# AGA International Aquascaping Contest 2006 - Results



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

The announcement of the 7th International Aquascaping Contest by AGA has been released: http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2006.cgi

Have your tanks ready, the deadline for entry is September 15th. Last year there were 122 tanks from 26 countries.

Good luck to both contestants and the organizers.


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

Today we are expecting AGA to reveal the results. :mod:


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

I been clicking into the page all day long to see the new photos and see the winners - im like a little kid looking at the paper of a wery large present expecting it to come off any second.

Come ooooon i cant wait any longer ! :frusty:


----------



## commandantp (Jan 16, 2005)

results are at 8'00pm local ....


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

AGA's 2006 convention is still going on in San Fransisco today and the winners' announcement was scheduled to 8:00pm. I think the results will be revelaed at 8 or later in the website.
:clock:


----------



## Moody (Sep 14, 2006)

I cant wait to see how ive done, ive got to wait until tomorrow morning, im in the UK so im a head of you lot.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

well - im in denmark so im one hour ahead of you 

And good luck Moody.


----------



## kirua 666 (Nov 8, 2006)

I want to see the results !


----------



## Kookaburra (May 11, 2006)

kirua 666 said:


> I want to see the results !


Me too :faint2:


----------



## vafd (Apr 20, 2005)

The most sad part is the following statement:

_Winners will be announced simultaneously on this website and at the AGA's 2006 Convention November 11th._

Common, USA, San Francisco, Sheraton hotel, 21-st century, wi-fi, laptops and smart phones... At least update the statement to look better.

Regards.

Vladimir.


----------



## jassar (Jul 30, 2006)

mmmmmmmm can't wait to see the results!


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

Human factor is above all the technological advances and don't forget that AGA people are doing this as a hobby, just like us.


----------



## vafd (Apr 20, 2005)

Faruk,

I definitely can wait. But it is not like they conduct the competition for the first time. Hobby or not you want to deliver whatever you claim to.

And I do deeply respect their effort and am grateful for it.

Regards.

Vladimir.


----------



## Alex Ribeiro (Nov 25, 2004)

What's AGA Covention GMT? Pls.


----------



## vafd (Apr 20, 2005)

Alex Ribeiro said:


> What's AGA Covention GMT? Pls.


Standard Time -0800 UTC

Regards.

Vladimir.


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

I jsut got home from a ~7hr drive ...absolutely exhausted. Good times...good time. Already excited about the next one


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

Welcome Tony. How was the Iron Aquascaper Contest?


----------



## gnatster (Mar 6, 2004)

I believe I heard there were some technical difficulties in posting the results online from the site. The staff of the AGA was also quite busy in running the convention and subsequent auction. it may take until the webmaster gets back home for the results to be posted.


----------



## sarahbobarah (Sep 5, 2005)

I find it ironic that the AGAcon was held in Silicon Valley this year, and the results are stymied by technical difficulties.... LOL... Tony, it was very nice meeting you. Thanks for the towels.


----------



## gnatster (Mar 6, 2004)

sarahbobarah said:


> I find it ironic that the AGAcon was held in Silicon Valley this year, and the results are stymied by technical difficulties.... LOL...


You were at that hotel, look at how stymied other things things were due to mediocrity of the location.


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

The server is quite fast at the moment. Be quick!



Erik Olson in AGA Forum said:


> It's late... mere hours ago we closed down the auction, and I *just* got around to flipping the switch on the contest results so that they may be viewed. Enjoy! Now I'm going to sleep.
> - Erik
> http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

I'm sad-- I feel like I'm the only one who likes "Walking Aoyama" more than "Summer Dance" . . . Aoyama's probably my fav in the small categroy.


----------



## xcooperx (Jun 24, 2006)

all the tanks are beautiful, specially the "Summer Dance", okay i think i need a rescape, lol  I see a lots of Idea again


----------



## Moody (Sep 14, 2006)

No rosets for me, ( number 68 small catergory ) oh well its just nice to see it up there.
Some loverly scapes though.


----------



## vafd (Apr 20, 2005)

Congratulations to all winners!

There are lots of really nice aquascapes in this year contest.

One question to organizers.
Will judge's comments become available for all tanks as it used to be in previous years?

Regards.

Vladimir.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Congrats FAAO and GoHan (Justin Law)!


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

Yeah, this year's AGA was pretty sweet . . . I think small tank section was incredible especially.


----------



## GoHan (Aug 14, 2004)

woo.......I just back from my long vocation and the result of AGA was announced!! 
Congrat. to all winners!
Also, thanks for all friends here who love my works!!


----------



## GoHan (Aug 14, 2004)

The comments are shown on now!


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

My calculations about the contest:

-----------------#of tanks 
Aquatic garden 
Small ------------29 
Medium ----------43 
Large ------------26 
X-large-----------14 
Bitotope ---------- 5 
Paludarium--------3 
TOTAL------------*120 tanks from 23 + 1(Hong Kong) countries*

----------------------#of tanks 
Spain------------------- 3 
England-----------------1 
Croatia -----------------1 
Taiwan -----------------4 
USA --------------------32 
China + Hong Kong----- 16+ 16=32 
Czech Republic--------1 
Turkey ----------------4 
Portugal ---------------2 
Bulgaria ---------------3 
Canada ----------------3 
Australia ---------------1 
Brasil ------------------4 
France------------------6 
Poland -----------------7 
Germany --------------5 
Italy -------------------2 
Indonesia -------------1 
Romania --------------1 
Mexico-----------------2 
Greece ----------------2 
Netherlands ----------2 
Finland ----------------1

-------------------------*# of Prizes* 
Hong Kong 4 + China 3-------7 
USA------------------------ 4 
Germany --------------------2 
Poland ----------------------2 
Portugal --------------------2 
Bulgaria ---------------------1 
Finland ----------------------1 
Italy------------------------ 1 
Netherlands----------------- 1

year----#of tanks--------- #of countries 
2005 ----122-----------------26 
2006 ----120-----------------23 + 1


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

After reviewing both ADA and AGA winners I am thinking that the field also needs a no-CO2/Carbon category as we did in APC contest in 2005. 

What do you think about the lowtech/hightech ratio among the AGA winners?


----------



## Craig Tarvin (Jul 26, 2005)

Faruk Gençöz said:


> After reviewing both ADA and AGA winners I am thinking that the field also needs a no-CO2/Carbon category as we did in APC contest in 2005.
> 
> What do you think about the lowtech/hightech ratio among the AGA winners?


I agree that a non-CO2 category would be cool, but then again... how can you be sure that it wasn't used? I know that it would be obvious most of the time, but there would be times it could be questionable.

The biotope category doesn't make much sense to me, since most of the plants we use grow emersed, and we don't really use 1:1 scale. There are about 3 plants between all of the '06 biotope tanks.

Personally, I think that a marine planted tank category makes more sense than biotope, but I know that the AGA is anti-marine.


----------



## Craig Tarvin (Jul 26, 2005)

Was there a limit on how many tanks each contestant could enter?


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

3 I believe


----------



## KRajten (Oct 23, 2005)

hi, my tank was in the small cathegory, n0 88 , the third smallest. I think it would be fair that there is a nano cathegory, because it's very hard to do something spectacular with very little aquarium like mine. On the other hand 70 or 50 liter aquarium is much easier to setup, maintain, and design.

and i must say that large and extra large cathegory is not necessery...Well that's only my opinion...
I must congradulate all the contestors, bucause there was really spectacular aquariums....


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

IMO, these contests should be less about making categories, and more about seeing how people make beautiful aquaria. 

Anything goes. If a nano-sized tank can't compete with a 60L, that just means that the nano size isn't as fit for reaching the highest level of aquascaping. Same with CO2. If your walsted el natural can't compete with Nutzed-up-ADA-everything set up, too bad. There are lots of great tanks that didn't win-- they can't all win. The contest does show people what lots of people are doing, and then acknowledging those the judges think have made the most excellent aquascapes. That's the way it should be in my book.

That said, if someone makes a nano size that's better than the 60L or uses a non-CO2 technique to accomplish a special, beautiful tank that doesn't need a large plant mass, that's fair game too. In other words, I don't think the contest should be "The best in this particular method" so much as "The best in whatever method they used."

Not saying that minimal categorizing is bad but, in general it's better IMO if there is less of it.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

Well said!


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

I think that the categorization reflects the vision of the organizer institution. If there have been less people and less attractive tanks participating in paludarium and biotope categories, on the other hand if AGA still keeps them, that clearly shows the AGA's persistant vision about the aquarium keeping. I believe this type of policy is more valuable than the populist strategies and more suitable to an offical association. If there is only one category and nearly 1000 participations, scientifically I never think that the discrimination among the participants can be effectively done. 

Think about a short-range running contest in which some of the participants are world's best long-range runners. All of the participants are runners but long rage ones will not have a chance to get a degree. Besides, short-range ones have well developed muscles, younger and they look very impressive. In this case should we forget older, skinny, long range runners? Should they adapt themselves to the popular categories and forget marathon?


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

I agree that including noCO2 category into the AGA categories would not be good because too much categories are as bad as only one category. 

Therefore I suggest another contest specialized on nonCO2 tanks but I also agree with the idea that it is not so easy to be sure that CO2 was not used.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

I definiely agree that giving ranks to 1000 entries is probably unrealistic, and this is relfected in the questionable ranking orders of the mid and lower ranked ranges of the ADA. I'll see tanks (a handful, not too many) in the 400's that are probably better than some in the 200's or even 100's.

AGA has bipassed this by just ranking the top 3.


Can't . . . really agree with the running analogy . . . at least in the application of CO2 v. non

Marathons and dash-races are different in their purpose-- they're different sports judging completely different things. Speed might be involved in both, but one is really a sport of endurance, and the other a sport about power. They're meant to show different things.

Likewise, I can see how that by a similar logic, biotopes and paludariums could be considered different. Biotopes are meant to show the capture of true nature (because humans appreciate the true nature too), with some lay-out manipulations to please aesthetics. Paludariums, unlike fully submerged aquascapes, show the break between water and land (which is something not really doable in aquascapes except at a representational level). However, what I think makes paludariums unique, is doing so almost completely locks them into 1 to 1 representation-- no "HC + Rocks = Mountain." And they're almost completely limited to moist jungles where the water breaks. Considering this, I can see how these are different in what they are trying to show, just like Marathons show endurance and Sprints show Power.

But CO2 v. non? Either way, it's a question of what you have in your water-filled box. How beautiful is the creation inside the aquarium. A viewer of a biotope or a paludarium can see or easily be told the difference between them and a full-blown aquascape, and how their goals are different. But CO2 v. non?

In my opinion, the visual product is the same-- what's the aesthetic effect of the garden you've designed in the aquarium?

Now let's assume for a second, that non-CO2 is the more limited and less-effective route (I'm not saying that's true, just follow my logic here for a sec). Let's also assume that it's the easier to do and maintain method (probably true for "El Natural").

If one would parallel this to digital art, it's like non-CO2 is Kidpix, and CO2 is Adobe Photoshop CS. I think you'd have to say, that despite the obvious differeces in capacity to make amazing artwork, the end of both methods is to show 2D pixel digital artwork. 

Now, would you say that just because of that, if one were having a digital art competition, you would have a category for Photoshop, and a category for Kidpix?

Do you really need to know who the greatest Kidpix user is? 

No! You don't care. You don't care if they used Corel Painter, or photoshop elements, or Giga-illustrater-from-mars-versions-293.20!

What you care about, is who made the awesomest 2D pixel art!!

In the same way, CO2 and Non-CO2 have the same end result-- a planted aquarium. My opinion is that some things that can be accomplished in low-tech that are impossible in high (especially in regards to no algae despite few plants). Likewise there are things that can be done in high-tech that can't be done in low-tech. The issue is not what method was used-- the issue is who made the awesomest planted aquarium?


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

Steven,

What you are emphasizing does not cancel out another nonCO2 contest option. I am trying to encourage some other societies (like APC) to organize contest with a different emphasis.

Beauty is not the only ultimate aim. It is a vehicle to strengthen the connectedness in the society. Look at the participation statistics. Netherlands has two tanks in AGA, both in the biotope category. If that category did not exist they probably would not participate. One of them ranked first. We would not see that beauty if we would not give a chance to other criteria or category. If Netherlands could not participate and if these examples are multiplied AGA would never be a prestigious and international contest.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

I was writing my comment before you made the second post, it just took a while to write.

Then, after reading your second comment, I felt like I din't want to erase that long post . . .

To be honest, I do think of beauty, or rather artistic excellence since I never used the word beauty and I think "excellence" fits better, as an end in itself-- especially for much of art (though obviously, that's not art's only use). But as you said, it's not the only thing out there. Reaching higher and higher levels of excellence is probably just art's most lofty/idealistic goal.


----------



## KRajten (Oct 23, 2005)

well i can't agree with steven on the cathegory topic. 
I can agree olny partialy. Of course it's not about winning, and that there will always be little aquariums that are better then the bigger ones, and te other way around.
But it's like putting two fighters in the ring, one has 60kg the other 120kg. Of course the one with 120 kg will beat the s..out of the smaller one 

I just wanted to say, that there is a bigger difference between nano aquariums, and 70 l aquariums, then between 300l , and 500l aquariums...
the rest i agree withe you...

bye


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

Steven_Chong said:


> To be honest, I do think of beauty as an end in itself


I respect this and believe that if there were no people like you in our society we would have less aesthetics, less skills, and less social settings.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

> Of course the one with 120 kg will beat the s..out of the smaller one


Not if the smaller one Kung Fu his a..

(Says the 65kg guy)


----------



## hedson_25 (Sep 20, 2005)

the creativity has no limits only the aquarium size...


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

I . . . can't really say aquascaping and tank sizes is anything like fighting and weight . . . maybe because I have competed in grappling fighting tournaments and was a multiple-time state placing wrestler in highschool . . . cutting weight sucks, especially spitting and other dehydration methods right before competition . . .

Anyway, that aside, it's true that the size/type of aquariums used by people are often the result of time and circumstance. However, for the highest level of art, size choosing is just another factor that artists can manipulate.

In other words, for the sake of achieving artistic excellence, size would not be considered a limit, but rather a choice to make by the artist for the sake of best executing his visions. It's no different from plant choices, fish choices, hardscape arrangment, or any other factor IMO.

To me, the capacities of larger tanks for making a sense of spaciousness just doesn't equate with the direct power advantage a larger fighter has on a smaller one. The strengths of smaller fighter over larger ones (speed mostly, though often the difference can be trivial as not all small fighters have talent for speed) is not really existant, compared to a small tank's obvious advantage IMO for having different proportions to larger tanks, being able to use small plants differently, and being able to fill space more easily.

What I mean is, there's just visually a lot of things a 5 liter can do visually (btw, the 2 liter at AGA is one of my favs) that a 1600 gallon tank just can't. And visa versa.


And yes Pjerrot, a smaller fighter (I'm about 145 lbs or about 70kg) can kick ass on a larger one if there is a significant difference in skill. Beating 250lbs+ guys who have a month or less of experience is like taking a nap.


----------



## Marcom1234 (Aug 16, 2006)

pardon my ignorance... but where do you get to see the results?


----------



## wiste (Feb 10, 2006)

> where do you get to see the results?


There is a link in this post. Just follow the link and select view entries.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showpost.php?p=246639&postcount=21


----------

