artofbonsai.org
http://www.artofbonsai.org/forum/

Defining Literati Style
http://www.artofbonsai.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2686
Page 8 of 8

Author:  Enrique Castano [ Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

Quote:
I rather do bonsai and don't care too much how someone wants to classify them.

I like that very much Walter, I think that there are several great bonsai outhere that would fail to be clasified. I think for literati minimalism is as vague and as far as I would go. Must people talk about fellings, visions, dreams etc. uhmmm This is not something that can be explain properly. There is no way people can tell what other peoples dreams, visions, fellings should be. So there is no need to explain things this way. As for poetry, ummm thats a whole different form of art. If you want to define Literati in general to someone over the phone it may simply be a great looking bonsai with a minimum amount of branches. This in fact is vary vage. What is the minimum amount of branches needed? well the tree will dictate that? some need one, others many. Hard to say exactly. Anyway thats my thoughs for this morning.

Author:  Vance Wood [ Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

This is a beautiful tree regardless of what style/form it may be pigeon-holed into. The Literati feel of this tree is dramatized by the movement and caliper of the trunk. If the tree were in leaf the trunk would of course be made less effective visually, and perhaps with it, the "Literati feel" diminished.

If the statement that a Literati is a tree with the least amount of elements/brush strokes that still portrays the form of a tree, this tree could be made to work with less elements than it now has. I can see at least three possibilities where the tree could be reduced and still make a nice bonsai and become more like what we often recognize as Literati. However; far be it from me to tell Walter what to do with one of his trees. As I said earlier it is beautiful (sorry to use that word) the way it is and as long as Walter's goal is to design trees he has succeeded. As to it being Literati, I am not convinced.

Author:  Colin Lewis [ Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

Oh dear, I think I agree with Walter. (Sorry Walter!)

The fact of the matter is that the trees came first, then their representations in bonsai form, and finally some willing aesthete decided to classify the various forms. Because the variation of tree forms is virtually infinite, there are inevitably going to be cross-overs and marginal forms as well as forms that fit into no category at all. The artist creates the bonsai and others decide into which style it fits - if, indeed, it fits any. It seems to be more important for the viewer to be able to categorize bonsai that it is for the artist.

Quote:
So, we are back to a dream, a vision?


Will, I think we have to be there. Literati is arguably the most abstracted of all styles and to describe the style to one who has never seen a literati either in bonsai form, in illustration or in life, requires the audience to employ a considerable degree of imagination and vision. Even then, without visual references, a full comprehension would be all but impossible.

Author:  Richard Patefield [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Classical Bonsai Award at 1st National Bonsai Exhibition

.

Author:  Richard Patefield [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

.

Author:  steve kallio [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

Will Heath wrote:
After a few days of research, I have come to the conclusion that the terms masculinity and femininity, though used often in the context of art, are not really understood at all in that context. Many say that to be feminine, an object must have traits commonly associated with women, but fail to list such traits. Being highly subjective, they are of little use at all in defining literati for us.

The absense of other defining factors to date for Literati leaves us with

Minimalism
Empasis on the trunk


as we have intelligently eliminated femininity as a qualification.



Will


I'm a little late getting into the game here but I'll throw my two cents in. I think Will has been close but what I see is:
Emphasis on minimalism
Emphasis on the foliage
And the one thing that you can see but makes the biggest difference:
Designed by choice not by lack of other options.
The oregon coast is full of great examples of literati and given the chance take a drive along highway 101 and i think it becomes obvious that the literati style was inspired by trees that were shaped not by form but by constant adversity over a long period of time.

Author:  Vance Wood [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

I think this is essentially true. It has been said that the Literati style is not generated by any natural form but made from the imagination. I disagree with this in as much as you can see this form in nature if you look as you have pointed out. It could be said that the Literati is an expression of the naturalistic style.

Author:  Mark Arpag [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

"It could be said that the Literati is an expression of the naturalistic style"
Vance Wood

ONLY if the tree were styled that way! To label all Literati this way makes no sense, unless you are really just promoting an agenda.

Mark

Author:  Vance Wood [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

Please forgive me but your, and it seems rather harsh in tone, post says nothing. Could you please explain or expand a little?

Author:  Mark Arpag [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

1) ONLY if the tree were styled that way!
Interpretation: ONLY if the tree were styled that way! It could be styled as a contemporary, classical, neoclassical etc...
2) To label ALL Literati as "naturalistic style" makes no sense
Interpretation: Since there are so many possible schools of styling, how can you possibly attach the "naturalistic style" logo to all Literati?
You made this connection and I am in disagreement with your idea.
3) Unless you are really just promoting an agenda.
Interpretation: Since there is no support offered for your statement, I can only assume that you are just promoting "naturalistic style".
I enjoy creating Literati Bonsai and I can assure you they are not created in the "naturalistic style".

Author:  Will Heath [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

Here's a thought....


viewtopic.php?f=15&t=199

Author:  Vance Wood [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

Mark Arpag wrote:
1) ONLY if the tree were styled that way!
Interpretation: ONLY if the tree were styled that way! It could be styled as a contemporary, classical, neoclassical etc...
2) To label ALL Literati as "naturalistic style" makes no sense
Interpretation: Since there are so many possible schools of styling, how can you possibly attach the "naturalistic style" logo to all Literati?
You made this connection and I am in disagreement with your idea.
3) Unless you are really just promoting an agenda.
Interpretation: Since there is no support offered for your statement, I can only assume that you are just promoting "naturalistic style".
I enjoy creating Literati Bonsai and I can assure you they are not created in the "naturalistic style".


I suppose I should have been more specific, I only made the observation that the Literati style is not necessarily the product of imagination as most literature has claimed. I was commenting on the observation a previous poster had made seeing similar forms along the highway. Here is where I erred; this does not mean that all Literati are representations of natural, or man made images.

If there is one thing that can be said about the Literati style it is that no one can clearly define or describe it; as to what it is or what it should be more or less seems to be a matter of opinion and conjecture beyond the idea of minimalism and trunk configuration, and even here, there is room for debate.

Please do not try to claim that I am forwarding an agenda. Your tone seems to imply that it may be you that has the agenda. The question that this begs is---who cares? I certianly don't.

Author:  steve kallio [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Defining Literati Style

Mark Arpag wrote:
1) ONLY if the tree were styled that way!
Interpretation: ONLY if the tree were styled that way! It could be styled as a contemporary, classical, neoclassical etc...
2) To label ALL Literati as "naturalistic style" makes no sense
Interpretation: Since there are so many possible schools of styling, how can you possibly attach the "naturalistic style" logo to all Literati?
You made this connection and I am in disagreement with your idea.
3) Unless you are really just promoting an agenda.
Interpretation: Since there is no support offered for your statement, I can only assume that you are just promoting "naturalistic style".
I enjoy creating Literati Bonsai and I can assure you they are not created in the "naturalistic style".


Not sure what got you all worked up here but I've seen some of Vance's trees and I wouldn't say he's a proponent of the "naturalistic" style as you put it. He does well capturing what the TREE has to offer. Usually in a form more in tune with the classic styles. And I hate to break it to you but pretty much all the atyles in bonsai are an idealized version of a natural tree form.

Page 8 of 8 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/