AusBonsai

I see what you mean Delisea,my Crepe Mytles in my yard all (but one 0f four) have multiple trunks too....but...this tree to me is a wonderful Bonsai in it's own right - regardless of species.

delisea wrote:

baldtwitlion wrote:Symon are you suggesting that a species can only be bonsaied as it would grow in nature
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I reckon you can do whatever you like. However a great tree will distill the feel of a species....or will it? Are there great trees that are nothing like ones in nature?

Matt, I wouldn't give my first born for it, but I have a left kidney that hasn't done much for me lately.

BUT... the essence of this species for me (as well characteristics Mike pointed to) is a trunk bifurcating into multiple sub-trunks and a spreading crown. I grew up with one like this in my front yard, climbed it every day after school. I have two just the same in my back yard now. I look at this tree and I see a great bonsai, but I don't see (my view of) a crepe myrtle. I wondered if others felt the same.
Cheers,
Symon

Yeah I actually agree 100% with you delisea. I prefer to have my trees styled like their native counterparts. I kind of disagree with Mike in a way, because I think if you are pedantic enough to copy the branching of a CM, why would you stop at other asepcts? The multi-trunk formations of a CM are beautiful. This trait is very similar to a great number of trees, in particular to mallees that I grow - in that I love the multi-trunk formations and happily try to emulate it too. But I understand what Mike is saying, its still a nice tree that some may like and some may not. Personally I prefer to see all the traits of a genus minitiarised if possible.

However I really detest the nebari on this CM though. It looks contrived and silly. It doesn't look natural to me and just looks like a blob of yoghurt, rather than a gradual amalgamation of roots over time.

treeman wrote:What aspect do you consider a little unnatural Gerard?

There is much evidence of pruning over the years and the canopy is pointed more than I would expect in an "old tree". I have often heard the phrase "make your bonsai look like a tree (not make the tree look like a bonsai) It appears to be an old bonsai!
Wonderful, interesting, look at it all day and enjoy but I cannot call it natural.

Gerard wrote:

treeman wrote:What aspect do you consider a little unnatural Gerard?

There is much evidence of pruning over the years and the canopy is pointed more than I would expect in an "old tree". I have often heard the phrase "make your bonsai look like a tree (not make the tree look like a bonsai) It appears to be an old bonsai!
Wonderful, interesting, look at it all day and enjoy but I cannot call it natural.

Yes but the change of movement in the branches is exactly what you want. At least what I want. The alternative is to let the branches grow straight then cut them when they reach their ultimate length. ( or leave greater distance between the cuts so you end up with straight lengths and forking - straight lengths and forking) Then what do you do? Sooner or later you have to cut. If you wait until the branches are well advanced you end up with straight featureless branches and lots of movement at the tips from the subsequent pruning and pinching.

Like this.....

It may look much closer to the Crepe myrtle in my front yard but pretty uninspiring. An older more developed version would look just as boring.


By constantly pruning to the first or second node you end up with this highly revered movement.


Like this....
Which is more desirable? The miniature version of the natural tree or the more considered form?

The same can be said for most trees.
As another example, I'm growing a bunch of Callistemon pallidus and I'm doing them like this...

Where the natural form looks like this....

This is why I said earlier Rory , that if you stick too rigidly to the representing the natural form, you will end up with a bunch of potted trees and what's the point of that?
Forget about what the tree looks like in it's natural form but rather try to imagine it clinging to life and having endured many hardships and setbacks in it's struggle to survive. I think that is what will give you on-going incentive, inspiration and satisfaction. It's like you are covering un-charted waters every time you work on the tree and you never really know how it will look down the track. The alternative is seeing all the way into the future of the tree and that can be very tedious.

I'll side with treeman

With all due respect, I think you guys might be missing deliseas point.

To create an aged tree that is struggling for life is one thing, but to go against the natural growth formation is another.
You are comparing apples with oranges.

If this particular CM was trying to look old and struggling for growth, that would be one thing, but I'm confused. How does allowing the growth habit to grow differently reflect a struggle for life?

You can still style a tree in its natural growth habit as Delisea says, and if you want to reflect a struggle for survival then by all means go with that option too, but what does that have to do with changing the entire growth style?

Mike, I do understand what you are saying about certain genus having different natural growth formations that you want might not want to display as a bonsai. This is definitely evident in stock like bougainvillea, lantana etc etc. But Crepe Myrtles look lovely in their natural element, but again this is my opinion.

Rory wrote:
You can still style a tree in its natural growth habit as Delisea says, and if you want to reflect a struggle for survival then by all means go with that option too, but what does that have to do with changing the entire growth style?

I'm entirely sure I understand the question but let me try this. Imagine a big old crepe myrtle growing in a field or a garden. Life's good, plenty of water, protection from wind, deep rich soil. The tree grows to it's full genetic potential. Long straight and strong branches with little movement, possibly multi trunked, a full thick rich canopy, lush foliage and a big rounded crown. A big umbrella. All nice and good and what we usually all imagine as a crepe myrtle tree. Easy to achieve but commonplace and uninspiring after a while. Now imagine the same tree after decades sitting at the edge of a cliff. Smashed by falling rocks, lashed by winds, struck by lightning, losing branches due to drought and poor soil. Leaning over. Now the tree has a very different appearance. More compact, much more movement, branches in odd places etc. The fact that in reality, a crepe myrtle might never be found in such a situation is beside the point. We create the image artificially because it appeals to our longing for wilderness and rusticity. It's still a crepe myrtle with the same bark but now we have manufactured a more wild image than the comfortable one in the first example. It doesn't matter if it isn't natural in reality because bonsai is not realism, it is an illusion. As long as the image is plausible in our minds, (puts us in the place where the tree is growing) it works.
The tree in the first picture I imagine as kind of in between these two extremes. A tree which is very old and has seen numerous storms. Losing and re-growing branches over the decades until this final form was the result. Apart from the heavy crown I mentioned above, the tree is perfectly natural looking and a masterpiece. It's a superb tree first, a masterful work second and a Crepe Myrtle third.....To me

Thanks Rory you got my point exactly. It is a great tree, but not a 'crepe myrtle'. As KCAR says it is styled like a maple 'bonsai'.

Gerard also makes a good point about the bumpy trunk: 'Wonderful, interesting, look at it all day and enjoy but I cannot call it natural.'

Treeman, I don't think it is either great branch shape or the crepe myrtle growth habit as your two photos show. I would like to see a well grown CM with both. Also why can't produce the asymmetry of age while observing the growth habit of a species?

I think the point of these discussions is to help us think about the choices we make when making little trees...I find it useful. Thanks for the thoughtful contributions.
Cheers,
Symon

And treeman wins the debate

Good discussion.

I love the pic of Treeman's "more considered form"!
What a little treat of a tree!

Yes, I find I agree with Treeman. I have never thought when creating a bonsai tree we are trying to create just a miniaturized version of a tree, whatever the style or species we choose to style. We are trying to create a stylized version of a tree represented in miniature, which is something different. So let's all sit back and gain some perspective, because remember, "beauty is in the eye of the beerholder"