Chris Johnston
Omono
It seems that someone who is adamant that bonsai are art or can attain the status of art, and even helped form a website devoted to the Art of Bonsai, can define bonsai just fine but has difficulty with the definition of art.
It's scary, isn't it, that so much can be said by so few about so little, especially when some of them cannot define one half of the equation in their title.
The thing is, words mean things. So using them loosely without understanding what they truly mean is a great way to sound important if no one ever catches you out.
Let's try to find a way to get to a working definition of art that is not too disagreeable to most.
Will, you have said that an object becomes art when the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Besides being a description of perhaps one facet of a work of art, the same can be said for a football team, an automobile, or a symphony orchestra. In each of these, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
You have also said that talent is required for art to be art. I might take another tack on this, that the work expresses its owner's talent, that's how we see that someone has "talent." Placing far too much emphasis on "talent" allows us to say about someone with little experience or skill, "yes, but he has talent." How would we know? We have to see the fruit of that.
What is art? For the sake of simplicity, can we agree that we are discussing the visual arts, and not performance art? I think that would be a good jumping-off place.
Dealing with the visual arts, there are many ways to proceed. One might be to look at what one personally considers art, and to induce from examples a working definition of art.
In fact, I think Will Heath has given us something to work with in his glowing critique of Walter Pall's Norway spruce at Art of Bonsai.
I thought this was a well-written and thoughtful critique. In it, Will explained what he liked most about the tree, and followed that up with several examples from the tree, showing he had put a great deal of thought into the critique. It also revealed some things that may perhaps reveal what criteria Will uses to determine what is art to him, at least in terms of this tree.
The operative phrase in the above paragraph may not be the first one the comes to mind. Of course he mentions his personal taste in bonsai. This is just an indication of likes and dislikes. Personal taste cannot enter into any realistic definition of art, as there would be as many definitions as there are critics. And indeed, sometimes it seems there are.
I think the phrase in this paragraph that gives us something to work with is, "I tend to be moved..." What Will is saying, is that this tree speaks to him. So perhaps the definition of art for him should include, but not be limited to, that which speaks to the emotions.
Here are another couple of paragraphs I would like to examine:
In these paragraphs, Will examines the amount of skill required to achieve this tree which is becoming so moving to him. Walter does show a great degree of skill in all of his work. This is the only way his trees could be as good as they are, and as moving as many of them are. So perhaps skill should be another facet of Will's definition of art.
Here again Will mentions the skill and expertise Walter has put into this tree. Again, let me say, I don't disagree with anything in this well-written and almost emotional critique. He also mentions what the tree says to him, "a sense of middle age, of a tree that is not yet ancient but mature." This is an excellent way to express what this tree is saying. We can see the truth of it by its echo in our own examination of the tree. As he goes on to examine the details top to bottom, he reiterates how every detail comes together to convey the same message. So perhpas we cans say that another aspect of Will's definition of art might be that it is coherent. This is different from synergistic, in this case Will shows from the bark to branch placement to the angles of the branches, that this entire tree tells the same story. This is absolutely crucial in art.
Finally, Will's last sentence recaps what he has said already, "More importantly, this bonsai touched my soul."
Now I ask, what can we take from Will's own words about his definition for art in general?
It requires skill and speaks to the emotions.
So could we not say that a proper definition of art might be, in the words of Kenneth D. Lansing, retired professor in art and education at the University of Illinois, Champagne,
This is perhaps the pithiest, most concise definition of art I have seen. Each of the elements of it make sense. Funny. It seems that Will and I define art in the same way. At least we do if his critique is any guide.
It's scary, isn't it, that so much can be said by so few about so little, especially when some of them cannot define one half of the equation in their title.
The thing is, words mean things. So using them loosely without understanding what they truly mean is a great way to sound important if no one ever catches you out.
Let's try to find a way to get to a working definition of art that is not too disagreeable to most.
Will, you have said that an object becomes art when the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Besides being a description of perhaps one facet of a work of art, the same can be said for a football team, an automobile, or a symphony orchestra. In each of these, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
You have also said that talent is required for art to be art. I might take another tack on this, that the work expresses its owner's talent, that's how we see that someone has "talent." Placing far too much emphasis on "talent" allows us to say about someone with little experience or skill, "yes, but he has talent." How would we know? We have to see the fruit of that.
What is art? For the sake of simplicity, can we agree that we are discussing the visual arts, and not performance art? I think that would be a good jumping-off place.
Dealing with the visual arts, there are many ways to proceed. One might be to look at what one personally considers art, and to induce from examples a working definition of art.
In fact, I think Will Heath has given us something to work with in his glowing critique of Walter Pall's Norway spruce at Art of Bonsai.
I thought this was a well-written and thoughtful critique. In it, Will explained what he liked most about the tree, and followed that up with several examples from the tree, showing he had put a great deal of thought into the critique. It also revealed some things that may perhaps reveal what criteria Will uses to determine what is art to him, at least in terms of this tree.

My personal taste in bonsai leans toward what I observe in nature. I tend to be moved more by those bonsai that give the illusion of a tree in its natural environment... those that appear untouched by human hands, than I do a tree that is so obviously a bonsai, groomed to a fault with the shears of tradition and styled with all of the "correct" cues and attributes.
The operative phrase in the above paragraph may not be the first one the comes to mind. Of course he mentions his personal taste in bonsai. This is just an indication of likes and dislikes. Personal taste cannot enter into any realistic definition of art, as there would be as many definitions as there are critics. And indeed, sometimes it seems there are.
I think the phrase in this paragraph that gives us something to work with is, "I tend to be moved..." What Will is saying, is that this tree speaks to him. So perhaps the definition of art for him should include, but not be limited to, that which speaks to the emotions.
Here are another couple of paragraphs I would like to examine:
This is indeed a rare photograph as it shows one of Walter's naturalistic creations in the stages of development. Looking closely, one can see that the branches are wired to perfection, dispelling the myth that the Naturalistic style is simply letting a tree grow wild in a pot or that it only requires collecting a tree and potting it.
I sometimes find a deeper respect for the work and effort involved by looking closely at the details that make up the whole. By blocking out the whole image and only viewing parts of it, we can see in the pictures below the incredible amount of fine detail work that has been done to bring out the natural beauty in the tree.
In these paragraphs, Will examines the amount of skill required to achieve this tree which is becoming so moving to him. Walter does show a great degree of skill in all of his work. This is the only way his trees could be as good as they are, and as moving as many of them are. So perhaps skill should be another facet of Will's definition of art.

In the trunks we can see the primary trunk bending away from the secondary at exactly the spot we would expect it to. The bark is fissured and matches the apparent age of the tree as suggested by the lowered branches. Walter has wired the lower foliage so that it gracefully spreads out, covering a bit of the lower trunk, a technique usually reserved for the upper branches, it is used here very successfully to convey a sense of middle age, of a tree that is not yet ancient but mature.
Here again Will mentions the skill and expertise Walter has put into this tree. Again, let me say, I don't disagree with anything in this well-written and almost emotional critique. He also mentions what the tree says to him, "a sense of middle age, of a tree that is not yet ancient but mature." This is an excellent way to express what this tree is saying. We can see the truth of it by its echo in our own examination of the tree. As he goes on to examine the details top to bottom, he reiterates how every detail comes together to convey the same message. So perhpas we cans say that another aspect of Will's definition of art might be that it is coherent. This is different from synergistic, in this case Will shows from the bark to branch placement to the angles of the branches, that this entire tree tells the same story. This is absolutely crucial in art.
Finally, Will's last sentence recaps what he has said already, "More importantly, this bonsai touched my soul."
Now I ask, what can we take from Will's own words about his definition for art in general?
It requires skill and speaks to the emotions.
So could we not say that a proper definition of art might be, in the words of Kenneth D. Lansing, retired professor in art and education at the University of Illinois, Champagne,
--http://www.aristos.org/aris-04/lansing1.htmVisual art is the skillful presentation of concepts and/or emotions (ideas and feelings) in a form that is structurally (compositionally) satisfying and coherent.
This is perhaps the pithiest, most concise definition of art I have seen. Each of the elements of it make sense. Funny. It seems that Will and I define art in the same way. At least we do if his critique is any guide.