Two kinds of bonsai attitudes: Realists verses Traditionalists, or the Good Guys verses...

[Forsoothe!]

You're asking the wrong person. Ask a traditionalist.

 

[Djtommy]

Is that a grapefruit tree? I have a grapefruit tree I've been growing from seed for years and never thought to try to turn it into a bonsai... I have orange, lemon, and plum trees coming too. The leaves look different from mine which is why I'm curious, that's a heck of a trunk!

That looks like a Chinese Quince.

Yes Indeed

 

[Forsoothe!]

I've never seen a Grapefruit tree without large winged leaves. Those leaves look like Beech, but the bark is neither. What is it?

 

[Iconoclast]

You're asking the wrong person. Ask a traditionalist.

Another term with no content. Your gonna have to be more specific

 

[Adair M]

I've never seen a Grapefruit tree without large winged leaves. Those leaves look like Beech, but the bark is neither. What is it?

It’s a Chinese Quince.

(But you probably have me on ignore. Your loss.)

 

[Djtommy]

I've never seen a Grapefruit tree without large winged leaves. Those leaves look like Beech, but the bark is neither. What is it?

Beauty in the world

 

[badatusernames]

I'm new here but to be honest I read the original guy as posting in earnest and not intending to upset people

And I sorta get it, I was in upstate New York recently driving around the adirondacks and looking at how some of the trees grew up in the mountains. It made me realize why lowering branches is more important than just looking good on bonsai: it's what trees do when they get weighed down with snow year over year. Branches break, a tree can be sparse, whatever. I mean, that's pretty basic knowledge, but looking at those trees was pretty enlightening for me in terms of being told something vs. being shown it. It's not an aesthetic, it's what trees do.

So I think you can make a tree in a pot that looks like one of those trees in upstate New York and find yourself with a very nice bonsai. I guess that's "naturalistic" or whatever you want to call it, but you still put a tree in a pot and made it look like an older tree.

But trees also do very interesting things, and in the right conditions, can make potato shapes and thick trunks and radial nebari and what have you, so, fine. That happens in nature, too. There's fantastic nebari growing out of some city sidewalks.

There's also the fact that some of the best of the best are conveying a story and a fantasy, and they cannot do that by looking like something you step over during a hike. The worst of these look like lumps, and the best of these put an image or a story in your head as soon as you look at them, and even if you think the story may be a little saccharine, it's there.

Long story short, I think a tree in a pot that looks like your bog standard beat up Adirondack pine is beautiful, as well. I THINK this is what the original guy was going for but mostly I'm just bored and want you to post more trees to defend either side of the argument, because there have been some great ones posted so far

 

[badatusernames]

also now I want to grow quince

 

[leatherback]

(But you probably have me on ignore. Your loss.)

I can see I am in good company!

 

[BobbyLane]

I'm new here but to be honest I read the original guy as posting in earnest and not intending to upset people

And I sorta get it, I was in upstate New York recently driving around the adirondacks and looking at how some of the trees grew up in the mountains. It made me realize why lowering branches is more important than just looking good on bonsai: it's what trees do when they get weighed down with snow year over year. Branches break, a tree can be sparse, whatever. I mean, that's pretty basic knowledge, but looking at those trees was pretty enlightening for me in terms of being told something vs. being shown it. It's not an aesthetic, it's what trees do.

So I think you can make a tree in a pot that looks like one of those trees in upstate New York and find yourself with a very nice bonsai. I guess that's "naturalistic" or whatever you want to call it, but you still put a tree in a pot and made it look like an older tree.

But trees also do very interesting things, and in the right conditions, can make potato shapes and thick trunks and radial nebari and what have you, so, fine. That happens in nature, too. There's fantastic nebari growing out of some city sidewalks.

There's also the fact that some of the best of the best are conveying a story and a fantasy, and they cannot do that by looking like something you step over during a hike. The worst of these look like lumps, and the best of these put an image or a story in your head as soon as you look at them, and even if you think the story may be a little saccharine, it's there.

Long story short, I think a tree in a pot that looks like your bog standard beat up Adirondack pine is beautiful, as well. I THINK this is what the original guy was going for but mostly I'm just bored and want you to post more trees to defend either side of the argument, because there have been some great ones posted so far

I'm new here but to be honest I read the original guy as posting in earnest and not intending to upset people

And I sorta get it, I was in upstate New York recently driving around the adirondacks and looking at how some of the trees grew up in the mountains. It made me realize why lowering branches is more important than just looking good on bonsai: it's what trees do when they get weighed down with snow year over year. Branches break, a tree can be sparse, whatever. I mean, that's pretty basic knowledge, but looking at those trees was pretty enlightening for me in terms of being told something vs. being shown it. It's not an aesthetic, it's what trees do.

So I think you can make a tree in a pot that looks like one of those trees in upstate New York and find yourself with a very nice bonsai. I guess that's "naturalistic" or whatever you want to call it, but you still put a tree in a pot and made it look like an older tree.

But trees also do very interesting things, and in the right conditions, can make potato shapes and thick trunks and radial nebari and what have you, so, fine. That happens in nature, too. There's fantastic nebari growing out of some city sidewalks.

There's also the fact that some of the best of the best are conveying a story and a fantasy, and they cannot do that by looking like something you step over during a hike. The worst of these look like lumps, and the best of these put an image or a story in your head as soon as you look at them, and even if you think the story may be a little saccharine, it's there.

Long story short, I think a tree in a pot that looks like your bog standard beat up Adirondack pine is beautiful, as well. I THINK this is what the original guy was going for but mostly I'm just bored and want you to post more trees to defend either side of the argument, because there have been some great ones posted so far

on conifers its important, not just aestetic but it conveys how they would appear in the wild. on deciduous trees you may get hanging branches for other reasons like leaf weight or a branch dipping under another branch then rising at the tip to search for light, that latter bit is the bit most leave out. so not only is the aestetic a little off but the branch isnt doing what it does in nature to receive maximum like, as a result and more often than not the branches appear weak, spindly or dont match the trunk just like the trident posted above. saggy branches dont convey age unless theyre the heaviest branches on the tree. in deciduous trees in the wild the lowest branches are not always the thickest and those lower, sometimes thinner branches do not convey age either.
Great age in decicuous branching can be conveyed by lots of sharp angular movements or many gnarly bends and twists, even on rising, ascending branches this is a sign of age.

 

[Vance Wood]

Dear Mr. Iconoclast: You have now posted 3 or four messages and not one of them has been anything but snarky. Back in the day we would call you a Troll. So here is what I think we should do: Why don't you post a picture of the work you have been doing on one of your trees---if you have one. At least that way your ideas are credible according to your level of artistry. However telling everybody how bad their trees are and how vapid their ideas are pretty bold claims. You know it is written that bold claims demand bold evidences. Put it another way---Put your money where your mouth is.

Here is one of mine I have been working on since 1978. I am just now getting to the soul of this tree. Nursery Mugo Pine

 

[Iconoclast]

Dear Mr. Iconoclast: You have now posted 3 or four messages and not one of them has been anything but snarky. Back in the day we would call you a Troll. So here is what I think we should do: Why don't you post a picture of the work you have been doing on one of your trees---if you have one. At least that way your ideas are credible according to your level of artistry. However telling everybody how bad their trees are and how vapid their ideas are pretty bold claims. You know it is written that bold claims demand bold evidences. Put it another way---Put your money where your mouth is.

Here is one of mine I have been working on since 1978. I am just now getting to the soul of this tree. Nursery Mugo Pine





View attachment 343124

Vance, I haven’t had a tree in years after my collection burned up one hot day when the wrong hose was inadvertently shut off by my wife to my great loss. I had some beautiful ones including an ancient collected blue spruce I dug near Pike’s Peak and had for nearly ten years. Regardless, the OP’s tone was pedantic and arrogant and based on a complete straw man, and full of tells.

 

[Sekibonsai]

I'm new here but to be honest I read the original guy as posting in earnest and not intending to upset people

And I sorta get it, I was in upstate New York recently driving around the adirondacks and looking at how some of the trees grew up in the mountains. It made me realize why lowering branches is more important than just looking good on bonsai: it's what trees do when they get weighed down with snow year over year. Branches break, a tree can be sparse, whatever. I mean, that's pretty basic knowledge, but looking at those trees was pretty enlightening for me in terms of being told something vs. being shown it. It's not an aesthetic, it's what trees do.

So I think you can make a tree in a pot that looks like one of those trees in upstate New York and find yourself with a very nice bonsai. I guess that's "naturalistic" or whatever you want to call it, but you still put a tree in a pot and made it look like an older tree.

But trees also do very interesting things, and in the right conditions, can make potato shapes and thick trunks and radial nebari and what have you, so, fine. That happens in nature, too. There's fantastic nebari growing out of some city sidewalks.

There's also the fact that some of the best of the best are conveying a story and a fantasy, and they cannot do that by looking like something you step over during a hike. The worst of these look like lumps, and the best of these put an image or a story in your head as soon as you look at them, and even if you think the story may be a little saccharine, it's there.

Long story short, I think a tree in a pot that looks like your bog standard beat up Adirondack pine is beautiful, as well. I THINK this is what the original guy was going for but mostly I'm just bored and want you to post more trees to defend either side of the argument, because there have been some great ones posted so far

I grew up in Schenectady and spent a lot of time camping up there. Part of my mental imagery is based on those images- stark trees on the edge of a dead pool (thanks acid rain)... Broken and battered by snow load and icy wind... These images have no relevance to over half my life living down south where there is completely different lexicon of hurricane wasted trees that can only grow so tall before being flat topped due to excessive UV and wind shear off the coast... Or what I have seen hiking the Southwest mountain ranges- everything form perfect stunted formal uprights to twisted little trunks from weather, UV and constant browsing...

Remember that bonsai is a distillation of natural imagery and if you think that some of these images are fantasy then perhaps you haven't gotten out enough. As soon as you say a trident maple can't be in a pine tree style some one will provide a picture of an ancient one with weighted branches damn near looking like it... And sometimes the image is just a potted plant styled in such a way as to show mastery of technique.

 

[Noodles]

So I'm a newbie in the bonsai world but I AM an artist so studying visual nuances is part of what I do professionally.
That being said, I think the "typical" bonsai style i.e flaring radial roots, twisted and beaten trunks, branches hanging heavy with foliage works because while each of these aspects occurs quite commonly in nature, they rarely occur simultaneously on one tree. Bonsai uses all these elements in various degrees of combination to create something that sits on the fence between fantasy and reality, plausible but unlikely.
We value rarity and uniqueness very highly in most parts of the world and I think what adds so much wonderment and mystery to a stunning bonsai is the fact that it COULD exist in nature.
Hope my two cents provokes some thoughts

P.S Not to say bonsai imitating forms seen more commonly in nature are any less of a bonsai, I'm just speaking in terms of the appeal of a more typical bonsai stature.

 

[Gabler]

So I'm a newbie in the bonsai world but I AM an artist so studying visual nuances is part of what I do professionally.
That being said, I think the "typical" bonsai style i.e flaring radial roots, twisted and beaten trunks, branches hanging heavy with foliage works because while each of these aspects occurs quite commonly in nature, they rarely occur simultaneously on one tree. Bonsai uses all these elements in various degrees of combination to create something that sits on the fence between fantasy and reality, plausible but unlikely.
We value rarity and uniqueness very highly in most parts of the world and I think what adds so much wonderment and mystery to a stunning bonsai is the fact that it COULD exist in nature.
Hope my two cents provokes some thoughts

P.S Not to say bonsai imitating forms seen more commonly in nature are any less of a bonsai, I'm just speaking in terms of the appeal of a more typical bonsai stature.

It sounds like you've studied the philosophy of aesthetics in addition to the hands-on side of producing art.