Friends,

Finally, a topic in which i feel i can contribute. I have a lack of
experience in the world of bonsai, admittedly. However, although
experience relates to knowledge, it is not prerequisite. Or perhaps it is,
but then may one say that hour upon hour of absorbing information is not
experience? Different maybe than 45 years of growing bonsai, true, but we
do not speak of who can cultivate the best bonsai in this case, rather is
that, or is that not, "art."

Several things have prompted me to write. There are people stepping on the
toes of others, where there feet may need more guidance. This is, of
course, only my opinion, however I am both knowledgeable and experienced
in art. One is not a necessity or precursor to the other and should not be
confused. I am a sculptor, a printmaker, a painter and a draftsman.
"Classically trained" is completely superfluous, arbitrary, and and
therefore meaningless.

The idea of "classical art," i contend, is a falsehood. This is based
solely on the relative and subjective nature of art, and it's
interpretation. Objective determinations, such as "this is art" and "this
is not" cannot then truly exsist. Personally, i believe that there is no
such thing as a true objectivity, but you can personally email me for a
debate on that, i'd love to entertain mentally stimulating conversation.

"How can the classics be subjective and relative? I thought they were
classics?"

How did you come to the conclusion they were classics? If you feel they
are, then maybe they are. However many people never stop to consider this
fact. Do you feel that way because you've read in a book that they are?
most likely yes. how do i know this? how many people have been to see the
mona lisa in person, without prior knowledge of it's exsistence, then came
to the determination that, of all works of art created, for the mona
lisa's intent, agenda, process and execution, among all others, it is or
should be therefore deemed, a classic? My guess, not many. Therefore that
leaves most people to fall under the category of those of us who believe
that because we are told something it is true, we accept it as such. does
this mean that it really is? no, not neccesarily. who is to say? art is
too subjective and relative to exsist as such.

"so then who is right? how do we know who to believe? are there then no
classics?"

addressing those questions actually isn't fruitful. if you would like me
to address them, email me personally, and again, i would be happy to. i
feel the real question people should be asking, is never asked "What do i
think, and does what other people say matter to me enough to forsake my
own independent thought, and its value or worth?" Not enough people ask
this question. I believe herein lies the problem. People read things and
believe them. they think that because a man has a phd in say, art history,
his opinion matters more. does it? because one man says that something is
a classic, is it? or maybe more people are needed? 10? 100? 1,000? The
Nazi's (used only as an example, i hope we can steer clear of debate about
WWII) all got together. many millions saying the same thing? were they
right? My opinion is that they were not. I therefore ask, who is to say
who's opinion is right or wrong?

"then what is there left to discuss?"

Well, the interpretation of what is and is not art is still left
specifically unaddressed, so i will now, based upon things i have
mentioned, attempt to address it. The short answer is "no one is right, no
one is wrong." Spineless? if you think so, so be it. I'm convinced that it
is the product of years of thought and experience, and a truly open mind.
if that's spineless, or perhaps non-confrontational to you, there's not
much i can say that i have not already, and i'm sorry.

for the rest of us who think that art is truly subjective and relative,
how do we deal with these questions? well, as these questions look for
objectivity where i maintain none is to be found, i propose then that they
are as such futile to ask. art therefore becomes a personal thing of
opinion. where then do i propose this debate go?

If i have picked up a paintbrush for the first time, and i am 6, is the
scribble work i create not art? to who? i certainly would feel it is. i'm
6. yes, i lack experience, knowledge, and skill, but does that mean this
is any less valuable to me? in my world and reality, who's opinion
matters? why do we lose sight of this as we grow older? perhaps that's a
little bit of a stretch. a better example: I have been watercolor painting
for 15 years. my landscapes will never be "museum worthy" or "gallery
worthy," does it therefore have less meaning to me? is it of less worth or
value? i would say not. what is this discussion about then? about the
worth of something, about something's value. drawing perhaps a general
destinction between types of art would be the most fruitful thing for this
debate to discuss. I draw art into 2 general categories. i say general,
because there cannot be any clear definitions in art i feel, and as such,
i only make general ones for the sake of an attempt at clarification of
thought.

The first category is "low art." i'm sure many of you understand this
concept at least partially, but let me clarify one or two things for the
sake of being thorough. My designations do not, as i will shortly explain,
determine worth. I would loosely group artworks that do not or will never
enter an exhibition of any kind (gallery, museum, whatever). these would
include people who create art as a "hobby" perhaps, non-proffessionals,
and the like. again, this does not mean it is worth any less than "high
art." for a better application to this argument, this would include
part-time hobby bonsaiists. people who do bonsai for fun, or are serious,
but would not be generally considered masters. this does not mean it is
worth any less than a master's work. what price or value would you put on
your first succesful jin? What is that first successful jin worth, with
all that you learned, and the feeling you get when you do something right
after so many failed attempts?

"high art" is the other grouping i would loosely make. this includes all
proffessional artists, whose work is produced as a means of income, or for
the purpose of appearing in an exhibition, gallery, museum or otherwise.
also a love for making art and creativity, etc. is included but becomes
one of many primary goals beyond "low art" though not neccesarily
disparate. is this worth more because a general audience say it is? i have
made works that many have not deemed "successful," but personally
speaking, with an understanding of the worth of what i have accomplished,
i would not trade that work or its experience for a so-called "classic"
that i would have perhaps not gotten anything out of. i feel then that no
one, save the beholder or the artist decide for themselves what they deem
to be the "wort" of something, with the understanding that it does not and
can never actually describe that thing's true worth.

this is where i feel the debate goes astray. people are having difficulty
drawing a distinction between low and high art, and whether or not these
distinctions therefore attatch work. this is another area where people
step on toes. a "master" displays his tree. he feels it is beautiful, and
a masterful creation, a display of his experience and skill. I think it's
an ugly tree. who is truly right? his skill is better than mine, his
experience is unmatched, etc. etc. it may technically be a better tree
than anything i could ever hope to accomplish, but because he says it is
beautiful, and others agree, does that make it so? does this then
determine it's worth? you display an "ugly" tree. you successfully create
a jin. everyone else says it's ugly. is it ugly to you? what worth do you
assign to that tree, and what it means? what does the worth that other
people assign to your work mean to you?

i feel that's what is at the heart of this debate. people mix and mash
terms when they should perhaps use them more delicately. what is and what
is art should be left to the individual. what is a good bonsai and what is
not a good bonsai should be left to the individual. none are better than
others.

Please keep in mind that these are my opinions and do not reflect those of
other "artists," "bonsaiists," or anything else that i may be grouped as.
People mistakenly neglect to add a disclaimer and now i have as a member
of a group they also fit in, have been cast in a manner other than what is
the actual case. please take my opinions, and everyone else's with a grain
of salt.

please feel free to contact me personally if you would like to continue to
debate specific topics. i hope that i may have in some way helped to
maintain the debate/discussion, and perhaps add to it.

Keep an open mind.

Justin Diaz

"Youth is Wasted on the Young."
Richmond, VA by way of Allentown, PA

************************************************** ******************************
++++Sponsored, in part, by Lisa Kanis++++
************************************************** ******************************
-- The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ --
+++++ Questions? Help? e-mail +++++