response. To me, this is however the key component of the discussion. If we do not follow a certain set of basic criteria for a plant to move into the domain of bonsai, then every shrub, cutting and chopped plant in a pot is a bonsai. I would hope this is not the understanding of bonsai this community has.

A lot of things that we do to make it bonsai come from a basic understanding what a bonsai is. Whether this is artistic rendering of an ancient tree in nature, or the dutiful application of a set of 'rules'.

 

[leatherback]

Or someone with something not pre-pre-bonsai could add to the discussion

I will put money where my mouth is. Something I consider bonsai, but breaks several so called rules.

- Inverse taker in the main trunk
- Absence of back-branches
- Lowest branch is actually a double branch
- Nebari consisting of one tall root

Yet, if I look at the last picrture, this spring, to my this is a clear examply of a larch that has seen a bit of hardship, which is growing in an open space that might incidentally get battered by a rough storm but most of the time has the option to build a canopy.

Not matching the basic styling rules, yet to me a fine bonsai.

 

[leatherback]

A “rule” for some practitioners is to not have an even number of trees in a group and especially not 4.

Some things are just cultural

 

[R0b]

Some things are just cultural
View attachment 486199

Well when I was trained in some basic flower arrangement (Western) I was also thought that 3, 5, 7 are preferable over 2, 4, 6 so there is also an aesthetic component to it.

Overall I practice the hobby of growing bonsai, I have a few trees that might be considered bonsai and all are breaking rules in the traditional Japanese model. Still I find the rules valuable and I apply these rules to my trees in development. In my opinion not al trees in our collections are bonsai we all have sticks in pots. Bonsai does require a certain level of quality and refinement (traditional, western or naturalistic.

To put a picture where my mouth is. The two centre branches are causing inverse taper and appear like bar branches, I will till the tree to the left during the next repot to decrease that effect.

 

[Woocash]

This thread is bananas. Just saying. I’m not sure that at any point does this feel like a necessary discussion.

 

[FreshAirSunshine]

It’s sort of interesting in the examples that it seems most rule breaking that people actually like is either due to natural growth of a collected tree…or naturalistic aspects of a tree. Seems like the best rule breaking is not random but tells a story of the tree’s life. Overall the rule break (against the formal Japanese model) usually works better if aesthetic and consistent with a story of the life of the tree.

Begging the question - are there rules for rule breaks? Or am I now just shifting the topic from Japanese model to a naturalistic or western one?

 

[Cajunrider]

Some things are just cultural
View attachment 486199

Sufffffffering Succotash!
I have a BC forest with 9 trees. I'm a gonna add two trees to make it 11.

 

[BrightsideB]

I will put money where my mouth is. Something I consider bonsai, but breaks several so called rules.

- Inverse taker in the main trunk
- Absence of back-branches
- Lowest branch is actually a double branch
- Nebari consisting of one tall root

Yet, if I look at the last picrture, this spring, to my this is a clear examply of a larch that has seen a bit of hardship, which is growing in an open space that might incidentally get battered by a rough storm but most of the time has the option to build a canopy.

Not matching the basic styling rules, yet to me a fine bonsai.

Looks really good.