Not exactly a traditional literati pot, but who cares?
Lissome literati
I’ve seen hundreds if not thousands of literati bonsai (photos, that is) but very few quite like these. Enough said though (getting sucked back into work isn’t any way to enjoy a vacation).
Part 2
All three photos in this post are from the Malaysia Bonsai & Stone International Exhibition 2012. I found them on Robert Steven’s facebook page. Even though this post says part 2, it’s actually our 3rd post from the Exhibition (including Robert’s demo). Here’s a link to part one.
Again, not your traditional literati pot. I think both this one an the one above present a pretty unique expression of literati bonsai (especially if your view of bonsai has been heavily influenced by the Japanese tradition).
Bunjin. This one is bit more like what I’m referring to as traditional Literati bonsai (aka Japanese style). Apologies for the fuzz. I had to almost double the original in order to get this one up to full size. Still, even though it’s a bit fuzzy, I think you get the feel.
Fabulous primary trees, but the accent plants certainly have merit on their own.
I think the trees are wonderful, the second example in the rectangular pot is my favorite however the accent planting next to it distracts from the composition rather than aide in the arrangement in my opinion
Now all that dead wood fits right in with the literati expression!
Wayne,
These trees are known as Beackea frutescens. The can be found in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. In Indonesia it is known as Sapu Sapu. In Malaysia as Cucur Atap. In Taiwan, where it is not commonly cultivated, it is referred to as Siang Song, roughly translated as fragrant (smelly) pine.
In Malaysia Mr. Katie Che Maktar is one of the pioneers of this tree. He is perhaps the most knowledgeable person on this species. Some of the trees you show are actually his.
Regards,
Jose Luis
Sorry, Mr. Matie Che Maktar. This autocorrect is a pain!!
Thanks as always for filling in Jose Luis.
I just googled Katie Che Maktar but the only thing that came up is your comment. Can you suggest any links?
Thanks again,
-w
Wayne,
I made a mistake while typing. Try Matie Che Maktar on FB.
Kind regards,
Jose Luis
Wayne, it is not always needed or best to blow something up to full size. The fuzzyness is not my issue here, although it is distracting. The picture is too tall vertically to fit my browser screen. And I run at a fairly high pixle density. I can look at the top of the tree or the pot and trunk, but not both at the same time. The other pictures are a better size.
Thanks Zack,
Yeah image size is an ongoing issue. Most aren’t a big problem, at least fuzzy-wise. The ones that are a little fuzzy are the result of a decision that larger (up to, but no more than 680 pixels wide) is usually better. Maybe it’s just my aging eyes, but I find small photos mostly unsatisfying.
As far as veritcality goes, it has occurred to me that this might be a problem, and I often do reduce the size of tall photos. But not always.
Anyway, thanks for the tips. I’ll bear them in mind.