What kind of trees are these?

Started by TheBadger, September 16, 2014, 02:08:46 am

Previous topic - Next topic

choronr

Michael, you can replant the bonsai tree into the ground letting it grow larger; however, much judicious pruning and possible wiring will be needed over the years to maintain the shape.

TheBadger

September 21, 2014, 09:04:00 pm #16 Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 09:06:17 pm by TheBadger
Thanks. Yeah, it does not sound very practical.
But some bonsai are hundreds of years old and worth tens of thousands of dollars, and even much more. And you can buy full size trees too, also very costly. But a lot of that is in transplanting and moving.

Still, imagine a public space with a giant bowl like you used in your image on the last page. surrounded by a nice walkway. And in that bowl a set, or single tree, like the ones we see in bonsai. Only at full size... Would make a great earthworks art work! I imagine this must have been done someplace by someone already.

And then there is the idea of tree farming for landscapes. there is a lot someone with the right skill set could do with all of that to make both money and art. And also make lots of people happy.

Something like the OP link, but at real size in the middle of a city. Would be a really great park to visit!
It has been eaten.

PabloMack

September 22, 2014, 04:12:11 pm #17 Last Edit: September 22, 2014, 07:09:37 pm by PabloMack
Quote from: TheBadger on September 19, 2014, 02:37:49 pmSo the wilderness is a garden that has lost its meaning and purpose, but so has the garden...In classic art, the wilderness is the ruin of the garden.


I was following you until we got here. I was expecting you to write "A garden is a fabrication with a human purpose that imitates wilderness but lacks its substance. It is artificial." That I would totally agree with. I can see that many gardens have the purpose of pleasing the ones who create them or for whom they were created. But the purpose of wilderness is deeper and beyond the scope and understanding of humans. It was the birthplace of all of life. You and I do have very different perspectives. If there ever was a real "Garden of Eden" I believe that its beauty was just incidental "in the eyes of the beholder". Its *purpose* was not to be pleasing to the eye but as a place to feed them and provide a safe haven to keep Adam and Eve from being eaten by sabor-toothed cats and the like. The traditional belief that animals didn't become carnivorous (among other natural features of wild things) until after (and because of) the sin of man is complete bull-hockey. I think the reference to "garden" in Genesis really doesn't mean a thing of beauty but was a place where things were grown to meet the needs of humans in the sense of a "vegetable garden". The primitives may have believed or wanted to believe that "the garden" came first and a wilderness only came from neglect of maintaining that garden. But modern man has been discovering and now understands that this belief was backwards. Science has shown that the wilderness came first by hundreds of millions of years and that gardens are only recent man-made things to grow the food he needs or to try and bring the feeling of wilderness close to him in his urban concrete (or otherwise sterile) home environment.

TheBadger

September 22, 2014, 07:15:48 pm #18 Last Edit: September 22, 2014, 07:33:09 pm by TheBadger
If we are going to apply modern thinking to ancient art, we will never understand the art, be it from western history or the far east.
And I'm not saying I know much about the ancient Chinese.

But come on man! Are you really saying that Christians/Jews/Israelites (as represented by their art) believed that Eden was,
QuoteA garden...with a human purpose that imitates wilderness but lacks its substance
. That's just willfully absurd.

And what is the "substance" of the wilderness? What separates a garden from the wilderness? DEATH! In all of human history as represented by Art, the wilderness is death. And in fact, *All* of practical human history has been the effort to escape the wilderness. In all of human history nothing kills people more then nature, not war, not politics not religion. But you don't understand the connection between the garden and hope/faith/world-religions? You don't even have to study to see, just look. This is entirely the point of the Eden story.

The wilderness is death in western art, my hypothesis is that it is the same in ancient far eastern art in some way.

I promise you that if you search through the Art at the time Penjing was sort of new in China, and also the dominant religions of the time, there will be formal connections. And I am willing to bet that Penjing was a religious meditation on some idea of the natural world and some notion (or religious ideal) of some form of "Paradise", by whatever words they used to describe these things.

One last thought about Eden in relation to Penjing or even Bonsai. In the case of Eden, Eden was not destroyed after the fall. Rather two guards were placed at its gates. Suggesting that a future return to *paradise* would be possible. I find it remarkable that after Marco Polo, we do not find some form of Penjing practiced in old world European monasteries and other religious institutions, or in palaces of the "Christian" kings as we do formal gardens. But by some other name.

I am trying to find something that I can reasonably connect in European formal gardening, to China, via Marco Polo. Some sort of influence.
But I suspect that I will find some complaint about the focus on appearance over content as in the contemporary argument of aesthetics and beauty (the "religion" of the east would have had to be removed, leaving only the shell). Or some cultural race based impasse.
More likely if there is any influence, it will have been dissolved in some melting pot.

Off topic... I would like to see a reality show where people who love the wilderness but don't know anything about it have to go live in one for a year with nothing. I am sure the ratings will be gold when the first of these morons is eaten by a bear or dies from hypothermia or starvation. I have heard that bubonic plague can be found in armadillos in the south west... The wilderness is death and it wants to eat you, that is its only purpose. The garden is life. And that is the root of everything. :P
It has been eaten.

PabloMack

September 22, 2014, 07:58:52 pm #19 Last Edit: September 23, 2014, 07:59:11 am by PabloMack
Quote from: TheBadger on September 22, 2014, 07:15:48 pmAre you really saying that Christians/Jews/Israelites ... believed that Eden was,
QuoteA garden...with a human purpose that imitates wilderness but lacks its substance
. That's just willfully absurd.
No. I'm not saying that's what they believed. They were also primitives (the authors of the Bible included). I am saying that they didn't understand what the garden really was. They idealized it in the way you describe the Chinese also idealizing it. I was agreeing with you on that point (that the primitives idealized "gardens"). My point was that their ideals almost certainly did not match reality. I gave you my personal beliefs to contrast with those you describe as being the beliefs of ancient people who did not have the perspective of modern science.

Quote from: TheBadger on September 22, 2014, 07:15:48 pmAnd what is the "substance" of the wilderness? What separates a garden from the wilderness? DEATH! In all of human history as represented by Art, the wilderness is death. And in fact, *All* of practical human history has been the effort to escape the wilderness. In all of human history nothing kills people more then nature, not war, not politics not religion. But you don't understand the connection between the garden and hope/faith/world-religions? You don't even have to study to see, just look. This is entirely the point of the Eden story.
You are correct in that almost the whole of human history is that written by the primitives through their primitive (and often lack of) understanding. Much of the reality that science is uncovering in modern times they didn't understand like we do today. They thought of everything in terms of meeting their own animal needs and desires. They didn't have the mind of God because their thoughts were clouded by human need (and human frailty as you have pointed out so well). So, as you describe, few even understood what "wilderness" is. Wilderness does not have to be watered. It does not have to be pruned or maintained by human effort. It grew and evolved on its own without human intervention. That is the "substance" that gardens lack. Beauty gardens are just fa├žades to please humans. They have no real life of their own. Their "life" is in the minds of the people who enjoy them. Lacking human observation and other "uses", they have no purpose. But wilderness does have purpose even in the absence of humanity. Did you really miss those parts of the Bible where it says that the masses of humanity don't understand reality because they don't have the mind of God? That's one of the Bible's most important lessons.

TheBadger

It has been eaten.

PabloMack

September 23, 2014, 07:55:38 am #21 Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 09:23:55 am by PabloMack
Quote from: TheBadger on September 22, 2014, 09:08:45 pmlol


If I had delivered my above narrative to one of the many dozens of scientists and engineers I know or have met, any one of them would have yawned and said to me "Tell me something I don't already know". I guess we all have a strong tendency to associate with people who think like we do, not only for company but to help reinforce the beliefs we have chosen. LOL indeed!

Badger, you didn't send Archonforest your picture for the Map Project. I'd like to see what you look like. :)