Wait until you see my new masterpiece!

[Anonymous User]

Would you explain please. I assume you are not talking about Arabic arithmetic here.


This should be interesting in the context you put forth.




Will

 

[Anonymous User]

I didn't nor do I think that individuals who exchange in such interlocutions as "Quantum Mechanics" require an explanation wrt to Fibonacci's equation, nor applications of its principles in everyday life.

I asked for an explanation because I think you have falsely applied Leonardo of Pisa's mathematics somehow to determining the value of a piece of art.

I doubt very much you are referring to the decimal system and imagine you are hinting toward the Fibonacci sequence, which by the way he didn't invent, and thereby leaning toward the golden ratio by reference. If this is indeed where you are going, this will be a fun discussion indeed.


Will

 

[Rick Moquin]

I doubt very much you are referring to the decimal system and imagine you are hinting toward the Fibonacci sequence, which by the way he didn't invent, and thereby leaning toward the golden ratio by reference.

Yes that is what I meant.

If this is indeed where you are going, this will be a fun discussion indeed.


Will

... maybe!

 

[Anonymous User]

Am I then correct in assuming that you are saying that the test for what is or isn't a masterpiece is determined solely by if it incorporates the Golden Ratio or not?


Will

 

[Rick Moquin]

You are absolutely correct.

 

[Anonymous User]

Thank you, we have a starting point.


For those who may not be familiar with this concept, here is a brief except from the Wikipedia.

In mathematics and the arts, two quantities are in the golden ratio if the ratio between the sum of those quantities and the larger one is the same as the ratio between the larger one and the smaller. The golden ratio is approximately 1.6180339887 (from the quadratic formula[1]).

At least since the Renaissance, many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio—especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio—believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing. Mathematicians have studied the golden ratio because of its unique and interesting properties.

I'll get back to this....

 

[Rick Moquin]

Maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I should have. Not the artistic aspect of the Golden Ratio, but the application of the sequence in determining how many masterpieces are contained in any given number.

The sequence is not limited to artistry and aesthetics, but ergonomics, statistics etc... The Golden Rule governs all part of our life.

 

[Rick Moquin]

To save of us all time, what is a true masterpiece amongst masterpieces?

... a flawless creation!

 

[JasonG]

During the debate where some people claimed that the best material someone could work with was collected stock and in which they suggested that nursery material was simply a waste of time for all, beginners included, I decided to show some great bonsai here that were created from nursery stock.

The point of showing these bonsai was to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that great bonsai can indeed be created from this source of material and to dismiss this source as a waste of time was foolhardy.

Will

Hey Will,

Just to touch on this one more time.... I never said that good bonsai couldn't be made form nursry material or that is was a complete waste of time. I was probably the strongest voice for collected trees and just wanted to clear that up.
I know that you can make good bonsai from nursery material, I think what Peter and I were saying was that if you want the absolute best bonsai collection it will be made up of collected material mostly. Ok, thats all.

Now to the topic.....

How does one create a masterpiece? Is it when another master deems your tree to be a masterpiece? Is it when you and your tree win a big prestigous show or award? Is it when you are in a magazine? Is it when you get a blog through the AoB??? What is it??? These questions are more important to the bonsai world then the definition.

How does one become a master? I have several future masterpeices in my collection but does that make me a master? If another master publicly deems a tree a future masterpeice what does that mean?

I have no intention of becoming a master so don't take this the wrong way. I do however wish to have some of the best trees in the US in 15 yrs. That is a lofty but reachable goal considering with what I am starting with....

Inquiring minds want to know, lol!!

THanks, Jason

 

[Rick Moquin]

On any given number, the application of Fibobacci's sequence results in 2/3 and 1/3 of any given, to form a whole.

When extrapolating the results, out of 100 bonsai only 35 remain. that are worthy of attention. The original 65 are average and thus eliminated, the remaining are above average. Of those 35, 25% are good with only 10% that could be deemed very good, or ten trees.

Know let's apply the sequence to the elimination. We are now left with ten trees, of which 6-7 will be eliminated as average (65%), leaving us with 35%, of which 25% are superior and only 10% which are deemed great, or one tree. That tree and solely that tree is suitable to be placed in competition against other great trees, read not bonsai but great trees.

So of all the great trees, 65% are deemed average, 25% are superior with only 10% outstanding. Now we may wish to debate this ad infinitum that there may indeed be more than one masterpiece, but the sequence is a process of elimination towards which only one tree truely is a masterpiece.

I will concede that their may be more than one masterpiece, this will occur if we categorize trees within species etc... but regardless, at the end, only one can be deemed a "true" masterpiece. 65% are noteworthy mentions, with 25% being runners up, to the finalist.

Ya just can't have your cake and eat it too!

Now in the context of nursery stock achieving the status of a masterpiece, I seriously doubt the probability. In order not to inflate the "yamadori egos", although Yamadori will achieve a greater overall standing, I doubt that the majority will qualify any further than noteworthy mentions.

This is an extremely bold statement. Notwithstanding, after initial eliminations, it is indeed quality over flaws that will permit the tree(s) to continue towards stardum.

 

[JasonG]

To save of us all time, what is a true masterpiece amongst masterpieces?

... a flawless creation!

No such thing as a flawless bonsai..... Even the best in the world will have issues....

 

[Rick Moquin]

OK I'll concede, near flawless!

... I wish you didn't edit your original post. Regardless if a respected practitioner mentions in public or not that certain trees have the potential in becoming masterpieces in the future, they are far from being what portrayed, they may or may not reach that elite pedestal.

Undoubtedly, you will indeed have a collection to be recognized in years to come, not just in the US but worldwide if you continue on your present trend.

 

[luft]

This whole debate that is going on right now seems to be over subjectivism vs objectivism, i.e., masterpiece=preset definition vs. masterpiece=what it means to each person. Personally, I tend to fall into the objectivist point of view because it offers some unmoving foundation off of which to build. For me the subjectivist position tends to be too nebulous and gray, shifting a bit with each new opinion added to the mix and you never know where you will end up. This is because it is based on the ever-shifting human experience and point of view. Hopefully this will make some sense in the morning since my arguments can be a little -shall we say- irrational in the middle of the night. Anyways, this is a bonsai forum and the topic at hand is the over-use of the term "masterpiece" in bonsai. In current day, the term doesn't have any solid grounding in any system, but in old times it was used to describe the work that a journeyman (?) would do that would mark his transition to a master status. I think the closest thing today would be the thesis in college/graduate studies. By this definition, once you have achieved the status of "master", then all your works are "masterpieces", that is, pieces made by a master. How does that translate into today? Well, I don't think it means much because, as I was saying earlier, the term has lost its grounding in the system of today. It is just a nebulous concept that means something a little different to everyone. So as to the initial statement that the term "masterpiece" is being somehow cheapened through overuse, I would say, only if your idea of masterpiece is of something more than what it is being used as. Otherwise, no. It is a relative, subjective term that will remain relative and subjective until the term becomes anchored to a concrete definition agreed upon by bonsai society at large. Which realistically probably wont happen.

Overall, this makes me think of a quote by the ancient greek philosopher anonymous:
"Philosophers usually cannot agree on the questions, let along the answers, so it often becomes the proverbial 'many paths leading from nowhere to nothing'".

Hopefully there is some coherence in that somewhere.

 

[bonsai barry]

OK I'll concede, near flawless!

... I wish you didn't edit your original post. Regardless if a respected practitioner mentions in public or not that certain trees have the potential in becoming masterpieces in the future, they are far from being what portrayed, they may or may not reach that elite pedestal.

Undoubtedly, you will indeed have a collection to be recognized in years to come, not just in the US but worldwide if you continue on your present trend.

Do all flaws disqualify a tree as a masterpiece. Perhaps it is the unique "flaw" that makes the tree a true masterpiece. Doesn't the concept of Wabi Sabi fit in somewhere?

WABI SABI: According to Koren, wabi-sabi is the most conspicuous and characteristic feature of what we think of as traditional Japanese beauty and it "occupies roughly the same position in the Japanese pantheon of aesthetic values as do the Greek ideals of beauty and perfection in the West." Andrew Juniper claims, "if an object or expression can bring about, within us, a sense of serene melancholy and a spiritual longing, then that object could be said to be wabi-sabi." Richard R. Powell summarizes by saying "It (wabi-sabi) nurtures all that is authentic by acknowledging three simple realities: nothing lasts, nothing is finished, and nothing is perfect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi