by George Buehler

Over Memorial Day I attended the Brussel's Rendezvous. This is a three day event with 22 workshops that were conducted by a variety of bonsai masters. What I found interesting was the way these master conducted their workshops. I tried to listen in on the introduction of the workshops and then watch how the seven masters handled the styling of the trees with each student. I have found over the years that workshop students can pick up a number of 'tricks' from any instructor, and it is therefore beneficial to take workshops. There were four masters from the USA and three from Europe. I will not mention the names of the masters, since I don't want to cloud the readers' opinion of them.

The first thing you must always keep in mind is that you paid for attending the workshop, and the tree will probably be in your collection for many years. The workshop may have cost you a small amount or it could be in the hundreds of dollars. Therefore, you should be satisfied with the tree when the class is over.

What I saw during this weekend was that, in general, these masters gave a fairly good general explanation of what the workshop outcome would be (or was supposed to be). This part is important, especially for those students who haven't had experience with the particular type of tree used in the workshop. Of course, we all know that the general design parameter for an azalea is not the same as for a trident maple. By that, I mean an azalea is not pruned in the same fashion as the trident, not that the overall concept of style (informal upright, etc) is different.

Several of the masters gave a rather brief explanation of the concepts, while others gave a very detailed explanation. Those that gave the more detailed explanation seemed to end up with better student end products than those that were brief. This is a rather subjective statement since I didn't know the expertise of the students, and I realize the end product of a trident will look drastically different than what a boxwood would look like. Also my concept of what a workshop end product should look like may not be the same as others.

When I came up with this theory that more explanations leads to better results, I went to that particular masters' next class to determine if this idea continued to hold true. Each of these masters gave several workshops using different species, so I thought the 'more explanations theory' would at least point in the same direction. Again, my conclusion was the same – the master who gave the more complete explanation ended up with the better end product.

I think that these more complete introductions allowed the students to start with a better idea of what needed to be done on their trees. And of course workshops are supposed to be learning experiences.

The next thing I noticed in observing these workshops was how each master handled the individual instructions for each student. Generally, the first round of individual instructions is determining the front of the students' tree and some quick instructions like cleaning up suckers, or stripping leaves off a tree, or a quick critique of the students' tree and what needed to be done. Once again, some of the masters were better at this stage than others. Some people are just better at explaining things than others – this is just human nature. My wife tells me all the time that I just don't explain adequately what I want her to do when she is helping me with something (sigh!). Anyway, on the first round, the instructor has to quickly move through each student to get them started. So to give the master the benefit of doubt, maybe the requirement to move through all the students quickly caused some of them to not be completely clear. I must also say that I was not able to hear every word the master said to each student, so I need to be careful in my conclusions. An additional problem with several of these masters was the language barrier. Although they all spoke English, some were better than others.

What I found most questionable was the way some of the masters handled the tree styling on subsequent rounds. Some would tell the student what they thought needed to be done and gave reasons for their thoughts. Others would ask the student what he thought needed to be done and, after hearing what the student had to say, would either agree or ask why the student came to that conclusion and they would discuss the situation. Then there were others who would simply look at the tree and proceed to get out their tools and start cutting as the student looked on. Some would point out a problem and then ask the student if it was OK to make the cut. It appeared that each master had his own way of approaching the tree styling.

I must point out that these trees were not starter trees. They had trunks a minimum of one inch up to three to four inches. In time they would make very nice specimens that the student could be very proud of. If I had spent several hundred dollars on a tree and the master came in and started cutting away, I would have been very upset to say the least. I know that the master got to his stature by studying and working on various trees and that his experience is much more than mine. However, I would be the one taking the tree home and I would have to live with it. I also know how I like to see a tree - rightly or wrongly. If a master comes in and arbitrarily starts cutting on a tree, what does the student learn as he is styling another tree at home? I would suggest if someone wanted to go the route of observing a master do all the styling, it might be better to simply hire the master to come in and have him work on the collection. What the student ends up with is a tree that has the design signature of a particular master, not his own signature style.

I made it a point to note the particular instructor that arbitrarily started cutting and I will not take a workshop under him. I just don't believe this is the way to learn. I also made a note that perhaps the times I saw this was with students who were complete novices, and perhaps the instructor thought this was the fairest way for the other students in the class. However, I did notice that this type 'instruction' occurred with more than one student, and I would assume that not all the students were novices.

I only took one workshop and I was lucky that the master I had was one who asked mt opinions, then explained why he thought I was right or wrong and left me to make the cuts. Using this method would seem to take more of the master's time for each student; however, I believe he came to each students station just as many times as the ones who simply looked at the students' tree and started cutting.

I would propose that masters need to realize that a workshop is supposed to be a learning experience, not only for the student but for the master also. Every tree is different, with good and bad points. The master is supposed to point out the good points and help the student make the necessary corrections to minimize the bad points.

In the event that you get a master who wants to take over the styling of the tree, remember, it's your tree, and you have to live with it. There is nothing wrong with asking the master to explain the qualities of the tree and then telling him you will make the styling changes you deem necessary based on his recommendations. It's your money - end up with a tree that you will be happy with.