The Art of Bonsai Project

David,
I appreciate your effort and you're probably right.
However, as to the #2 tree, extreme taper is not something absolute! It is a point of view, . Extreme taper describes both power and strength AND a very close-up point of view from ground-level. This is what the artist was trying to portray. Remember, artistry describes and interprets - it does not copy verbatim.
Anyway, I'm sure that Walter and I are much closer in agreement than is obvious here. Such is the limitation of the medium (typed rather than spoken face-to-face. Thanks for your input.
Kind regards
Andy

Andy, David, and Walter,
I would be more than happy to offer my services here. As concerns the problems with #2, please let the current owner know that I am willing to accept the responsibility for keeping this tree off the web for the rest of my life. Just send it to me and I promise to keep it away from the public!!!
Seriously, this thread shows how we all are different yet still similar. Everybody so far (David you aren't that much on the fence) likes the bonsai. We differ about the school of design and how to categorize it, but the basic, yet most important, aspect of art has been satisfied. It is visually pleasing. We all see slightly different attributes and/or faults, but we all like it nonetheless.
Wonderful stuff. Just goes to show you that artistry overcomes logic when we view specimens of bonsai. Now if we can communicate our feelings accurately through words, what a world it would be.
John

Andy,
the large Chinese elm that you show in this thread:
http://forum.bonsaitalk.com/showthread.php?t=16164
is a perfect example of the naturalistic style. You know very well that it did NOT grow exactly like this just by itself. You have spent a lot of time making it look like this by considering and possibly moving or directing every single little branch. But it does not seem to having ever been touched by human hands. It is very naturalistic, you can also say realistic which is the opposite to abstract. It is NOT NATURAL as you describe it yourself. Nature did NOT do this.
This tree was not made by someone who tried very hard to create something that looks like a bonsai. This was created to look very much like nature did it. And with great success.
Welcome to the club.
This is the state that a tree like this should be exhibited. It is just slightly overgrown and needs a haircut very soon. The trick is in grooming and licking a tree for years and then let it outgrow just a little to get this natural flavor and then show it in that stage. After the show it is groomed back and will look more abstract for a while again. Perfect treatment as far as I am concerned.
You may well deny that this is naturalistic, but that does not make any difference. This is like Kimura denies to do anything but classical bonsai. How about being menitioned in one sentence with Kimura?
BTW, it is about time we get the possibility to post pictures here directly.

I think we all agree that we are talking about artisitc design - style. And Walter has taken a crack at putting a language around these styles -- as in all other art forms.
But words all have limitations. Like Modern Art pieces created mid-20th century -- not really modern anymore - like meaning now.
So, the small number of us interested in this, know what Walter is striving for when he calls it "naturalistic". Instead of arguing whether it's a good term, let's colllectively find a better one, if there is one.
I don't have an idea yet, but I'm working on it

I can certainly attest that I'm not sufficiently skilled, nor patient, enough to do the work that would lead to bonsai this good.
They may offend the sensibilities of some who are perhaps a little too zealous in their judgment of how a tree should look. Based on the definition I understand best describes bonsai: (A pleasing, artistically styled tree in an aesthetically complimentary pot) these trees make the grade.
Andy, they may not pass muster in some of the shows that you've been to, because of personal preferences by the judges. I would suggest they would meet with approval in many places, though probably not in Taiwan or Thailand, either. They are not stylised enough for those communities.
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.
H

Natural style? Do the Japanese call the style " Shizen- Zukuri" Looks like the Japanese did know about this style and it is not a new trend that we tend to believe.
Imho, there is little scope to champion its cause as new bonsai style & that to be a very difficult one.
All bonsai styles are difficult to pass as beautiful bonsai & I agree with Andy on this point.
Regards.

The Chinese also have a name for the 'naturalistic style' . In penjin shapes they term it as 'jungle shape'.This is just one of the 30+styles (with multiple variation under each style) that i know of.
Out of so many other styles this has caught on the fancy of some genious and novice at the same time in western world. The style is beautiful just as any other well executed style .
But the style itself is not new or of recent development & only that is my humble opinion.

I wouldn't really regard Penjing as Bonsai, much of the time. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't see a lot of artistic merit in producing architectural models of Hong Kong, or clipping topiary into the shape of dragons.
In this instance we are discussing Bonsai. Penjing has diverged sufficiently to be another art, altogether, in my view.
There has been a distinct schism between the two, in artistic terms, over the past century.

After taking a look at the three trees in question, I must say that the first A. palmatum is the only "natural looking" one in the group. Japanese mountain maples tend to have multiple trunks when undisturbed by man (especially really old ones). Mountain maples are also prone to branch die-back in drought, high wind, or severe cold conditions. Dead branches do break off and the branch stubs decompose quickly, but I never see any on specimen trees. Doesn't anyone think that it's strange that most bonsai that contain deadwood are conifers? It's not like a massive oak or beech has never been struck by lightning or been deformed by disease.
This leads to the second tree, which among other things is incredible! I think that it looks highly "unnatural", but a specimen bonsai like that is impressive. The sheer amount of time spent to get that A. palmatum to that state is beyond my comprehension.
The stewartia has no visible scars which is very nice but not "natural". As with the second maple, the tree is immaculately maintained with almost no blemishes at all. The only problem I see with this is that they are too perfect. If they were life-size trees, they would have had to been grown in a greenhouse under optimum conditions with no pests or other problems. I feel that showcasing the dramatic curves of a tree's trunk or the exfoliating bark is wonderful, but at what cost to the natural appearance of the tree? Why have the entire front trunkline exposed when a small branch positioned in front of a small section of the trunkline could break up the monotany of a bare trunk once and a while?