What cases / when is it right, aesthetically-speaking, to ignore the rule of "angle the tree toward the viewer"?

[Adair M]

@coh, styles come and go. Naturalistic bonsai? Is a “idealized version of what someone thinks a tree growing in nature looks like”. Classical Japanese bonsai? “An idealized version of a tree as viewed using Japanese aesthetics”. Fairy Tale bonsai? “An idealized version of how Walter Pall thinks trees should look in Disney movies!” Lol!!! <Just kidding Walter!>

But you catch my drift.

All the “rules” are just someone trying to set standards for “ideal”. John Naka wrote that the first branch ought to come off the trunk at 1/3 the height of the tree. That was HIS ideal. Is it yours? Do you think the trees in the field follow that? How do they measure themselves to follow that rule?

Geez!

If your goal is to copy in miniature wild trees, copy them exactly down to the smallest detail, you will fail. It cannot be done. What we are doing is making a representation of a miniature tree. We want to get close enough do that our brains “see” a miniature tree. A beautiful miniature tree.

Any technique I might have to make my brain “see” a mature tree is fair game. Especially when a technique like leaning the trunk forward a bit is so effective, and easy, failing to use it is just foolish! Like cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Alas, this dead horse is beaten, flogged, and the buzzards are descending.

 

[thumblessprimate1]

Here’s another “ridiculous” looking tree:

View attachment 230307

View attachment 230308

View attachment 230309

View attachment 230310

Much like my other JBP in this thread, the trunk actually seems to move away from the viewer down liw, but comes back towards the viewer at the top.

(Isn’t that what happens when we bow towards someone? Don’t our hips move back as our chest comes down and forward when we bow? Just asking...)

Look at the first picture. Do you see the forward lean? I don’t either. If the forward lean is so pronounced that it looks obvious, it’s too much. As I said, it’s subtle. You SHOULDN’T notice it. Unless you go looking for it.

Just like the Great Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, there is “a man behind the curtain”. If you want to spoil the image of a beautiful tree, sure, take great pains to see the back where the scars are.

Bonsai trees are styled to be seen from the front.

I like.?

 

[coh]

If your goal is to copy in miniature wild trees, copy them exactly down to the smallest detail, you will fail. It cannot be done.

Straw man argument alert. I never said this. This is how discussions get derailed.

Especially when a technique like leaning the trunk forward a bit is so effective, and easy, failing to use it is just foolish!

So foolish = doing anything differently than how you would do it? Disappointing to see you refer to it in this manner. There are a wealth of techniques and stylistic choices
one can use in order to create whatever illusion/impression he wants, and other ways to create the effect that may or may not be achieved by leaning the trunk forward.

I do agree that the horse has been beaten quite severely.

 

[coh]

Oh good Lord, do a search on foreshortening and forced perspective, include the Statue of Liberty and David.

Oh good lord. The two statues you reference are both much larger than life and are designed to be viewed from below. Not really comparable to a bonsai which is much
smaller than life and viewed head on from fairly close range. I mean, come on - think about this a little bit. In the statue of liberty, is there any other way to make it look like a natural
human form other than using forced perspective (making the upper areas/head larger than they should be)? Not really, at least as long as the statue is going to be viewed from
below. However, in a bonsai you can easily design the tree without an overly leaning apex and get the same impression when viewing from the front (and often from
above at most shows).

there's plenty of room for both "approaches"

Hallelujah!

but discounting a tried and true visual artistic technique is kind of like denying the tide comes in. It just works, regardless of 'approach'.

It "works" but I don't think it has the impact (at these scales) that you and others think it does. Or, rather - it doesn't have to when there are other ways to achieve the same result.

Hasta la vista...

 

[Adair M]

There are a wealth of techniques and stylistic choices
one can use in order to create whatever illusion/impression he wants, and other ways to create the effect that may or may not be achieved by leaning the trunk forward.

Such as?

And do you have any examples?

 

[coh]

Such as?

And do you have any examples?

You told me earlier that the main (or one of the main) benefits of the forward lean was to give the impression that the branches in the apical area are
closer together than those in the lower part of the tree.

So why not just....build the tree with more branches up there? Then you don't have to lean it.

No, I don't have examples. Any tree I'm developing is years away from being able to demonstrate this. I'm sure they are out there but since most people tend to do things
the same way, most trees will have the lean.

 

[Adair M]

However, in a bonsai you can easily design the tree without an overly leaning apex and get the same impression when viewing from the front (and often from
above at most shows).

Then the tree is poorly displayed.

A bonsai should be displayed so that the lower trunk is at eye level. That’s why display tables (stands) have legs. To elevate the tree up to the proper viewing height.

It is true that most trees are shown improperly here in the US. Most of our display tables are too short, and the tables used at events to place the trees upon are too short!

At the Atlanta Bonsai Society, we elevate the tables used as the display bench using sections of PVC pipe. This raises the tables up from “dining table” height to “counter level” height, or thereabouts. Then, when placed on the typical “bonsai display stand” the tree has a better chance of being viewed at the proper height.

 

[Adair M]

You told me earlier that the main (or one of the main) benefits of the forward lean was to give the impression that the branches in the apical area are
closer together than those in the lower part of the tree.

So why not just....build the tree with more branches up there? Then you don't have to lean it.

No, I don't have examples. Any tree I'm developing is years away from being able to demonstrate this. I'm sure they are out there but since most people tend to do things
the same way, most trees will have the lean.

I do. But if I lean it, I can get EVEN MORE up there!

But getting internodes to progressively shorten as we get up higher and higher, is difficult. Even for the most talented artists. And takes a long time.

Like I said, Formal Upright trees can’t have any forward lean. Tell me... how many really good Formal Uprights have you ever seen? Not many.

Here’s one:



I’ll have to search around to find a side shot. No forward lean. It’s really hard to get a tree to have progressively thinner branches and progressively shorter internodes consistently all the way up with good taper.

Maybe in a year or so you can inspect it personally.

 

[bonsaichile]

Show me a "great" statue where the body makes an abrupt 30-40 deg lean right about mid-chest. That's kind of what many of these trees do. If you look at most statues of the human form from the side
or back, do they look as deformed as many bonsai do?

This is relative. If you look at classical sculpture after Praxiteles, you will see that the body shows a curve on one side whilr thr other side is more or less straight. This (called the S-curve) looks good, but it is a rather unnatural position for the human body. Similarly, in these sculptures the head is smaller than it should be in a naturally proportioned body. The point is: art doesnot copy nature, but rather uses technical ploys to render a pleasant image of nature.

 

[Forsoothe!]

Your art doesn't copy nature, and that's your choice. My art does, and I had hoped that was permissible, even encouraged.

 

[bonsaichile]

Your art doesn't copy nature, and that's your choice. My art does, and I had hoped that was permissible, even encouraged.

So you mean your trees have trunks with no taper, a majority of straight, taperless branches, many crossing branches and unbalanced canopies? Because that is what I see often in nature.

 

[Smoke]

I do. But if I lean it, I can get EVEN MORE up there!

I think your delusional...Just what exactly can you change? Your not gaining very much real estate. How close together do you think those branches need to be?... This is getting comical now. You and Mark are so far down the rabbit hole your just making up crap to not look stupid. It's not working.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

At the Atlanta Bonsai Society, we elevate the tables used as the display bench using sections of PVC pipe. This raises the tables up from “dining table” height to “counter level” height, or thereabouts. Then, when placed on the typical “bonsai display stand” the tree has a better chance of being viewed at the proper height.

Think you picked up that little nugget from the Alabama club. It makes a big difference.

 

[coh]

So you mean your trees have trunks with no taper, a majority of straight, taperless branches, many crossing branches and unbalanced canopies? Because that is what I see often in nature.

Don't fall into the trap of looking for the flaws in a tree. Some of my favorite trees that I've seen at shows have been those that feature what many would consider flaws, such as tall relatively taperless
trunks, trunks with reverse taper, unbalanced canopies. There was a hinoki cypress at one of the National shows, can't remember whose it was. It was very tall with an almost straight and relatively taperless
trunk with all the branches/foliage clustered near the very top of the tree. It was absolutely beautiful but many people would probably dismiss the material because it broke too many rules.

At the 2016 show there was an old English oak with a gnarled trunk showing great age. And, horror of all horrors, the trunk had reverse taper. Kathy Shaner was doing a critique and she stopped
at that tree and almost before she could finish her question "so what do you think of this tree", someone blurted out "I don't like it, it's got reverse taper." Let's just say Kathy disagreed with that
assessment...yes it had reverse taper but that was part of what made it effectively look like an aged weatherbeaten tree. Something you might actually see in nature as opposed to some idealized/sanitized
version.

When you walk around these shows you see lots of trees that look similar. Big bases, big taper, neatly manicured foliage masses. Yeah, they look great. But after a while they start to look the same. Ryan Neil
often tells the story that Michael Hagedorn was walking around one of the big Japanese shows (maybe kokufu) and remarked that it was all "meat and potatoes" and that it would nice to have some salad.
In other words, some trees that were different.

If nothing else comes out of a thread like this, I would hope a few people will be led to question "why?" instead of just saying "I've been told the tree should lean forward, it's in the rules so I'm going to
do that." I'm just paraphrasing and don't remember who said it, but I thought that was a rather sad statement for someone who's been around the forum for a while.

 

[Adair M]

Think you picked up that little nugget from the Alabama club. It makes a big difference.

Could be. I wasn’t the one who came up with the idea. Maybe Russell? At any rate, it works well! And if one of our guys stole the idea from your club, cudos to you! I’ll buy you a Shiner!

 

[Adair M]

I think your delusional...Just what exactly can you change? Your not gaining very much real estate. How close together do you think those branches need to be?... This is getting comical now. You and Mark are so far down the rabbit hole your just making up crap to not look stupid. It's not working.

I’m waiting to hear what you have to say about the Naka drawing.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Could be. I wasn’t the one who came up with the idea. Maybe Russell? At any rate, it works well! And if one of our guys stole the idea from your club, cudos to you! I’ll buy you a Shiner!

Nah, they were raising the tables long before I joined the club. Kathy started helping us set up and judge our show 5-6 years ago. She hadn’t seen it done that way before, liked the idea and it spread from there. It really improves the show.

 

[Forsoothe!]

So you mean your trees have trunks with no taper, a majority of straight, taperless branches, many crossing branches and unbalanced canopies? Because that is what I see often in nature.

So, it's OK for you to create in wood that which is in your minds eye, and call it art, but the rabble can't have a different vision? Gee, I feel helpless in the grasp of your superior intellect. Your trees, your rules, (now pay attention) my trees...

 

[bonsaichile]

Don't fall into the trap of looking for the flaws in a tree. Some of my favorite trees that I've seen at shows have been those that feature what many would consider flaws, such as tall relatively taperless
trunks, trunks with reverse taper, unbalanced canopies. There was a hinoki cypress at one of the National shows, can't remember whose it was. It was very tall with an almost straight and relatively taperless
trunk with all the branches/foliage clustered near the very top of the tree. It was absolutely beautiful but many people would probably dismiss the material because it broke too many rules.

At the 2016 show there was an old English oak with a gnarled trunk showing great age. And, horror of all horrors, the trunk had reverse taper. Kathy Shaner was doing a critique and she stopped
at that tree and almost before she could finish her question "so what do you think of this tree", someone blurted out "I don't like it, it's got reverse taper." Let's just say Kathy disagreed with that
assessment...yes it had reverse taper but that was part of what made it effectively look like an aged weatherbeaten tree. Something you might actually see in nature as opposed to some idealized/sanitized
version.

When you walk around these shows you see lots of trees that look similar. Big bases, big taper, neatly manicured foliage masses. Yeah, they look great. But after a while they start to look the same. Ryan Neil
often tells the story that Michael Hagedorn was walking around one of the big Japanese shows (maybe kokufu) and remarked that it was all "meat and potatoes" and that it would nice to have some salad.
In other words, some trees that were different.

If nothing else comes out of a thread like this, I would hope a few people will be led to question "why?" instead of just saying "I've been told the tree should lean forward, it's in the rules so I'm going to
do that." I'm just paraphrasing and don't remember who said it, but I thought that was a rather sad statement for someone who's been around the forum for a while.

I dont disagree with you, except peehaps in terminology: I personally find it misleading when people

So, it's OK for you to create in wood that which is in your minds eye, and call it art, but the rabble can't have a different vision? Gee, I feel helpless in the grasp of your superior intellect. Your trees, your rules, (now pay attention) my trees...

Snowflake

 

[bonsaichile]

@coh I meant to say I find it misleading when people say they imitate trees in nature, because trees grow in ways that would be intolerable in bonsai . But aside from that, I agree with your post.