jomawa
Shohin
I created this thread because of the trash talk going on in the thread, Bonsai Art Shool, "Perspective", and the seeming bothersome input from a mostly un-named mystery individual in that thread. I believe that person to be me, so I am publicly asking bnutters to consider the facts as they stand in that same thread and formulate their own conclusion. Amongst the trash talking, Source is one that has actually used my moniker, that being jomawa. (thank you Source for not being ambiguous about that mystery person) Source also seems to be the only one that eludes to the idea that maybe I was misunderstood. I simply wish any critics of that damnable micommunication between Sawgrass and myself to really attempt to make up their own minds by reading through it as it is in black and white. I felt compelled to attempt to list crucial points of that miscommunication as I see it, with an attempt alsso at conveying my belief of Sawgrass, his knowledge and understanding of perspective and art, and his artistic ability, and my deep regret for the miscommunication.
Point--- Sawgrass, after reading through posts #1 - #12 (granted, I was not reading in such a way as to grasp fully or digest fully each and every point you were making, nor am I yet ready to, at the level I am in bonsai), my attempted question came out of my perception of the horizon line of the first tree in post #13 being more middle to that tree, rather than near the bottom, where you placed it. Up to that point I was awed by your understanding and your passion and your ability to share this thing called perspective and I was/am in total agreement with you that you definately should write the book, hopefully to have it published soon so you are able to enjoy the economic reward of it and gain a great deal of satsifaction for pulling it off, and we can buy it and digest it at our own leisure. Combine that with the fact you do the artwork as well, you are truly gifted. (I made this point first because I suspect you may, like many of us, have a somewhat sensitive ego, but I want to assure you, I am on your side.)
Point--- My intended emphasis and question was specifically about the horizon line of the first tree in post #13, and it was as far as my reading of the thread had gotten, buuut, the location of my question didn't pop up in the thread until all the way back in post #55, far removed from post #13. There are two paragraphs by me in post #55. The first paragraph was me speaking in general terms where I used a common phrase "over my head", but placed it in a balance, allowing some of what you say of perspective to actually enter my head. I also attempted to give you thanks and kudos for your willingness to share what you are sharing.
Point--- The second paragraph in post #55 dealt with the actual question I was trying to bring up even though I used the terms "So to what I think I observe" and continued with "my first impression..." because I didn't know enough then to come right out and ask the question, "Given that view, does the horizon line of the first tree in post #13 actually locate near the bottom rather than mid way up the trunk?" Please understand, I am no longer asking the question, and it's not that I no longer care whether the placement of the horizon line is accurate or not, for the benefit of bnut, I truly believe the sooner we have this communication travesty behind us, the better.
Point--- "When objects are not correctly in Perspective, they can trick the mind into perceiving something is different than it really is..." (Quote made by Sawgrass, I pulled it from its original context in the top of about the fourth paragraph in post #47.) While typing this up, I realized the continual misquoting of what I said sent"[Sawgrass's] mind into perceiving something is different than it really is..." I am more aware now that the inacuracy of minute detail is enough to change a person's intended perspective and this same principle oftentimes actually comes into play whenever the lack of communication rears its ugly head, and can be applied to elliminate that same miscommunication.
Point--- I refuse to speculate in this thread why Sawgrass failed to believe I grasped or understood anything he was saying about perspective.
Point--- In no way am I trying to lesson the importance of perspective and what you have to say, but in a lot of what you say, I sense an attitude that we the viewers have an all or nothing understanding of perspective. Let me pose a view from a very qualified (not me) bonsai-ers perspective, ( and I made up this very gifted bonsai-er anyway). They get a stunning tree, spend the next gruelling 23 years fertilizing, watering, pruning and shaping their tree into a near perfect work of bonsai art. And even though the 3' 2 3/32" viewpoint height of the tree in the show did not match the artist's ideal intended location for the viewpoint, that tree came in first because everything else about it was near perfect. I've seen where another bnutter said they are not at the place in bonsai where they are willing or ready to understand and incorporate every single minute detail of perspective. Perspective has so many ramifications and some of us just aren't able, where we are in bonsai, to incorporate all of them.
Point--- I'm not going to detail out each and every point or statement and response of the downward spiral of Sawgrass's and my miscommunication, but the following posts are relevant; #13 the tree and its viewpoint I was specifically questioning. #55 contains my initial question or statement of observation but is far removed in the thread from the subject in question. #56 Sawgrass responds with attitude that perspective is all over my head, and toward the end in #56 addresses what may have caused my misperception of the tree in #13, I am translating here and incorporating what Sawgrass has said elsewhere. '"If the artist mistakenly applies the wrong viewpoint, the viewer is also by default drawn to that same viewpoint." #59 is where I begin my mistakes. I did not pull Sawgrass back from the idea that his perspective talks were going all, (all, all,) over my head and possibly other's heads too, and I got sucked into that very concept. I also mistakenly gave him credit for being an utterly detail oriented and logical individual, and if he simply read what I said word for word, would know and understand perfectly what I was saying. (wrong, wrong, wrong). I am an utterly detail oriented individual. Sawgrass is simply filled with the facts and details and application of perspective. (my bad) Even though he can talk specific details of perspective, he is not a detail oriented, literal individual. (dang,I was so wrong on that one.) #60 Sawgrass responds, including the all, and clear misunderstanding saying I should read it first. #73 I attempted to convey my utter frustration for Sawgrass's and my lack of ability to communicate clearly but I continued the downward spiral of miscommunication, mistakenly believing that Sawgrass, at his mental core, is a very detail oriented and literal individual. (wrong) I even attemped humor but that went sour too. #74 more miscommunication on my part. #75 a potentially very tragic decision, yet given the way this total miscommunication played out, is not surprising. #77 my anquish at the thought he would end this thread, and possibly other threads.
Point--- Actually, side point. To those proud to be bickering and backbiting bnutters, let's grow up people. Bonsai has a great deal to do with the character and discipline of the tree. How about we also begin to apply developing character, discipline, maturity, age, and wisdom in ourselves?
Point--- In the blink of an eye, or not much more, my brain is usually able to factor in and sort myriads of details in order for me to generate a conclusion to a specific problem. Bacause it just happens so naturally and makes perfect sense to me, I tend to think it also happens so naturally in others. The longer I live, the firmer I am in my opinion that the ultra detail oriented, very literal, fact based, individual is an extremely rare part of our society, and not everyone believes minute details can be a very important decision maker, or breaker. And the emotional response to literal individuals can greatly be found in the settings of the following individuals.
Point--- Some of the ultra detailed, logically minded human examples would be Spock from Star Trek, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes in the current TV program, Elementary, House MD in the TV series House, all working from a perfectly developed script, which I think must have been generated working backwards, mostly. I on the otherhand am moving forward and analyze on the go, with definite human fallability. When I'm working backwards, it is usually after "oh, crap, how the heck did that happen?"
Point--- A tip actually. If you don't understand what you read, at least try reading it one more time.
End Point--- Do you spend more time trying to coach, or, being a critic? Caution, sometimes it takes a great deal of restraint to differentiate between the two.
Point--- Sawgrass, after reading through posts #1 - #12 (granted, I was not reading in such a way as to grasp fully or digest fully each and every point you were making, nor am I yet ready to, at the level I am in bonsai), my attempted question came out of my perception of the horizon line of the first tree in post #13 being more middle to that tree, rather than near the bottom, where you placed it. Up to that point I was awed by your understanding and your passion and your ability to share this thing called perspective and I was/am in total agreement with you that you definately should write the book, hopefully to have it published soon so you are able to enjoy the economic reward of it and gain a great deal of satsifaction for pulling it off, and we can buy it and digest it at our own leisure. Combine that with the fact you do the artwork as well, you are truly gifted. (I made this point first because I suspect you may, like many of us, have a somewhat sensitive ego, but I want to assure you, I am on your side.)
Point--- My intended emphasis and question was specifically about the horizon line of the first tree in post #13, and it was as far as my reading of the thread had gotten, buuut, the location of my question didn't pop up in the thread until all the way back in post #55, far removed from post #13. There are two paragraphs by me in post #55. The first paragraph was me speaking in general terms where I used a common phrase "over my head", but placed it in a balance, allowing some of what you say of perspective to actually enter my head. I also attempted to give you thanks and kudos for your willingness to share what you are sharing.
Point--- The second paragraph in post #55 dealt with the actual question I was trying to bring up even though I used the terms "So to what I think I observe" and continued with "my first impression..." because I didn't know enough then to come right out and ask the question, "Given that view, does the horizon line of the first tree in post #13 actually locate near the bottom rather than mid way up the trunk?" Please understand, I am no longer asking the question, and it's not that I no longer care whether the placement of the horizon line is accurate or not, for the benefit of bnut, I truly believe the sooner we have this communication travesty behind us, the better.
Point--- "When objects are not correctly in Perspective, they can trick the mind into perceiving something is different than it really is..." (Quote made by Sawgrass, I pulled it from its original context in the top of about the fourth paragraph in post #47.) While typing this up, I realized the continual misquoting of what I said sent"[Sawgrass's] mind into perceiving something is different than it really is..." I am more aware now that the inacuracy of minute detail is enough to change a person's intended perspective and this same principle oftentimes actually comes into play whenever the lack of communication rears its ugly head, and can be applied to elliminate that same miscommunication.
Point--- I refuse to speculate in this thread why Sawgrass failed to believe I grasped or understood anything he was saying about perspective.
Point--- In no way am I trying to lesson the importance of perspective and what you have to say, but in a lot of what you say, I sense an attitude that we the viewers have an all or nothing understanding of perspective. Let me pose a view from a very qualified (not me) bonsai-ers perspective, ( and I made up this very gifted bonsai-er anyway). They get a stunning tree, spend the next gruelling 23 years fertilizing, watering, pruning and shaping their tree into a near perfect work of bonsai art. And even though the 3' 2 3/32" viewpoint height of the tree in the show did not match the artist's ideal intended location for the viewpoint, that tree came in first because everything else about it was near perfect. I've seen where another bnutter said they are not at the place in bonsai where they are willing or ready to understand and incorporate every single minute detail of perspective. Perspective has so many ramifications and some of us just aren't able, where we are in bonsai, to incorporate all of them.
Point--- I'm not going to detail out each and every point or statement and response of the downward spiral of Sawgrass's and my miscommunication, but the following posts are relevant; #13 the tree and its viewpoint I was specifically questioning. #55 contains my initial question or statement of observation but is far removed in the thread from the subject in question. #56 Sawgrass responds with attitude that perspective is all over my head, and toward the end in #56 addresses what may have caused my misperception of the tree in #13, I am translating here and incorporating what Sawgrass has said elsewhere. '"If the artist mistakenly applies the wrong viewpoint, the viewer is also by default drawn to that same viewpoint." #59 is where I begin my mistakes. I did not pull Sawgrass back from the idea that his perspective talks were going all, (all, all,) over my head and possibly other's heads too, and I got sucked into that very concept. I also mistakenly gave him credit for being an utterly detail oriented and logical individual, and if he simply read what I said word for word, would know and understand perfectly what I was saying. (wrong, wrong, wrong). I am an utterly detail oriented individual. Sawgrass is simply filled with the facts and details and application of perspective. (my bad) Even though he can talk specific details of perspective, he is not a detail oriented, literal individual. (dang,I was so wrong on that one.) #60 Sawgrass responds, including the all, and clear misunderstanding saying I should read it first. #73 I attempted to convey my utter frustration for Sawgrass's and my lack of ability to communicate clearly but I continued the downward spiral of miscommunication, mistakenly believing that Sawgrass, at his mental core, is a very detail oriented and literal individual. (wrong) I even attemped humor but that went sour too. #74 more miscommunication on my part. #75 a potentially very tragic decision, yet given the way this total miscommunication played out, is not surprising. #77 my anquish at the thought he would end this thread, and possibly other threads.
Point--- Actually, side point. To those proud to be bickering and backbiting bnutters, let's grow up people. Bonsai has a great deal to do with the character and discipline of the tree. How about we also begin to apply developing character, discipline, maturity, age, and wisdom in ourselves?
Point--- In the blink of an eye, or not much more, my brain is usually able to factor in and sort myriads of details in order for me to generate a conclusion to a specific problem. Bacause it just happens so naturally and makes perfect sense to me, I tend to think it also happens so naturally in others. The longer I live, the firmer I am in my opinion that the ultra detail oriented, very literal, fact based, individual is an extremely rare part of our society, and not everyone believes minute details can be a very important decision maker, or breaker. And the emotional response to literal individuals can greatly be found in the settings of the following individuals.
Point--- Some of the ultra detailed, logically minded human examples would be Spock from Star Trek, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes in the current TV program, Elementary, House MD in the TV series House, all working from a perfectly developed script, which I think must have been generated working backwards, mostly. I on the otherhand am moving forward and analyze on the go, with definite human fallability. When I'm working backwards, it is usually after "oh, crap, how the heck did that happen?"
Point--- A tip actually. If you don't understand what you read, at least try reading it one more time.
End Point--- Do you spend more time trying to coach, or, being a critic? Caution, sometimes it takes a great deal of restraint to differentiate between the two.
unless I just offended you. Which...wasn't my intention. Welcome to the crazy!
