Well, I have to throw my thoughts in on this thread.

First, as far as 'art' or 'artist'. Some people use a very broad brush
when defining the words, some use a very tiny brush. I myself use a fairly
small brush. Some things that I just don't understand are called 'art' (the
exhibit of road kill in a northwestern usa art gallery or the explicit
homosexual photo exhibit that caused such a fuss in the states a few years
ago comes to mind).

I personally, with my small brush, think that there are some very good
artists in bonsai (insert name of your favorite Master here). Mostly,
though, I think we are artisans and craftsmen (and craftswomen) and
enthusiasts. The artisans etc. at their best, can create a good bonsai. The
artist can take that same bonsai and bring it to the great and excellent
level. The debate about what is art and what's not will never end because it
is such a subjective thing.

As a side note, I also think the definition of the word bonsai is painted
with different size brushes. I've heard people say "It's a nice tree in a
pot (big brush), but it's not a 'bonsai' (tiny brush)". I call my trees
'bonsai', but I use a Real Big Brush

This thread started with the topic 'collector or artist'
Again, with the word 'collector' we have different size brushes. I think
everyone who does bonsai is a collector (I think of my trees a collection),
but It seems the context of the word in this thread is aimed at people who
purchase finished 'great' bonsai and either maintain them themselves or pay
someone to do the job. I see nothing wrong with being that sort of
collector.

I think though, that if there is any animosity at all toward this kind of
collector, it's because some (Not all. This is probably one of those areas
where a few give the rest a bad name) of these folks try to take credit for
the great bonsai as if they were responsible for it's design and creation
and greatness, when in reality they are only the owner or 'maintenance man'
Collectors in other areas have pride in owning their collection but their
pride comes from the association (of the collection) with the person who
created the thing(s) in the first place.
You don't see collectors displaying something by a complete unknown as the
centerpiece of their collection. It's the provenance of a piece that gives
it value to honest collectors, not the fact that they own it.
You don't see people scraping Van Goghs signature off a painting and putting
their own in its place or prying the emblem off their rare Rolls Royce and
affixing their own emblem or buying a Gucci handbag and rebranding it.
Someone made a comparison to horse racing. Yes, the owner gets praise and
congratulations for owning the winning horse, but the trainer gets the
credit and as much publicity (if not more) for creating the winning horse.

So, folks, let's continue this debate. Try to do one thing though. If you
haven't got a reasonable argument on a subject, don't resort to calling
things 'stupid' or someone a 'idiot' or ridiculing someone's viewpoint.
Doing that just reduces your credibility.

The above are just my own personal opinions. Others have and are welcome to
their different views. Thank goodness we are not all the same! What a boring
world it would be.

Jay Wilson