AusBonsai

So I went for a wander through the Australian National Botanic Gardens here in Canberra, to prepare for a walk I had to lead, to discuss the relationship between "wild" trees and bonsai, in connection with the recent Australian Plants as Bonsai show here in late February.

Some photos and thoughts. Probably nothing I haven't said before, but the colours and shapes once again made me think. Never a good sign.

Complex dense shapes, with lots of angles and depths. Not parallel layers. Damn near never parallel layers.
Different species together. Bush, even.
Leaves are often sparse, with intricate branch networks in space.
Ground cover = dead leaves and litter. Not moss/grass/greenery.
Complicated (did I say?):
Interesting angles (did I say?):
More to follow

Gavin

More.

Calligraphic shapes. Strong design.
Interesting angles (did I say?)
(I did like Squizzy's Claret Tops today...)

Native flowers don't need cover the bush to be dramatic. Callistemon brachyandrum, from memory. Sparks of gold and scarlet.
Five different shades of Casuarina-family leaves.
Sumo trunk. Natural. There you go. I still don't like grossly disproportionate trunks in bonsai, but stumpies are definitely out there. Acas. torulosa from memory.
Just some thoughts. If I want my bonsai to look like a tree, I have a loooong way to go.

Gavin

Great photos Gav. I too prefer the dead leaf look on the top the medium, especially with casuarina. And Ross from the central coast club exhibition did just that on one of his a few years back, looked great.

Kcpoole (Ken), posted a very interesting point in one of the natural threads a few years back which had strong merit.
He said that a consideration must be given to whether you are styling the natural tree as in its forest element, or if it was growing stand-alone.
Because boy.... there can be a massive difference in growth between identical species from this perspective.

I think we are in danger in this community of expecting bonsai to be a photographic replica of a natural tree. The push toward natural styling has many merits, but it completely discounts the artists desire, or the value of, a portrayal of theme.

One does not have to style a tree as an exact scale replica of a natural tree in order to convey a sense of nature, and I stand by my beliefs that if a tree was designed in this manner it would look terrible in a pot.

Some of what bonsai is, is purely aesthetic, it is art. Nobody is crucifying artists for not being realistic enough, and yet we in this country are tending toward that way of thinking when it comes to bonsai.

On top of this I believe that to bring aesthetics into the regard of the natural tree would be to miss the point entirely, it is not only the way the natural tree looks, it is the setting, it is the scale, it is the undeniable weight and presence of nature itself. Can we ever manage to replicate these in miniature?

Let’s just do bonsai for the reasons we each want to do bonsai, and do it however, and to the best our abilities, we can

There's always a difference between close and far view. close up we can see all the detail but from further away the detail disappears and we see outline - form and flow.
I suppose you can make bonsai from a close up view but there is little room for detail in a miniature tree. We can get a certain amount of ramification and fine twigs into a small space but far easier to show a more distant view
Try taking the camera back and looking for some more distant shots of trees, Gavin and see what sort of different perspective that gives our natives. I'm sure some of those interesting angles that attract our attention will still be there.

I also agree with most of Kez post. Most art tries to convey the feel of something rather than the detail. We don't need to show every twig and leaf to convey the feeling of lots of leaves and twigs - not if it is done well. Often some aspects are overemphasised to gain attention. I think that's where the 'sumo' trunk diameter comes from - not because it is realistic, rather because we want to push the idea that the trunks of older trees are quite thick. I've also heard talk of 'forced perspective' as a concept in art which I take to mean similar. Something not quite realistic in proportions but it makes our minds think it is????

Great to see Gav and others looking at trees like this to bring us back to what trees really look like rather than what we think they look like.

P1010S48 reminds me of the painting Blue Poles.

Lisa

A far view - solitary - with it's massive apex residing on the ground.

Thank you, thank you KCaR ... you have given me inspiration with your photo on how to style a yamadori eucalypt I have been agonizing over since it's started budding out after being dug.
Cheers, Frank.

Look forward to seeing that Frank - just don't get too attached to you're apex!

kez wrote:I think we are in danger in this community of expecting bonsai to be a photographic replica of a natural tree. The push toward natural styling has many merits, but it completely discounts the artists desire, or the value of, a portrayal of theme.

One does not have to style a tree as an exact scale replica of a natural tree in order to convey a sense of nature, and I stand by my beliefs that if a tree was designed in this manner it would look terrible in a pot.

Some of what bonsai is, is purely aesthetic, it is art. Nobody is crucifying artists for not being realistic enough, and yet we in this country are tending toward that way of thinking when it comes to bonsai.

On top of this I believe that to bring aesthetics into the regard of the natural tree would be to miss the point entirely, it is not only the way the natural tree looks, it is the setting, it is the scale, it is the undeniable weight and presence of nature itself. Can we ever manage to replicate these in miniature?

Let’s just do bonsai for the reasons we each want to do bonsai, and do it however, and to the best our abilities, we can

Wow!
I don't think I've seen a more diplomatic and succinct response to this topic.
Well done Kez.
Not only do I agree with you 100%, but you saved me from submitting a much less gracious reaction.
Having encountered this point of contention one too many times on this forum, I am sincerely starting to believe that the "natural look" is merely a justification used to bypass the time-consuming methods needed to produce a quality traditional specimen.(?)
Anyway, here are a few suggestions on some of the more detailed points raised:

GavinG wrote:Complex dense shapes, with lots of angles and depths. Not parallel layers. Damn near never parallel layers......
Leaves are often sparse, with intricate branch networks in space.

Complex dense shapes result in die-back of the inner foliage/ramification due to shading out - it is a horticultural factor.
Layering of foliage increases exposure to sunlight, increasing the health of the tree and enhancing the sustainability of this type of horticulture.
Sparse foliage (lack of foliage mass) is a literati - a style too often used on nursery stock when there is nowhere else to go to attain a tree in the short-term.

GavinG wrote:Ground cover = dead leaves and litter. Not moss/grass/greenery.

Three pronged:
Firstly, moss is used in the artistry to visually enhance the trunk and nebari, while at the same time visually separating them from the rim of the pot.
Second, it is a horticultural factor, as a moss layer raises the saturation zone of the very porous soil in a bonsai pot.
Third, a dead-leaf ground cover in a bonsai pot would look a bit neglected, crappy and lazy.

wrcmad wrote: the "natural look" is merely a justification used to bypass the time-consuming methods needed to produce a quality traditional specimen.(?)

Wait...what?..there's time consuming methods being bypassed? Why am I always the last person to know these things! ARRGHHH...

Thankyou Gavin
Lots of valid points have been made
Wrcmad; quote.
I am sincerely starting to believe that the "natural look" is merely a justification used to bypass the time-consuming methods needed to produce a quality traditional specimen.(?)
Well said

A little unsure about the" Natural Look" being just a quick fix . A good tree can be just as time consuming and complex as a Traditional styled tree in my opinion.. John.

Keep Calm and Ramify wrote:

wrcmad wrote: the "natural look" is merely a justification used to bypass the time-consuming methods needed to produce a quality traditional specimen.(?)

Wait...what?..there's time consuming methods being bypassed? Why am I always the last person to know these things! ARRGHHH...

And don’t forget “masterfull inactivity”, knowing when to leave well enough alone. A natural bonsai can emerge over time but it may end up taking just as much lineal time to produce as a”traditional specimen” but of course with less effort but with more will power (or really its Won’t Power or Don’t Power or don’t even think about it power”)

Thanks for the topic Gavin.

Grant

I think we are in danger in this community of expecting bonsai to be a photographic replica of a natural tree. The push toward natural styling has many merits, but it completely discounts the artists desire, or the value of, a portrayal of theme.

Gavin was not talking about "natural trees", but about various features observed in native trees, inferring that these could be inspiring in bonsai. He wonders why there is little evidence we bonsai growers have used them as such.

About "natural styling" or the "natural look": let's avoid fixing attributes by trying to define and describe them. It just leads to a limitation of the bonsai concept, as the "traditional" or "classical style" have done.
Let's go instead for Grant's "natural bonsai".
Huh.... What is that?
You'll know it when you see it.

Lisa