I agree with the article's premise that a bonsai should be carefully designed from all angles, instead of just one, in order to achieve naturalness from all around it.
Many people suggest that there is nothing new here, since a good bonsai needs to have its sides and back carefully designed as well, since it needs depth. But by saying so, they fail to recognize that in the traditional approach, the carefully designed back and side views all have the purpose of serving the front, and they don't necessarily give us a pleasing view from all angles.
I see a merit in the article by giving us the practical side of showing a bonsai, where the viewer will invariably end up in viewing the tree from an angle other than the front. If the artist fails to provide for these alternative views, the main view of the bonsai will be lost amongst the many other "wrong views". A tree with many pleasing views will be much more successful than a one-sided one.
The other virtue of this approach is that it prevents undesirable shortcuts, such as hiding faults and showing trees with deficient branching.
The shortcoming of the multiple view theory is that certain visual effects designed for a certain angle, will be lost. It also takes more skill to make it work.
But, overall, the advantages of this approach can easily outweigh the shortcomings. Even if the artist will not choose to design every tree for multiple viewing angle due to the particulars of the material, or because he simply prefers the single view approach, bonsai in general will be enriched by considering the ideas presented in the article.
|