Mark Arpag wrote:
Thank you for asking this question. It does not matter what my definition of an ugly Bonsai is. I am not asking anyone to accept my taste or valuesMark
It may matter a great deal to understand what your definition of ugly is. You must have thought this out in order to make the reply you have. As to anyone accepting, or for that matter, rejecting your taste or values is an individual and in some cases, arbitrary judgement.
Mark Arpag wrote:
My objections are with the agenda that is promoting poorly designed trees and their acceptance as Art. The Pied Piper is leading the way and encouraging more to accept these trees that "are not supposed to look good or appeal to anyone" as the standard of World Class Bonsai. So now we all can proclaim poorly designed or executed designs as great Art.Mark
I don't think anyone is encouraging the acceptance of trees that do not, in your words, "Look good or appeal to anyone". Neither is the concept of a poorly designed or executed design been applauded. I am with you in much of what you say, I have seen some really bad Bonsai in my time that would not be acceptable as art or even kitch in my book or few others I know of. The purpose of this article was to bring up conversation, and even debate on the concept of something beyond the actual physical presence of the tree and what makes one tree outstanding and another not.
Mark Arpag wrote:
Trying really hard to be different does not infuse Bonsai with soul, it infuses them with ego. Deep evidence of character and age are appealing, quick attempts to achieve an ugly look are shallow and misguided in my opinion.Mark
I think much of the problem we are running into here is the assignment of terms such as ugly, and beautiful. However and honestly I do not know how this can be discussed without coming across these pronouns. As to being different; different is not the same thing as not being repetitive.
I don't think anyone is trying to make an ugly bonsai; at least not in the classical understanding of the word ugly as being head turning horrible, retched and disgusting. As to ego, you my have hit on something that you did not intend. Ego is an expression of the values of the possessor of that trait. If you can infuse "Ego" into a bonsai you have jumped into that other world we are trying to discuss and define. I know that you were refering to the ego of the designer, but even at that how would that be infused into the tree? Interesting concept I would love to discuss, or have discussed.
It has been said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if that is true than the opposite must also be true that ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes ugly and beautiful mean more than physical appearance.
In my time I have known some beautiful women that when you got to know them they became ugly, because of what was inside, their spirit diminished markedly their obvious physical presence and made them less appealing, and the opposite is also true.
I have known some women that the common ways of judging such things would call homely. But the more you got to know them the beauty of their spirit glowed outward making their outward appearance more appealing and even beautiful. I know I am rambling, I will try to sum up this rant.
It would seem that you are objecting to some of the directions this discussion has taken but to be serious, you have offered little of any substance that expresses any thing other than what you feel, not what you think and why you think it is so, or not so.
I respect your oppinion, I just wish to explore it more than on the basis of "I don't like this and I don't like that".