Winter Silhouette Exhibit Discussion Page

[Smoke]

Forests can be either “near view”, or “far view”, depending upon how they’re styled.

Please, show us the difference?

 

[just.wing.it]

I don't disagree with you, you just don't see many forests executed to the level of Kimura or Walter Pall. Those displays are on another level and worthy of collective artistry.

Lets look at a deciduous planting;
View attachment 270237

And a deciduous forest by Walter Pall. The trees are so much better styled each tree could stand on it's own.

View attachment 270235

A look at a "try" at a John Naka composition

View attachment 270236

That was his third attempt and was done by people at the convention. Time was an issue and the forest was built in a few hours while Goshin was built over decades and "added to" as more grand children came. (He added trees to correspond to the grand children)

Helpers building this comp.

View attachment 270250

Compare this to Goshin. The patina of the trees and the look that they have been growing together for 40 years or more.

View attachment 270240

This Naka design is old and and some history as well as being immortalized in "Techniques II". It is in the Pacific Rim Collection and I think this is a Greg Brendon picture. It is a windswept design but to me it has always looked contrived and not very natural. Just an opinion....

View attachment 270234
Here is a tray full of small trees, they seem arranged OK...but...

View attachment 270239

In the skilled hands of someone like Kimura, the trees seem to take on new meaning. Pay special attention to the spacing and size of trunks. I don't get the feeling of a forest in the one above, but immediately feel I'm in a forest in this one.

View attachment 270238

I enjoyed reading this post, and contemplating each picture.....finding myself in agreement.
I want to thank Al @Smoke for the education he is giving us.
To me these kinds of posts are the whole reason I'm here and why many of us Newbs are here.
Much to be learned.

 

[Djtommy]

Windswept and forest.., how about both together.
well, this maybe can not really be called a forest For the amount of trees、it’ll be put on a slap and perhaps I might add some trees to create a bit more depth.

 

[Adair M]

Please, show us the difference?

A “near view” forest depicts the view you might have if you were standing in the middle of the forest. There is a presumption that the oldest and tallest tree is in the middle of the forest. So, you have hiked into the forest, found the “mother tree”, and you are standing just in front of it. You would be surrounded by other trees.

John Naka’s “Goshin” is such a forest:



In it, the primary tree is front and center (maybe just off center), and all the other trees are behind.

A “far view” forest, on the other hand, is one where you are seeing the entirety of the forest from a distance. There are smaller trees between the viewer and the primary tree. The primary, “mother” tree is in the center, surrounded by smaller trees. Here are a couple examples:





Another good example is Mach5’s beech forest.

Usually, a “near view” forest will have a smaller number of trunks, whereas a “far view” forest will have a larger number of trunks.

 

[amcoffeegirl]

Please, show us the difference?

I think it has a lot to do with the position of the number 1 tree.
If it is up front then it looks like you are close to the trees. If the number one tree is in the back then it looks like the forest is farther away.
I’m sure it’s deeper than this just my perspective. Waiting for pics.

 

[0soyoung]

Not really...

Single trees are a near view experience, while forests are a far view experience. But...you take a far view experience and force it into a "near view"

Yah, I agree. It didn't make my point.

First, I agree with and share your admiration of these penjing. What I disagree with is the critique of forest compositions.

IMHO, there is no comparison other than one's personal taste (hence, I prefer Bosc pears over apples). Penjing and forests are both multi-tree compositions and beyond that have little in common. They, as you said, are entirely different perspectives. They are quite simply different things.

I've seen a few of these penjing in person and they are even more stunning - truly awesome. However, these compositions are HUGE! The marble slabs of the one's I have seen are around 5 feet across! Not exactly something a noob or even but a few veteran western bonsai-ist would dare try to do.

Indeed forest compositions generally do utilize trees that are junk on their own. As practical matter, utilizing shitty trees clearly identifies why is collects the attention of noobs. Stick a bunch of shitty trees in a pot and I declare myself to be 'accomplished' - that's what you are railing about, I think. But trying to make forests can be excellent training. Any degree of success rests upon the understanding of perspective and perspective underlies just about every bonsai/penjing composition, IMHO. I have yet to make a good forest composition, but my failures did teach me a lot about the importance of perspective. I'm not sure that a penjing would teach me anything. It would instead be a tour de force were I ever the least bit accomplished at this game. But, maybe a forest that captures my pic would be.

 

[just.wing.it]

A “near view” forest depicts the view you might have if you were standing in the middle of the forest. There is a presumption that the oldest and tallest tree is in the middle of the forest. So, you have hiked into the forest, found the “mother tree”, and you are standing just in front of it. You would be surrounded by other trees.

John Naka’s “Goshin” is such a forest:

View attachment 270276

In it, the primary tree is front and center (maybe just off center), and all the other trees are behind.

A “far view” forest, on the other hand, is one where you are seeing the entirety of the forest from a distance. There are smaller trees between the viewer and the primary tree. The primary, “mother” tree is in the center, surrounded by smaller trees. Here are a couple examples:

View attachment 270277

View attachment 270278

Another good example is Mach5’s beech forest.

Usually, a “near view” forest will have a smaller number of trunks, whereas a “far view” forest will have a larger number of trunks.

Thanks for breaking that one down, good sir, much appreciated.

 

[Smoke]

Yah, I agree. It didn't make my point.

First, I agree with and share your admiration of these penjing. What I disagree with is the critique of forest compositions.

IMHO, there is no comparison other than one's personal taste (hence, I prefer Bosc pears over apples). Penjing and forests are both multi-tree compositions and beyond that have little in common. They, as you said, are entirely different perspectives. They are quite simply different things.

I've seen a few of these penjing in person and they are even more stunning - truly awesome. However, these compositions are HUGE! The marble slabs of the one's I have seen are around 5 feet across! Not exactly something a noob or even but a few veteran western bonsai-ist would dare try to do.

Indeed forest compositions generally do utilize trees that are junk on their own. As practical matter, utilizing shitty trees clearly identifies why is collects the attention of noobs. Stick a bunch of shitty trees in a pot and I declare myself to be 'accomplished' - that's what you are railing about, I think. But trying to make forests can be excellent training. Any degree of success rests upon the understanding of perspective and perspective underlies just about every bonsai/penjing composition, IMHO. I have yet to make a good forest composition, but my failures did teach me a lot about the importance of perspective. I'm not sure that a penjing would teach me anything. It would instead be a tour de force were I ever the least bit accomplished at this game. But, maybe a forest that captures my pic would be.

I get ya....
I have twelve thousand bonsai photo's on flash drives and DVD's, and my computer hard drive plus my dead wife's. I share less than two percent....

Get the picture? pun intended. You have not shared your failures. Nor I. As it should be.......

 

[Smoke]

A “near view” forest depicts the view you might have if you were standing in the middle of the forest. There is a presumption that the oldest and tallest tree is in the middle of the forest. So, you have hiked into the forest, found the “mother tree”, and you are standing just in front of it. You would be surrounded by other trees.

John Naka’s “Goshin” is such a forest:

View attachment 270276

In it, the primary tree is front and center (maybe just off center), and all the other trees are behind.

A “far view” forest, on the other hand, is one where you are seeing the entirety of the forest from a distance. There are smaller trees between the viewer and the primary tree. The primary, “mother” tree is in the center, surrounded by smaller trees. Here are a couple examples:

View attachment 270277

View attachment 270278

Another good example is Mach5’s beech forest.

Usually, a “near view” forest will have a smaller number of trunks, whereas a “far view” forest will have a larger number of trunks.

Thanks for the reply. No one appreciates taking the time to compose a post with pictures, which I try to do always. While I appreciate what you did, it went no further to helping what Oso and I were talking about.

What you are explaining to us is what I call Tuesday Morning quarterbacking. Its like people trying to compare a finished piece of art to how well it fits the Fibonacci Sequence and all the other rules of art. Problem is most artists don't set out to make a piece of art that fits that pattern, what they do is work from the heart and mind, and when it's done, it's so good, (hopefully) that it rightly so fits those ideals. It is very easy to explain to a noob how well a great bonsai fits the Fibonacci Sequence, the rule of thirds, directional movement, foreshortening, Golden Mean, diminishing perspective., etc, etc. Now try to explain to your bonsai student that he must include all of that into this twenty dollar juniper in front of you??????

I don't know about you, but when I admire trees at an exhibition I have never been struck to figure out if the forest I am viewing is a near view or a far view. It's just not important to me. What is important to me is awsome view versus ametuer view.

 

[Adair M]

Thanks for the reply. No one appreciates taking the time to compose a post with pictures, which I try to do always. While I appreciate what you did, it went no further to helping what Oso and I were talking about.

What you are explaining to us is what I call Tuesday Morning quarterbacking. Its like people trying to compare a finished piece of art to how well it fits the Fibonacci Sequence and all the other rules of art. Problem is most artists don't set out to make a piece of art that fits that pattern, what they do is work from the heart and mind, and when it's done, it's so good, (hopefully) that it rightly so fits those ideals. It is very easy to explain to a noob how well a great bonsai fits the Fibonacci Sequence, the rule of thirds, directional movement, foreshortening, Golden Mean, diminishing perspective., etc, etc. Now try to explain to your bonsai student that he must include all of that into this twenty dollar juniper in front of you??????

I don't know about you, but when I admire trees at an exhibition I have never been struck to figure out if the forest I am viewing is a near view or a far view. It's just not important to me. What is important to me is awsome view versus ametuer view.

What the heck, Al??? You said in a post that all forests were a “far view”. I stated they could be either far, or near. You said to prove it. I did, with pictures. And now you’re accusing me of Tuesday quarterbacking?

Then you go on deriding my post... when you THEN said you never thought about a forest composition as a near or far view...

Well, d@mn! You should be thanking me for bringing something new to your appreciation of bonsai! I bet FROM NOW ON, whenever you look at a forest bonsai, you WILL think about whether it is a “near view” or “far view” forest!!!

 

[Smoke]

What the heck, Al??? You said in a post that all forests were a “far view”. I stated they could be either far, or near. You said to prove it. I did, with pictures. And now you’re accusing me of Tuesday quarterbacking?

Then you go on deriding my post... when you THEN said you never thought about a forest composition as a near or far view...

Well, d@mn! You should be thanking me for bringing something new to your appreciation of bonsai! I bet FROM NOW ON, whenever you look at a forest bonsai, you WILL think about whether it is a “near view” or “far view” forest!!!

First of all I did not say "prove it". those are your inflammatory words
OK I am going to do this as delicately as I can so as not to enflame my hemmoroids.

Osoyoung posted this picture. with this quote above it. Look back at the dialog and try to keep up with what we are saying.

Many beginners will flock to a group or forest because you have many trees, not very good on their own, and not much individually styled. If taken apart would you enter any one of the forest trees on it's own in a club show?

I posted this, because we need to compare apples to apples. Because in my opinion, all forests are far view. sure you can plead semantics and break them down into whatever category you wish. But usually for judging purposes the category will require a difference in the way it is judged. Do near and far require different point of view on judging, or does it either work or not work? I think so.

My picture was this one; a picture of a forest, FROM FAR AWAY. The way trees look like in a pot at an exhibit, period.


OUR conversation had to do with these two pictures alone. While I respect your opinion, it is clear to me that your sole purpose of interaction with any thing I say is to cause controversy. You feel a need to show your superiority over the subject matter and will be rude about the fact that you are arguing semantics and it is just not needed in the scope of this discussion. For me I do not find folly in that back and fourth. So for me you on ignore is the answer. If others find your critiques fascinating, so be it.

I decided to dust off the jacket of this oldy but a goodie. Any one that wished a great education about the foundations and engineering of fabulous forest bonsai can get a hold of this book by Suburo Kato, the Father of the forest bonsai. No where in this book, and it is thick and big with information, does it talk about "near and far view" compositions. They are all just forests, the way they should be.



I can guarantee I will never look to know whether the forest I look at in the future is near or far....I just don't care.

 

[Smoke]

@William N. Valavanis I hope you can clear up my question. Why are the photo's of your Tokonoma taken from an oblique view?

 

[William N. Valavanis]

Al, The way my studio is designed it is not possible to stand directly in front of the tokonoma to get a good photo. The glass case is in front of the tokonoma. Besides, an angle photo is sometimes creates a more interesting composition. But, not when you only want to appreciate the beauty of formal bonsai display. Here are a few images of my studio.

 

[Smoke]

Ahh that explains it. Thanks for the tour. Even your studio is a work of art.

 

[Hartinez]

First of all I did not say "prove it". those are your inflammatory words
OK I am going to do this as delicately as I can so as not to enflame my hemmoroids.

Osoyoung posted this picture. with this quote above it. Look back at the dialog and try to keep up with what we are saying.


View attachment 270322

I posted this, because we need to compare apples to apples. Because in my opinion, all forests are far view. sure you can plead semantics and break them down into whatever category you wish. But usually for judging purposes the category will require a difference in the way it is judged. Do near and far require different point of view on judging, or does it either work or not work? I think so.

My picture was this one; a picture of a forest, FROM FAR AWAY. The way trees look like in a pot at an exhibit, period.
View attachment 270323

OUR conversation had to do with these two pictures alone. While I respect your opinion, it is clear to me that your sole purpose of interaction with any thing I say is to cause controversy. You feel a need to show your superiority over the subject matter and will be rude about the fact that you are arguing semantics and it is just not needed in the scope of this discussion. For me I do not find folly in that back and fourth. So for me you on ignore is the answer. If others find your critiques fascinating, so be it.

I decided to dust off the jacket of this oldy but a goodie. Any one that wished a great education about the foundations and engineering of fabulous forest bonsai can get a hold of this book by Suburo Kato, the Father of the forest bonsai. No where in this book, and it is thick and big with information, does it talk about "near and far view" compositions. They are all just forests, the way they should be.

View attachment 270326

I can guarantee I will never look to know whether the forest I look at in the future is near or far....I just don't care.

Yeah I’ve got to say, I’ve never understood this idea of near and far arranged forests. I feel like it’s overthinking the idea. Near, far, arrange them properly and they will evoke the emotion you desire for the viewer.

I’ve tried two forests setups, both of which are just ok. But I have plans to improve them. I have one thread Here, but plan on creating a second thread for the other once I re arrange things next spring. What I’m seeing more and more is spacing is key to a convincing forest, and much like all other bonsai, wiring out the trees for proper branch placement makes all the difference.

 

[Smoke]

Yeah I’ve got to say, I’ve never understood this idea of near and far arranged forests. I feel like it’s overthinking the idea. Near, far, arrange them properly and they will evoke the emotion you desire for the viewer.

I’ve tried two forests setups, both of which are just ok. But I have plans to improve them. I have one thread Here, but plan on creating a second thread for the other once I re arrange things next spring. What I’m seeing more and more is spacing is key to a convincing forest, and much like all other bonsai, wiring out the trees for proper branch placement makes all the difference.

That is exactly what is in the book. Arrange them properly and you have a winner.

 

[Hartinez]

That is exactly what is in the book. Arrange them properly and you have a winner.

That book is on my Christmas list. Amongst others.

 

[William N. Valavanis]

Al, I also have four display areas in the garage which are set up for open houses, tours and other special events or visitors. I present demos here too, with displays of course.

 

[Adair M]

Yeah I’ve got to say, I’ve never understood this idea of near and far arranged forests. I feel like it’s overthinking the idea. Near, far, arrange them properly and they will evoke the emotion you desire for the viewer.

I’ve tried two forests setups, both of which are just ok. But I have plans to improve them. I have one thread Here, but plan on creating a second thread for the other once I re arrange things next spring. What I’m seeing more and more is spacing is key to a convincing forest, and much like all other bonsai, wiring out the trees for proper branch placement makes all the difference.

The two view points is whether you are in the forest looking at trees in the forest, or whether you are away from the forest, looking at it from afar. Two different experiences. Neither is better than the other, just different.

 

[Hartinez]

The two view points is whether you are in the forest looking at trees in the forest, or whether you are away from the forest, looking at it from afar. Two different experiences. Neither is better than the other, just different.

I certainly understand the idea behind both, I just feel like in miniature, trying to evoke a viewpoint from within a forest is not possible. Based on the above pictures would you say that the primary difference is the location of the “mother” tree? Obviously there is more to it than that but simply put, adjusting the location of the mother tree would change the feeling of the composition? So if goshin had 2-3 more trees added that filled up the foreground a bit, while still maintaining excellent balance would that portray a far view forest? And vice versa for your other examples?