Will Heath wrote:
Using this logic, you could claim that since man did not make the stone, scupture is not art either....as with all arts, it matters not where the material came from, but what was created with it and the person who did the creating should get the credit for it.
In most statements there are borderlines. The test is simple: ask 100 people about it. I believe that the result will be that most of the people agree that stones are something totally different than yamadori's and sculputes differ from bonsai. It is about the degree or amount of work "nature" delivers, compared to the work of men. The simplest criterium will be life
: stones doesn't grow, live or change at one man's life, or even in one year, plants do.
So, for me
: bonsai is a creation by men & nature, at equally basis.
Departing from this logic, men should not discussing the bonsai as their art work; and in fact argueing about glory, pride, and money.
I stand for the credits of the tree in this discussion. The tree who doesn't speak and argue, but show his beauty in silent, time after time, again and again after being shaped and tortured... and cared for, too.