Hinoki cypress by Dan Robinson. From Gnarly Branches, Ancient Trees. An excellent example of a naturalistic bonsai.
Judging from your comments…
There are two ways we can gauge reader interest. One is by the number of visits to a particular post (our host keeps track for us), and the other is your comments. Judging from your comments, the discussion about the virtues of highly refined Japanese bonsai vs a more naturalistic western style (championed by Walter Pall among others) is a topic that at some of you are interested in. I count myself among this interested group.
An impassioned comment
I won’t say much here, but if you want to read an impassioned comment on the topic by someone named David (and my reply), check the comments on a recent post titled ‘Nature, Picasso & the Hand of Man‘. To whet your appetite, here’s an excerpt from David’s comment: “To be fair and honest I don’t believe in “extremely” naturalistic views from artists like Walter Pall, Dan Robinson and a thousand European artists who “sell” this naturalistic approach to Bonsai. In the end they just look like they love the art but they can’t be real bored of wiring again and again and styling their trees for 20 years in a row searching for true perfection like TRUE Japanese Artists have done for more then a 1000 years.”
An excellent example of a highly refined Shimpaku juniper. By an unidentified Japanese bonsai artist. From our Masters’ Series Juniper book.
This rather famous Norway spruce by Walter Pall has appeared in several places, including Bonsai Today issue 106. Walter is a strong proponent of the naturalistic style.
My feeling is that a bonsai should move me. Walter Pall’s pine is one that moves me, and a highly styled ficus recently on your blog also moved me. If it looks like a sculpture, not so much!
My comment would be is actually a question. Where in nature do you find a perfectly manicured tree like the one above. Yes they are collected and over time wired and done to look like this but in no way to quote David wiring and wiring over 20 years make it look natural? Like the late John Naka said to make your bonsai look like a tree not your tree look like a bonsai. No offense to the Japanese but I have never seen one tree in nature look like the tree above. Bob
I believe in the “natural tree” apppearance and style of bonsai. Your bonsai should look like a natural tree in miniature form. That is, all branches do not need to be wired ; leave a few unwired. Bonsai should not resemble a fake tree in Disney’s back lot that is ready for a display in the Magic Kingdom. Natural is the way to go and Robinson and Pall have it together. I just wish I could collect some of the cool trees that they can find where they live. I have to create a natural looking bonsai out of nursery stock. This is not too hard to do just follow your own rules and make the bonsai look like a natural growing tree.
There is a difference between “naturalistic” and simply unkempt/sloppy. Wire is not part of the equation. Lingnan-styled trees are neither wired, nor naturalistic. Walter’s trees tend to be neat, clean and naturalistic – with minimal wiring. No personal offense (and obviously just my opinion) intended, but most of Dan’s trees appear to simply be unkempt and sloppy. They might work for some, but they fail to work for me on multiple levels.
Wayne,
What is naturalistic bonsai? I have discussed this issue with my teacher and many other prominent bonsai artists. As evidenced by the replies in this and other forums when this subject is brought up, the answers have one thing in common; they are all subjective. Bonsai, like other artfroms has a human element, which is governed by personal taste. Trees like Mr. Pall’s spruce and Mr. Robinson’s hinoki did not reach that shape naturally. Natural models of trees that look like these and the Juniperus chinensis used as reference in this post are, in fact, out there. For example, in Hokkaido, it is not uncommon to see trees shaped like Mr. Pall’s spruce. Also, a visit to the Taiwan Hehuan mountain will present examples very much in par with Mr. Robinson’s and the Japanese juniper. One might also use China’s Yellow Mountain (Huang Shan) as inspiration. In the end, one might wonder if the so called naturalistic style is precisely that inspiration sought by Asian and western artists which draw elements from nature to later emulate them in their creations?
Warm regards,
Jose Luis
@David: The Japanese haven’t been doing bonsai for 1000 years and the more perfectionistic style we now associate with Japan is a fairly recent development. Look at early Kokufu photos to see how the Japanese themselves have refined their own approach.
I vote for the modern naturalistic approach, which does in fact take plenty of work. Just different judgment from the modern Japanese approach.
Seems to me John Naka said it best: “Don’t make your tree look like a bonsai; make your bonsai look like a tree” or words to that effect.
I agree with the folks who quote John Naka. I also favor Graham Potter’s comment at a workshop in Boston, that a bonsai should evoke the sense of a tree growing in a specific environment. Maybe the shimpaku above doesn’t move me because I’ve never been in the forests of Asia where trees grow like that. However, like other forms of art, there is room for many different interpretations of the art of bonsai.
Does it have to be one or the other? It’s almost amusing (almost) that some say how a bonsai “should” look. Can art exist within the confines of this opinion?
Dan’s Cypress is awesome but somehow I have never been a contender for wiring and giving the perfect manicured look . I prefer my bonsai to be grown naturally with may be slight pruning [ I hate injuring the plants ] for that just collected look for those from the wild. For the pot grown ones I prefer they grow the way nature destined..No offense meant but it is a matter of taste and I think my bonsai is my baby..
Hi Maggie,
Thanks and agreed. As far as the viewer goes, it’s hard to argue with what moves you.
Thanks Bob,
If bonsai is simply to mimic nature, then the highly stylized trees from Japan and elsewhere might not live up to that standard. However, if bonsai is an art, then I’m not sure we can put those kinds of limitations on the results.
Thanks Lee,
I guess my reply to Bob’s question applies to what you say. I’m not comfortable with a lot of shoulds about bonsai.
Thanks again Jose for your insights and expertise, especially when it comes to Taiwanese bonsai. And agreed, taste is subjective.
Thanks Al,
Did you register?
Hi Mollie,
Hard to argue with John Naka. Still, others might say, make your bonsai suggest a tree in nature.
Thanks Laurel,
Hard to argue with Graham, and even harder to argue with John Naka. Still, I’m a little nervous with ‘shoulds’ when it comes to art.
And agreed, it’s best to keep a little space in our minds for new and different expressions.
Thanks Bruce
Agreed!
Thanks Anjali,
Different stokes eh?
“Bonsai” (??) is a defined concept. Kanji does not work by simply and literally putting ? and ? together like English words. If we choose to ignore this definition, then we need to choose a word other than “bonsai”. If I present a generic, label-less, rusted tin can and I call it an “antique”, do you think someone will actually pay anything above scrap value for it? There is a concept associated with something being an “antique”. The mere virtue of it being old does not render it as an “antique” to those who collect such things. The tossing around of the word “art” is all well and good, but please, don’t use it as a scapegoat to call a mere shrub or stick in a pot a bonsai. Within any concept, there is room for subjectivity, but the margin tends to be small for there are other concepts that take over once one travels too far from the original concept.
I have hundreds of plants in containers. I see some having potential for being a bonsai in the future. Others, someone else may see a potential. Others still are parent plants, kept for cuttings or grafting material. But among them all, I have less than a handful that I would currently expect anyone who has spent considerable time and exposure to a wide variety of good bonsai, to actually label as “bonsai”.
When I look at a tree in a container, I pause for a brief moment. I am mentally working out if what is being presented is a potted tree or shrub, or if it is a bonsai. These are very different things and I view the tree as one of two possibles .. is it an idealized, highly refined specimen? (e.g. the shinpaku above) or, if I blur out the background, can I visualize the tree as tens or even hundreds of feet tall, firmly anchored in the ground, as put there by nature? ..and with either of those, does the container harmonize well with the plant?
(the ?’s above were the kanji characters for “bonsai” ..the blog software ripped them out)
I think the two trees pictured are absolutely spectacular. I can appreciate different opinions as to what constitutes a beautiful ideal, but I cannot imagine anyone not appreciating the beauty in the above examples. Obviously, the shimpaku is very stylized, but it doesn’t mean it could not exist in nature. After all, isn’t the idea to model after the unique examples that nature presents?
As for the spruce, I have seen trees like this in nature right here in the States, commonly in some areas. Certainly not as much here in Florida, but on a recent trip to Montana, I saw endless example of weathered, old yet stately trees (Ponderosa Pine, I believe).
I think the styles all have their place, the Japanese style looks great on a formal black pine, but is difficult on a crape myrtle, or boughie. The chinese styling works much better with these species. All styles are interpretations of what we have seen in nature. Michelangelo did not show the same interperation as did Van Gogh. I not really sure what Dali and Andy Warhol saw in nature.
We’re all still learning and improving, including the Japanese. As Al mentioned earlier, I too have a lot of old Japanese bonsai books and the trees shown look nothing like what we see now.
The naturalistic approach leaves very little to nature, in most cases 100% of the tree is wired. It suggests that nature has done all the work but none of the shaping is natural.
What makes a tree a bonsai is subjective. Again, if you want to know what a bonsai is, don’t just look at Kimura garden, look at all the books and you’ll see that the old Japanese masters like Murata haven’t always presented trees that fit the bonsai definition.
I like both styles and I’m not arguing that either style is better but I think that bonsai is an art much like painting. A DaVinci painting is a painting, a Picasso painting is a painting, and your neighbor’s painting is a painting.
Regards,
Ken
I value them both. I like them both. The comment about being moved works for me as well. Not every prize winning Bonsai works for me either I might add. Predictable gets boring and natural wins at times. Refined works as well. I don’t see a conflict between the two. I value the work that went into it and what Mother Nature did as well. Both deserve credit don’t they. Beautiful and artistic come from all directions.
Either style, it doesn’t matter. It’s all about good or bad bonsai. Except all styling and look at bonsai in a different light. When that is excepted your insight into bonsai should grow a little.
Dave, Lingnan is one of the most naturalistic style as to their basic philosophy : “Yuan yi zhi ran, Gao yi zhi ran” …and “Xiao zhong jian da”. They do use wire and they used palm fibre rope in the past. But wiring for them is simply to form initial direction and most of the ramification structure is done by cutting. Forming an ideal ramification by cutting is not less time consuming than wiring; so we, who are doing naturalistic bonsai is not bored to the wiring, but we are patient enough to form the details step by step..year by year….
There are two main factors to make a bonsai look natural, e.g. the ramification structure and the canopy shape. The better ramification structure we can show on a bonsai, the more natural it will look. If we shape the canopy in more irregular form with sufficient spaces here and there, the bonsai will also look more natural.
That’s why when we look at a bonsai with too refined canopy without spaces, it will look artificial, too decorative rather than portraying a big tree in nature. The reason is if we look at a tree in nature, no matter how dense is the foliation, there is always contour on the foliage surface with spaces here and there. Only a tree we see from a very long distance does not show the detail contour, instead, only the silhouette; so if we combine a long distance illusion of foliage with other physical features which show a close up details (the trunk with the bark details), it does not match and our sub-conscious rejects and it is not perceived as a natural tree.
I agree with Dave, it does not mean that we should copy exactly the condition how a tree looks like in nature with the messy, sloppy and unrefined foliation to suggest a natural look, this is no artistic value to bonsai as an art form; instead, what we need to refine is the foliage edges and ramification structure, and need to create sufficient contour and spaces..not too neat foliage form without contour. This is how most of the naturalistic artist do as Walter Pall does.
Robert ..thank you for pointing out the use of palm fibers and initial shaping – I had forgotten about that. I can also see how Lingnan is naturalistic. I suspect I mentally confused a few images in my head while multi-tasking. Thank you for the corrections.
Thanks Dave,
Good points well stated. That line between bonsai and shrub is fluid and subjective and interesting to explore. As is the discussion about bonsai as art.
Thanks Francis,
Yes. Agreed, I like them both too, though I’m not so sure you’d ever see a tree as groomed as the shimpaku in nature.
Thanks Hurley,
We’ll never know exactly what someone else experiences in nature and art. Words and artistic expression can only allude to something. In this light, maybe nature isn’t the ultimate standard by which to judge a bonsai.
Thanks Ken,
Is your neighbors painting art?
That question keeps coming up: is bonsai art? Some bonsai seems to be, but does anyone have the authority to draw the line between shrub in a pot and bonsai?
Thanks Bernie,
Agreed. The conflict is purely conceptual. There’s dynamic beauty across the spectrum of bonsai.
Thanks Paul,
I think that line between what you call good and bad bonsai can never be pinned down, even though people will try.
Thanks Robert,
As usual, your insights are spot on, though, for me, there’s still a place in my heart for the best of highly stylize bonsai. Boundaries are pushed in ways that depart from what we perceive as natural and that’s okay if we consider bonsai to be art. I think when Kimura (and some others) explores those highly stylized territories, he is caught in the grips of inspiration and pushing limits in a way that is natural to artists everywhere. Some of those limits that he pushes are expressed in statements like John Nakas famous quote (I’m not sure Master Naka ever intended his comment to be absolute. More like a suggestion?).