# Static and Dynamic aquascapes



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

The following is a very interesting read written by a guy from Bulgaria:

_"For some time now there has been a talk about different aquascaping styles - American, Japanese, Chinese, Neo-Dutch and so on. In this post I'd like to share my view about the aquascaping as art.

Personally, for myself, I divide the styles into only two groups - static and dynamic.

I call "Static" the tanks aquascaped in the West - Europe, US and others. Here are some examples:




























These tanks are perfectly arranged. Every rule of symetry is taken into account and the plants are chosen according to leaf shape and appearance. Everything is synchronised perfectly. An eye candy.

Such tanks have always reminded me a Dutch painting from the 16-th century:









This painting shows figures in motion. But if we look more carefully we will notice that the figures are frozen as if each model stood immobile waiting to be painted while keeping the pose and facial expression. The models are arranged in a two-sided symetry, with two central characters. There are two diagonal lines starting from the central characters leading up and upwards. There's one straight line in the very middle of the composition. All this adds to the composition's weight.

This is also the classic composition of the Dutch aquarium - which I call "static aquascape".

Opposed to that style is the style that I call "dynamic" - the Eastern aquascapes. Here are some examples:





































In these tanks the captured movement is natural. It's stopped in a randomly chosen moment (not forcedly stopped). The plants are in the condition and shape they would be if they were growing in nature, or so it appears.

The static tanks create the impression of painful and long daily maintenance and trimming - as if every stem has been planted and arranged individually. The dynamic tanks create the impression that the aquascaper set them up, waved his hand and went to drink beer leaving Nature to shape up the composition its own way. This impression is deceiving I assure you - the dynamic tanks require the same care and maintenance, but that's not that obvious.

I personally believe that the dynamic tanks are more advanced - a logical consequence and evolution of the art of aquascaping. They are more natural and closer to Nature and its perception. These tanks are also more difficult to create despite the initial impression.

The dynamic tanks last longer as a whole because their composition is in constant motion and development. And because this motion and development is a string of natural cycles and shapes the whole appearance doesn't deteriorate as an idea. It only changes - just like it happens in Nature.

The static tanks are a frozen moment - like the bouquet of flowers in a vase. Every change alters the calculated composition and the original idea. These tanks are "closed systems".

A good example is the development of Amano's big tank. Every consecutive phase of the development of this tank is as interesting/beautiful/different as the previous. To compare - imagine what will happen to any one of the first three tanks pictured in this post if there was no trimming for a couple of months. A catastrophy.

My two definitions - static and dynamic - are very general. There are many aquascapes that are hybrids or are a completely different kind. But as a whole when I look at a tank I always try to classify it as belonging to one of "my types".

Of course all of the above is my own opinion and I'm not responsible for it .

Marian"_

--Nikolay


----------



## Longanlon (May 2, 2006)

By my opinion the difference between the two types is more in the pictures than anything else.

The impression of movement, of lightness is a result of the white, illuminated background, the fish, captured in the right position, the extra lightning, added around the tank for the photo session, the fan blowing the water suffice.


----------



## stepheus (Jun 13, 2006)

I agree with what niko has brought up. There are static aquascapes and others that suggests flow, movement. However, we cannot classify each styles under "Dynamic" or "Static" as both notions are used in all styles e.g.

Chinese garden by P.J Magnin, as an example of a eastern style with static properties:









Something from Amano (eastern) which is also static:









Dutchscape that suggests motion:
Oliver knott 1st price winner of Aquabotanic 2004









Its great that guidelines are churned out. In this case, the Bulgarian tried to classify different styles under 2 major topics. However, since the hobby is still building its identity, we should be careful of what we claim is, and what we claim are not. I am just suggesting that the Bulgarian is half correct IMHO.

I agree with this: 


> The dynamic tanks last longer as a whole because their composition is in constant motion and development. And because this motion and development is a string of natural cycles and shapes the whole appearance doesn't deteriorate as an idea. It only changes - just like it happens in Nature.
> 
> The static tanks are a frozen moment - like the bouquet of flowers in a vase. Every change alters the calculated composition and the original idea. These tanks are "closed systems".
> 
> A good example is the development of Amano's big tank. Every consecutive phase of the development of this tank is as interesting/beautiful/different as the previous. To compare - imagine what will happen to any one of the first three tanks pictured in this post if there was no trimming for a couple of months. A catastrophy.


*

At the end of it all, aquascaping is an art form. We need it to be as fluid as possible i.e. whatever may be, will be. Whatever that looks beautiful should be recognized without over scrutiny by using principles that may restrict further creativity. Of course there are principles are made and readily agreeable like, every aquascape should have a midground or the principles golden ratio for that matter. However, although we can say that most tanks which doesnt have a midground are a "not as nice" comparatively; it is still a challenge to every aquascaper to create a tank without midground and breaks the golden rule, but still produce something that looks stunning.

I believe that this tank by DiPpY eGgS is stunning, but look what it doesnt have, the golden rule; the focus is at the middle, in the dark area as it is most eye catching (for those who might argue that the HM might be its focus):








I still enjoy it anyways.

I am curious of what others might think, so please include your arguments also


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

What is really funny about this so called classification is the fact the examples he uses from Tony Gomez and Roy decki are aquascaping design modles that were developed by AMANO! All you have to do is read the article called Aquascaping principals by Birgit and Wolfgang Amri in the APC library, (it was actually first written for my WEB site and is still there as well) and you can see the different modles. These first appeared in the Vectrapoint WEB site which was an Amano distributor,(now out of business) and the first ADA aquascaping instructions very early on in their first publications developed these models. Amano never makes any mention of these being static or dynamic.

I agree with the person who said the only difference is in the photos. It is also true that these have a very easily recognizable shape, the triangle, but other than that I just do not see what this guy is talking about. I do not see anything in them that makes them "dynamic"

And if you are suggesting that Oliver Knotts winning photo










is a Dutch style, I can tell you from a discussion in a Dutch forum that I had on this very subject, that the dutch people do not consider Oliver's as being even remotely traditional dutch. In fact they consider it to be an Amano style, and I think that is what Oliver intended it to be.



> We need it to be as fluid as possible i.e. whatever may be


Maybe, maybe not! It could be argued that there is art in tradition, and tradition by its very definition stays the same. When something becomes a tradition after a very long time, it has been refined to such detail that the art is unique and hard to copy. If something is so fluid and changes so quickly it never has the opportunity to evolve as a true art form.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

I disagree with the division of static and dynamic........I think that should be divided as "landscape" or "natural biotope" or something to that degree. I don't think, myself, that "dynamic" tanks really don't capture a "moment in time underwater," rather, they seem to imitate landscapes both above and below the suface. Like "hills with trees and grass" type of look......or "amazon rainforest."

I think that biotope-type aquariums actually offer more of a dynamic feel, as those types offer the closest possible imitation of underwater nature.

I actually like all types, be it static, dynamic, biotope, freshwater, marine, etc. They are all pretty unique in their presentation.


----------



## wiste (Feb 10, 2006)

The concept of dynamic aquascaping is interesting. My understanding is that techniques are used in the Nature style aquariums that give the illusion of movement. I.e. in a basic iwagumi arranging the rocks with the same orientation gives the illusion of massive water currents. Certainly, dynamics is an important consideration when setting up an aquascape. I am not certain that a static arrangement is necessarily bad thing.

I find the logic in the rest of the discussion weak. I consider the painting a red herring. The painting has nothing to do with nature or aquascaping. It is unfortunate that some admirers of one style do not appreciate the superior aspects and beauty in other styles.


----------



## apistaeasy (Jul 16, 2004)

In an aquascape setting, dynamic and static are synonyms of "nature" and "Dutch". I personally find many nature 'scapes to be too chaotic, even more chaotic than nature. Dutch styles are too rigid (static). I prefer the middle ground. One could even go as far to use other synonyms like liberal or conservative as well.

I believe that a good piece of art moves the eyes in a pleasing manner. In this sense there is no truly static aquascape, and the Dutch style looses out to the dynamics of the Nature style. However, as I stated before, the Nature style moves the eyes to much, and does not create a resting point. This is why I appreciate an integration of the two styles - a more contemporary concept, much like Jeff Senske's designs. (please see my post in this thread for my view of properly integrating the two styles)


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Great thread. I agree that the photography has alot to do with it, but certainly the dynamic scapes lend themselves better to capture movement and a more natural setting based on plant selection and growth. Also the static scapes shown don't have any hardscape which would make them appear more unnatural, like a bouquet of cut-flowers, thus the still life reference. There are expections to everything, but in most cases the dutch style obviously looks unnatural and static due to the abundance of plant species and the well trimmed lines as opposed to the dynamic types with fewer species, but a more wild look which would more likely appear in nature in a limited space.


----------



## stepheus (Jun 13, 2006)

Ahh..hiatus. ok back to topic.

i think the idea of dynamic/static is not well defined yet for most to understand. i am not sure if this is what the Bulgarian meant went he said dynamic/static, we might never really know since there is such things as 'death of the author'. nono i dont mean the author is really dead literally, but interpretation of text relies solely on readers now. Here is what i interpreted. Bulgarian tried to express this:

dynamic: amano style scapes, japanese motive inspired scapes and other eastern inspired style scapes
static: dutchscapes, other western scapes

HOWEVER

...i feel that dynamic/static is not a style. it is a concept that can be adopted by ALL styles. examples given in my previous post. a dynamic aquascape is more of the way we arrange our plants and plant choice e.g. narrow leaf java fern always suggests movement (not literally, but visually get me?) from the way they grow their leaves in a particular direction; so does pointy rocks that are leaning towards a particular direction!










if this is still very vague: remember when we were young, we use to draw wind, moving cars and flowing water or lines to suggest that something is shaking/vibrating. those lines suggests movement! and thus suggest what is termed here as "dynamic". arrangement/ choice of plants, driftwood and rock can be used to imitate the "lines" that were mentioned in the latter. after all that, static is now self explanatory right?  some will disagree with me. i really wanna hear your comments btw.



Robert Hudson said:


> What is really funny about this so called classification is the fact the examples he uses from Tony Gomez and Roy decki are aquascaping design modles that were developed by AMANO!


- this is partly what i am trying to say. eastern styles can embody static properties too! but the sarcasm (well it might not be intentional!) will not be taken very well by many.



Robert Hudson said:


> All you have to do is read the article called Aquascaping principals by Birgit and Wolfgang Amri in the APC library, *(it was actually first written for my WEB site and is still there as well)*





Robert Hudson said:


> Amano never makes any mention of these being static or dynamic.


- amano doesnt need to say anything for something to be a fact. i am sure a lot of us would agree with me on this. he is a great businessman, zen master, artist, teacher but we have our own point of view too. altho i agree if a god of aquascape is to be elected, he ll be one of the few in the line :heh:



Robert Hudson said:


> I can tell you from a discussion in a Dutch forum that I had on this very subject, that the dutch people do not consider Oliver's as being even remotely traditional dutch. In fact they consider it to be an Amano style, and I think that is what Oliver intended it to be.


- even though the picture is not traditional dutch style so to speak, it was used to illustrate a point rather than define the whole notion of a dynamic dutchscape itself. i will be able to find a picture of a dutch aquarium which suggests movement/flow given time. but when it comes to giving examples of tanks, i tend to think of the more popular ones first.



donaldmboyer said:


> I disagree with the division of static and dynamic........I think that should be divided as "landscape" or "natural biotope" or something to that degree.


- by "landscape" do you mean nature aquarium i.e. Amano style? i believe dynamic/static aquascape is not a style, but rather a concept that a style of aquascaping may adopt. btw, a biotope is also not a style. it is merely a word to describe that a tank only made up of the fauna and flora of a particular habitat. an example of how someone might describe a tank:

"'dynamic' 'South American biotope' 'dutchscape'"
(concept)(choice of fauna/flora)(style)

or

"'minimalistic' 'non-biotope' 'iwagumi'
(concept)(choice of fauna/flora)(style)

or

"'static' 'Malaysian lake biotope' 'nature aquarium'"
(concept)(choice of fauna/flora)(style)



wiste said:


> The concept of dynamic aquascaping is interesting. My understanding is that techniques are used in the Nature style aquariums that give the illusion of movement. I.e. in a basic iwagumi arranging the rocks with the same orientation gives the illusion of massive water currents. Certainly, dynamics is an important consideration when setting up an aquascape. I am not certain that a static arrangement is necessarily bad thing.


- i agree!



Longanlon said:


> The impression of movement, of lightness is a result of the white, illuminated background, the fish, captured in the right position, the extra lighting, added around the tank for the photo session, the fan blowing the water suffice.


- i believe its more than these. i believe also in the types of plants that were chosen to be in that scape to suggest movement i.e. dynamic and the way they were planted. i am not debunking your idea of a dynamic aquascape tho, i am just adding to it.

*



Robert Hudson said:


> Maybe, maybe not! It could be argued that there is art in tradition, and tradition by its very definition stays the same. When something becomes a tradition after a very long time, it has been refined to such detail that the art is unique and hard to copy. If something is so fluid and changes so quickly it never has the opportunity to evolve as a true art form.


- thanks for quoting me. now i ll quote you back for some arguments :grins: by saying "maybe, maybe not!" you have taken a very safe stand. nonetheless, there are many of us playing around with the idea of aquascaping. and thus, many will find preference in a certain scape and will choose to develop it. the others might find that something new more interesting and does something else. what i am trying to say is, some of us who are more adventurous should be given the recognition when they step up and come out with something that is out of the blue taking my last example, something that doesnt follow the golden rule nor any other generally accepted theory which defines 'beauty'. when i first learn competition tanks were strictly judged in competitions using the golden ratio, i was shocked. YES the golden ratio gives a objective view to beauty, but it negates the fact that there might be some day where someone comes out with a tank without the golden ratio but still looks fabulous.

we look at other art form: photography. professional photographs of landscapes have the golden ratio/rules of thirds. but you cant deny that some photos were intentionally taken to have the focal point smacked in the middle  btw, i like the golden rule. my tanks for now will all be using the golden rule. lol. i am just taking it for an example.

BTW i am just stating my point, because i HAVE given thought into this topic b4 the thread was made. so i took this opportunity to express myself to see what the community have to say. plus, i enjoy the cognitive process of all these. i am not here to offend anyone. i am here like we all are, to learn. godspeed and waiting for replies 

on a additional note, i have done nothing here to improve the way we aquascape but i have attempted to define some ideas that are already out in the aquascaping realm, to help us maybe, to understand our works better?  thanks for the read


----------



## stepheus (Jun 13, 2006)

One more thing, I dont think the Bulgarian (of whom we should know the name by now!) has made a futile attempt on trying to express his idea. Like Freud, whose works are mostly debunked by now, should still be given recognition because he was the one who started with the theories to elaborate with. okok, i ve said enough for now


----------

