Is "Naturalistic" Wrong or Useless?

There is a web site called ArtofBonsai.org that is very curious. It consists partly, at this date, of articles by a few of the well known names in the EuroAmerican (neologism alert!) bonsai world, about bonsai as art and, obviously, the art of Bonsai. These articles are, for the most part argumentative and contentious. "Debate" is an often used word there, and the word "art" had become known as "the a-word". Some denied that Bonsai was an art while others demanded definitions that could not possibly be constructed. Such as "What is Art?" (When I was an undergraduate at Yale, I naively asked my advisor what Computer Science was. He answered, "Computer Science is what Computer Scientists do.")  It had very few entries in its "Forum", and almost every time I read an article or posting there, I was the only person at the site. Others, who did dare to post, had the same experience. About 2009, something strange happened to the site. Although it continues to exist, it was abandoned by its article writers (leaving a sinking ship?), and spammers occupied it everywhere. They even infiltrated the articles themselves, between the sentences, with ads for things like Uggs (whatever they are). It is now very much like an abandoned mansion that someone who could not afford it bought foolishly, got upside down with the mortgage, and fled rather than continue payments. Then this edifice got occupied by riff-raff, who turned it into a squat, a shooting gallery. and who knows what else. Yet the articles remain.

One of these articles has an extended comment written by a man I admire greatly, Walter Pall. His point was that a debate about what is "classical" and what is "naturalistic" in bonsai is useless; it has no purpose or knowable outcome. Since I defined my blog and what I do with trees as "naturalistic" and defined the word briefly in the interest of open honesty, I feel compelled to respond to this zombie of an article and Herr Pall's comments. Compelled, because this zombie is still out there for you to read and, if you agree with it, you may call me a naive fool, or as Herr Pall writes:"Too many say classic and mean stereotype bonsai. What is naturalistic? I am afraid that even less know what they are talking about here. Too many say naturalistic and mean unstructured, untidy, sloppy, poor craft - to avoid the word art here"

I am afraid Herr Pall poses a false dichotomy, especially in the use of the word "classic" (you already have a sense of what I mean by naturalistic). The words that I found in opposition to naturalistic are from the Japanese themselves. About the year 970, a Japanese work of fiction , Utsubo Monogatari (The Tale of the Hollow Tree), includes this passage: "A tree that is left growing in its natural state is a crude thing. It is only when it is kept close to human beings who fashion it with loving care that its shape and style acquire the ability to move one." This indicates that the notion that the natural appearance of a tree becomes art, only when modified in accordance with a human ideal, and is an ancient and basic concept in Japanese culture. So, the words, and concept, that Herr Pall should have used, instead of "classic", was "Japanese culturally determined ideal". Although ungainly, that phrase is operational and can be nailed down, as in Naka's list of rules. 

The year 970 was a long time ago, does the notion still hold? The answer is "yes". Recently, at our Greater New Haven Bonsai Society meeting, John Romano showed us a DVD video movie called‘Bonsai: Works of Divinity'. Our members made a very perceptive summary and reaction to it: "The movie chronicled one year in the bonsai life of Shinji Suzuki as he struggled with choosing a tree for the Sakufu-ten bonsai exhibition (Professional Bonsai Artist show) and preparing it for that. He made an unusual choice that was not favored among the traditional judges based on his inspiration of nature and visiting the ancient Jomon cryptomeria in Japan (estimated at somewhere between 2-7,000 years old). He wanted to reflect the naturalness of a tree rather than a perfectly coiffed one." and, "it emphasized the Japanese cultural perception of bonsai art being more perfect than nature”.

So, thanks to my fellow members for providing the proper words for me to  use in answer to Herr Pall's comments and for helping me not to feel foolish (any more than I usually do :-) and that I do not "say naturalistic and mean unstructured, untidy, sloppy, poor craft".

Some of the trees in this October picture are bonsai. Naturalistic?

"The Treeherd" Why?

Since I posted an explanation of what "Naturalistic Bonsai" meant to me, so you could understand where I am coming from, I thought I should also explain my choice of alias: "The Treeherd". It has become pretty clear to me that we do not actually create a tree. The tree is already there, it has already been created, and what we do is tend it to bring out its best, according to our lights. We shelter it in Winter, shape (similar to shear if it were a sheep, but I hope that none of us actually shears a tree, and thinks that it is a good idea) in the Spring and Summer. We feed it water and the proper amount of sunshine regularly, and add vitamin-like nutrients to its feed when appropriate. We protect it from pests and diseases. We provide it with an environment (for its roots, a pot), for the tree as a whole, an attractive stand or bench. If this sounds like "Horticulture" only to you, then so be it. But to me there is an Art to being a Treeherd, just as there is an Art to raising a prize heifer that wins a Blue Ribbon. Besides, there was a Bonsai Wise Man who wrote (approximately), "Bonsai is 90% Horticulture and 10% Art. I am just adding the notion that Horticulture is an Art, too.

Naturalistic Bonsai: My definition

 Naturalistic Bonsai

Since my blog has, as part of its title "Naturalistic Bonsai", I'll try to explain to you what that means to me. I was first stimulated to go in this direction by reading the late Dave Joyce's book "The Art of Natural Bonsai".  In it, he gives a definition of natural bonsai design. Many bonsaists follow this path instinctively, but it is worth it to be clear about one's goals. Her it is:

"A natural bonsai has no man-made elements to jar the design, such as an ugly chopped trunk, branches or stumps, and no wire marks or sudden big changes in taper, texture or refinement. The trunk and major branches in particular will have a pleasing taper and shape. It does not have long straight, uninteresting branches or trunk. Rather, it has interesting curves or direction changes, It does not possess unconvincing areas of dead wood or overly large leaves or flowers. It is three dimensional, containing many areas of interest and viewing angles. Its treelike shape is pleasing, evoking images of trees in nature and allowing you to cross that tree/bonsai line."

That last sentence is most salient, I think. There are no better examples of naturalistic bonsai than those in Peter Adams' book "Bonsai with Japanese maples" and he continues to be an advocate, with delicate prodding in print and in person. I'll qualify that: sometimes not so delicate. I took a workshop with him a few years ago, and, after he had spent a little time with me, to get me to understand how to work a particular tree, he went on to the next person who had a particularly rare (in these parts) French pine cultivar. He said, and this is exactly what he said: "Nice tree. The only problem with it is that you have turned it into a bonsai." We all knew what he  meant - the tree was spit-shined  with almost mechanically perfect finished leaf pads. Not how a tree grows in nature at all. In the Jan/Feb issue of Bonsai Focus magazine, he starts his column on suggestions for a tree's design: "An interesting  tree with a very natural trunk form typical of the Scots Pine. The challenge here is to maintain the character and feeling of this tree and not to 'bonsai' it out of all recognition." Even John Naka, whose books are the epitome of bonsai rules, has sections that he calls "Hints from Nature" and he bases his design on those hints.

So, I know all the rules, by heart actually, but mostly I don't follow them. I always try to discern what the tree would want to be if it weren't in a pot, but out in a field or forest.

A Cork Bark Elm In a Walsall pot (by Mark Jones) that started out as bush in a 7 gallon plastic pot. This is what that bush wanted to be, even with bar branches. (It has been considerably refined since this picture was taken and I'll spend some time on it in a Spring post.)