| Welcome |
Welcome to Bonsai Vault .
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today! |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Emil Brannstrom
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 49
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Boondock wrote: |
I think most people know art when they see it. I've been to Art Museums where I've seen "art" that I did not like. But I identified it as "art" even as I shook my head sided to side saying "What the hell was the artist thinking?" |
Thanks for the input, Dave! I don't think it's that big deal to label something art, personally I could care less if Bonsai is/isn't considered art. Anyway, I've been to two memorable (in a bad way) exhibitions. First, Magritte. I mean, if you want to be surreal, please go beyond "a huge apple in a room". The other one was Dalí, showing his later works from like the seventies (mostly prints). Sure, very interesting 50 YEARS AGO!!! I try to be humble like you and not question wether it's art or not, but I DO question wether I like it or not.
| Boondock wrote: |
Emil is attempting to teach you to identify art. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Well, not really. I try to seperate the "mechanical" or "analytical" approach from art. This article is meant to provide tools to design trees, but doesn't assure art even if done to perfection. It's like you said, these principles can apply to a number of different fields and they're not all considered art. Using the golden section doesn't make something art, but it (might) make a better composition. See what I mean?
Last edited by Emil Brannstrom on Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Boondock
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
i like it... i don't like it
art...
you picked a subject that is hard to define and write about.
But i learned from you
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brett S
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 91
Location: Australia NSW Parkes
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have read a few articles on this subject and I agree with Emil that he has approached it in a different way than other articles.
Only someone who clearly understands this subject could have explained it so simply and completly.
Although I had some understanding of this subject I never would have been able to explain it to myself. It has layed the foundation for a complete understanding of these issues.
This article has already helped me and I believe it will give me a foot up in more complex discussions.
I think it will be an interesting chalenge to find a tree that disproves Emil's notion that we can't even bend the rules?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bonsapien
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 19
Location: Seaville, Nj
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 IMVHO Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
_________________
Tom Kruegl
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brett S
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 91
Location: Australia NSW Parkes
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
IMVHO Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
Yes but as the beauty improves more would like to be the beholder.
Trees of astounding beauty have been shown to break the rules if not bend them so how does that relate to Emil's approach that the rules should not even be bent?
Is Emil talking about only the rules he mentions or all of the rules of perspective that we use.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emil Brannstrom
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 49
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brett S wrote: |
| Quote: |
IMVHO Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
Yes but as the beauty improves more would like to be the beholder.
Trees of astounding beauty have been shown to break the rules if not bend them so how does that relate to Emil's approach that the rules should not even be bent?
Is Emil talking about only the rules he mentions or all of the rules of perspective that we use. |
Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is also a product of sociocultural agreements wich basically mean that the beholder also constitutes beauty. Now if beauty is a product of an agreement between a group of people, one should also be able to learn what makes things beautiful and therefore it should also be possible to learn how to make things beautiful. In this article I'm not necessarily talking about beauty (because beauty is also political, economical etc, not only a matter of esthetics. It's also a mean of social stratification i.e. "taste" but lets not make this a sociological issue). I'm talking how to make things "work", how to make things seem like a unity that expresses some kind of harmony and pleases the eye in that sense. That means things can be ugly, but still "work". Theoretically, it can even be the "uglyness" that makes it work.
That should also explain where I stand when it comes to bending the rules. I've said so elsewhere, if let's say the perspective is "wrong" (as in exaggerated) in order to create depth (lets say a certain composition depended on its depth) then there would not have been any rules bent because the goal is to create a working composition. However, if you were to bend every single branch on a formal upright in order to create a perfect silouhette IMO that would be breaking the rules. Now the point here is not that it's bad solely because it breaks "The Rules", it's bad because there wouldn't be any unity between the different elements and also it would be hard to believe that a tree with such a straight trunk went through such amount of hardship wich caused the branches to bend. Another way to break the rules IMO is the example I used with literati and seedlings. A branch on the inside of a curve might break "The Rules", but it doesn't break the rules
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brett S
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 91
Location: Australia NSW Parkes
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm
I think a literati is a bad example about rules and a formal upright is a bad example of being able to bend the rules
But anyway
I now take it that you are saying that if a rule states that you can't have a branch on the inside of a curve and you do that. Then you are only Bending/Breaking the rule if it does not look right.
In otherwords if it looks right then no rules could have been broken.
It seems you are stating that only when it doesn't look right have rules been broken?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emil Brannstrom
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 49
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brett S wrote: |
Hmm
I think a literati is a bad example about rules and a formal upright is a bad example of being able to bend the rules |
Please elaborate!
| Brett S wrote: |
But anyway
I now take it that you are saying that if a rule states that you can't have a branch on the inside of a curve and you do that. Then you are only Bending/Breaking the rule if it does not look right.
In otherwords if it looks right then no rules could have been broken.
It seems you are stating that only when it doesn't look right have rules been broken? |
Yup, pretty much! The only thing that means something is to make the tree look good, and if that requires a branch in the inside of a curve that would only break that Rule, but not (necessarily) the artistic principle about visual weight and balance. As you can see I make a difference between The Rules (The Bonsai stylistic conventions) and the rules (esthetic principles) even though The Rules derive from artistic principles. To me, The Rules are constraints while I regard the esthetic priciples more like options since there's usually several different ways to solve a design problem.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick moquin
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 49
Location: Dartmouth, NS
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brett S wrote: |
But anyway
I now take it that you are saying that if a rule states that you can't have a branch on the inside of a curve and you do that. Then you are only Bending/Breaking the rule if it does not look right.
In otherwords if it looks right then no rules could have been broken.
It seems you are stating that only when it doesn't look right have rules been broken? |
Robert Steven explains in this article
_________________
Bonsai is the journey, not the destination
BonsaiWonders
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AndyWilson
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Very well written Emil, looking forward to part two.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
Home
