# Is innovation necessary....



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

I notice a lot of how "boring" some folk fine some aquascapes styles i.e. Nature Aquarium, iwagumi etc.

So is innovation necessary to provide a _great_ aquascape?

My favourite three aquascapes of all time aren't particularly innovative, but I think they are great....


----------



## Jdinh04 (Oct 7, 2004)

I really think that Aquascaping is a combination of many styles and creations. However there are the styles that you've said; Iwagumi, Dutch, etc ... are pretty much like a template to create an aquarium. 

I really think the true art of aquascaping is creating it how you like it, your own ideas and creativity. Not by following a technique that has been used in many scapes, otherwise it would be very boring to see the same type of scape over and over.

Again, it doesn't hurt to try something new that would inspire other hobbyist to try new styles as well.


----------



## Jessie (Apr 23, 2007)

I think that only believing one certain technique or "rule" to be the end-all be-all of "good" aquascaping is boring. Yes, there are certain guidelines, but no one can claim to be an expert, and I personally find the idea of proclaiming and writing "rules" to be arrogant and unnecessary in a field where there is constant learning, constant change and various personal tastes.

It all boils down, for me, to the fact that everyone should do what makes THEM happy and their tanks healthy. Certain labels, measurements and styles do not make for a good tank; healthy inhabitants and a happy fish keeper is what makes for a good tank.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

I would say a "unique style" is quite necessary. What's your trademark? Too much of anything makes it all "vanilla."


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

gf225 said:


> So is innovation necessary to provide a _great_ aquascape?


Yes and no. Great answer, right?

There is a limit to the number of plants that can be used effectively and the number of clearly unique ways that plants, stones and wood can be arranged. There are even fewer ways that are pleasing to the eye. It's inevitable that there will be a lot of very similar aquascapes.

On one hand, no it isn't necessary to contantly innovate. The difference between a great aquascape and another ho-hum layout with a very similar structure can be large. There are many, many details that make that distinction. Ultimately we have to distinguish 'scapes on the basis of those details. That requires more refined judgement than we often use now. Compare to paintings -- there are a a gazillion paintings of sunflowers out there, but Van Gogh's sunflowers stand apart. There are great examples in music as well. Johannes Brahms was a musical arch conservative, using structures and harmonies that many of his contemporaries thought were used up. Yet he was very popular in his life and there are many masterpieces in his body of work.

On the other hand, if you're going to judge an aquascape based on a small photo posted on the internet, then innovation may be necessary. It's really hard to put the details of an aquascape into context and see the whole work as a unit unless you see the aquascape in person. Details are lost, or their contexts are confused. When you're working with photos you might need to see gross differences to really distinguish between similar layouts. The details just don't stand out enough.

It is no accident that entries in the long-running Dutch aquarium contest are judged on details of the tank, on maintaining high standards over a period of time and are judged in person, not in photos. You really have to depend on details to keep finding interest and variety in similar aquariums.

Roger Miller


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

DonaldmBoyer said:


> What's your trademark?


Does algae count!? 

Personally I don't think I have my own style, just yet. I've just three or so semi-respectable aquascapes, none of which are innovative.

With experience I expect one gains enough confidence to experiment with more innovative techniques.

A little artistic flair/talent I think may speed up such a process too. Having little of this I anticipate more practice required if I am ever to create anything like a "great" aquascape, if indeed I can at all.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Thanks Roger. Wise words there, I think.


----------



## Dave Spencer (Mar 4, 2007)

Roger Miller said:


> You really have to depend on details to keep finding interest and variety in similar aquariums.
> Roger Miller


I think you have hit the nail on the head for me Roger. Personally, I am a big fan of Iwagumis, but have no problem understanding the viewpoint of people such as Don Boyer. Uttoshii`s Iwagumi sets it apart from the rest on here due to its attention to detail. There is nothing new in terms of rock placement or plant choice, but the bits and bobs and tinkering set it apart for me.

Just like science, I feel there are rules that must be obeyed (ie taller plants behind shorter plants), but it is how we embellish these rules that make the best scapes stand out.

I took my young lad fishing today and was looking at ferns and grasses by the lakeside that looked very much like Eleocharis sp. sat in front of Bolbitis heudolotii. Very easy to simulate in the aquarium nowadays, but it was Mr Amano that actually did this type of thing, laying down the laws and rules if you like.

The likes of Newton and Einstein have laid down their laws, which are pretty much undisputed. Flying to the Moon is an embellishment on this work, as is what most of us are now doing with our scapes compared to Takashi Amano`s work.

Dave.


----------



## Left Coast DJ (Nov 16, 2006)

Dave - You're right, but only partially. Aquascaping is a synthesis of both science and art. Your Newton/Einstein analogies apply only to the scientific part of having a planted aquarium - nitrogen cycle, lighting, fertilization, etc. - which are the absolutes. I think you're wrong when you say there are absolutes in aquascaping. Tall plants don't necessarily belong behind shorter plants. Sure, they certainly look more appealing behind shorter plants. But you're limiting yourself inside a very small box if you say it's an absolute rule that taller plants belong behind shorter plants. Also, the three-stone rule of Iwagumi is not scientific law - it's arbitrary. Why not do a 5-stone Iwagumi just for yucks? Amano took aquascaping to a whole different level, and pulled it out of gaudy blue pebbles & plastic plant drudgery. But that was over 15 years ago. So it would be nice now for a Jackson Pollock or a Charlie Parker of aquascaping to come along, break some rules, and add something different to planted aquariums.

DJ


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

gf225--Why not algae?  Actually, I have seen a few cichlid tanks in my day that have really nice, bright green algae on stone and driftwood. Of course, the fish need to eat it, but it looked like it had "snowed green" in the tank. It was perfectly natural looking, and scientifically sound as well.

I am not even going to pretend to be an expert at aquascaping. Actually, I never really want to be. I've learned a ton over the years. I am only 31, and I suppose that when I speak against the grain that I have an added "moxie" about it. It is only opinion, though.

Actually, a tank I really happen to like alot right now is "Jessie's 125g." It's a friggin' jungle, but beautiful, unique, and innovative because normally, I dislike the "jungle" look. Most people that do this make it look too messy; some are REALLY good at it. It goes against what is "in" right now, but still remains classy, and there is a very odd sense of "meticulousness" about it.

When I see a newbie get pounded on here because rule A or Rule K wasn't followed, or suggestions come up for someone inexperienced to start a tank emmulating the "latest craze," it almost causes me to grind my teeth and snarl at times. It seems so "high school" sometimes here; cliques that one would never get into unless they look and act the same as the people in said group. And if you ever dare say anything against the next "in-thing," though you are simply giving an honest opinion or suggestion (which is one of the reasons why APC even exists), you are simply lambasted, weighlaid, and thrown off to the side as someone who is "mean" or "rude" or the "crazy idiot drunk that sleeps in the park on top of the large rock by the swing set so when he wakes up, he can look at the little kids"-type loser.

In short, yes, you need to be innovative and creative when attempting a scape. There are scientific principles to be knowledgeable of, and I am a strong advocator of reading books and asking questions to formulate a workable plan of attack. However, I think that a person needs to "get their hands dirty" first, and gain their wisedom to know what works, what doesn't, and why. Innovation comes from practice and developing the "mind's eye"; NOT from other person's suggestions, opinions, or even reading material. Those who can't stomach a few failures or problems shouldn't get into this hobby/craft/art/etc to begin with, AND MOST CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T FOLLOW THE LATEST CRAZES! Strike out on your own, and quit immatating other people's work in scale and theme! And those that recommend otherwise are simply just part of the "safe crowd," and do not have the guts to try something on their own. Your end result may look impressive, but it quickly becomes mundane, and consequently, trivial, and eventually forgettable.

One has the freedom to draw anything on a piece of paper; any shape, line, squiggle ever conceived and some new ones. Now imagine if DeVinci's "Mona Lisa" was the greatest painting ever made, and all other artists ever born after that only drew versions of the "Mona Lisa." You may have some intriguing versions of it, but after "x" amount of time, people simply begin to wonder "My God! Isn't there anything else that can be painted? This is boring me now!"

So, here we are today on APC, watching or viewing the next Amano, Knott, "lastest-phase in-thing" rip-off or wannabe. They all are pretty nice, are mindful of the various and random scientific laws regarding substrate, lighting, ferts, placement, filtration, etc; but the Earth has provided this hobby with some pretty amazing things beyond rocks and hairgrass, rocks and glosso, rocks and E. Tiandra, rocks and "insert foreground plant here," and even Plant StreetX next to Plant Street Y following the "Golden Ratio." You can quote all of the rules to me you wish, but it doesn't mean that you were innovative. It means that you are good at following all of the rules that some other guy made up that were, mostly, HIS SUBJECTIVE OPINION IN THE FIRST PLACE!! You can tell me how much of an expert you are because it is difficult to keep "(insert "IN-TANK here)" free of algae, and how many times you change the water, etc. Sorry, but you lost my attention when it became obvious that you only like "vanilla," because that's what everyone else likes.

You limit yourself. And that's a shame. SOOOOOO much out there for us as hobbyists to explore, and most use 1% of what is available because they either have to follow the Clique, or they are too afraid to "break out" as DJ suggested, and try something different for fear of being obliterated here or not taken seriously. 

It doesn't make you "evil" or "unaccomplished" as a person or hobbyist to try a tank that has a common style, such as a Dutch tank, El Natural, Iwagumi, or whatever else. It does make you "vanilla."

Here we go.......awaiting the people now that think I am the World's angriest person, or ripping on them personally.......


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

DonaldmBoyer said:


> Strike out on your own, and quit immatating other people's work in scale and theme!


I think imitation has it's place, for newbies in particular. It's a confidence-builder.

Maybe once their experience levels are up, they know how to grow plants well and how to make a prettty 'scape, they can progress from "vanilla" onto "strawberry".

Interesting points though, Donald.

BTW I wouldn't call you angry. I'd be too scared to! lol


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

If you're trying to win a contest and are being judged by a panel of 'experts', then I would say that yes, you do need some innovation, lots of knowledge and a fair amount of luck. 

If you're trying to create a scape which you are proud of and are happy with, then you really shouldn't give a damn what anyone, other than you, thinks of it!  Personally, I don't like the descriptors we have for tanks styles - Amano type, Dutch, Iwagumi, etc. Put something together that is appealing to you, be happy with it, and work on improving it and changing it around if you so wish. If you stick with it, your 'eye' will evolve and you will develop a much better feel for it. Where at first your 'creation' might have been beautiful to only yourself, in time, you will find others coming to you and praising what you made. 

I would be willing to bet most 'experts' that would view my tanks would think them relatively simplistic in regards to 'scaping. But they please ME. When folks come to the house, they ooh and aah. 'Are those real?' is a question I have heard more than once. 

Don't be afraid to try things out - copying someone's tank, and being at least somewhat successful at it, IS a great confidence builder. And if that's all you want to accomplish, then you've done it! If you then choose to go further and 'step outside the lines', go for it! 

I know being a photographer, it's difficult to go to an iconic place (Yosemite, Yellowstone, Smoky Mts, etc) and not photograph those images which have been captured by countless others. Looking for that different angle, now that's where the challenge comes in.  Find those different angles, and whether others think anything of it or not, you will have grown from it.

OK, enough from me. eace:

BTW - interesting topic. :thumbsup:


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

If people have a limited background in what has been done, or in what is being done by other people then real innovation seems easy. The focus right now is on aquascaping as it has developed since Amano published the first volume of "Nature Aquarium World". Honestly, that isn't when it started.

There were decades of innovation before Amano. I've seen photos of aquascapes dating back at least to the 1930's. At some time along the way dyed gravel and plastic bubbling figurines were all innovations. When I got my first planted aquarium roughly 43 years ago I could also get little how-to pamphlets from the dime store where they sold the fish. Those pamphlets often included instructions on how to aquascape your tank.

Before the 1960's advent of cheap air pumps and under gravel filters successful aquariums were balanced aquariums. They had plants -- often *lots* of plants -- and aquascaping was a big issue. People tried different things to make their tanks more attractive. Some older aquarium books include photographs of stunning aquascapes that might be considered innovative today.

So a lot of things have been tried before. If people don't know what has been done, then you can do them again and call them innovations. The real problem is to make your innovations pleasing to other people.

Where to go for different ideas? Over and over for the last few years I've pointed people to a book by Matthew Christian named "Aquarium Style" published by Barron's. I can't defend his methods, but he does put a lot of things in tanks and photograph them.

There are loads of ideas already out there and not in common use. I think that human artifacts are very much underused in aquascapes. Oliver Knott has used figurines with mixed reviews. I think more can be done. Stone walls and clay pots are other possibilities. One of the more challenging ideas I've heard of in the last few years but have never seen was the "post-apocalyptic" aquascape, featuring broken shards of concrete and twisted rebar. In a similar vein, I've seen in real life a long-ago demolished steel railroad bridge lying in a stream on the bottom of a canyon, bringing to mind an aquascape with riveted braces and girders.

There are two challenges with any idea that is not in current use. FIrst is the challenge of making it pleasing to the viewer; the need to make things pleasing to the viewer is the reason for most of our rules. The second is in refining the details. No matter what you choose to do, if people like it there will be more people doing the same thing. Ultimately you will have to distinguish between similar aquascapes based on the details of your execution.


Roger MIller


----------



## Jessie (Apr 23, 2007)

"the "crazy idiot drunk that sleeps in the park on top of the large rock by the swing set so when he wakes up, he can look at the little kids"-type loser"

LMAO Don.... is this a hint? Does I need to call Dateline?

And thanks for the kudos!

I'm gonna go ahead and take the plunge with a very honest opinion. Ok... a couple. 
1. I think we all take this WAY too seriously.

and to be a hypocrite real quick:

2. I remember when Steven Chong posted a big thread of aquascaping "rules" that he had coined from his involvement with the ADA/Amano style. Now, it sucks that he's not here to defend himself while I state my opinion on that one matter, but that thread really ruffled my feathers, and I have a funny feeling ruffled a few others because of the subsequent tone change that appeared to have followed. I highly, highly respect and admire Steven's talent, his own personal style and his obvious love and passion for the hobby. He is truly championing the hobby for people in his/my age group (I'm only a couple years older than he, I believe) and I think it's great that he's got his work in DeviantArt, where other aesthetically-themed minds can learn about the hobby. But I personally believe that the matter in which he presented himself and his 'rules' were damaging to some of the beginners in the hobby because of phrases like (not a direct quote) "Does AMANO use moss walls in his tanks? I think not, so don't do it!" I was turned off by the elitism of phrases like that, which made a harsh judgment on people who happen to have a different visual preference. I understand Steven's intention with posting that thread, he was only trying to help out his gang of admirers get some techniques down, but when followed with other comments hinting that he was offended that his threads didn't get four stars or higher, it made me see this hobby/culture in a very different light.

Now, saying what I just said is very unfair - and probably a little uncalled for - because he's not here to discuss, and my intention is not to single him out as some "bad apple", but as an example of fleeting moments that seem of occur in the aquascaping hobby _in general_ that seem to really stop beginners dead in their tracks before they can even get a good start. I believe that Steven is going to be a very big deal in the hobby, he's obviously got the talent, knowledge and passion.

Do whatever you want with your tank, be happy, ENJOY the hobby.


----------



## Left Coast DJ (Nov 16, 2006)

Ya know, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here. Everyone is right. And I, personally, enjoy seeing all of the scapes here. My thing is that once in a while, it'll be refreshing to see an off-the-wall design.

Whatever happened to Steven Chong anyway? I don't see his posts anymore.

DJ


----------



## Jessie (Apr 23, 2007)

I think Steven is at school right now, and I think he had to take down all of his scapes  I wonder what happened to his Wabi Kusa? The guppies were like flamenco dancers!


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Great comments. The articulate nature of some APC members never fails to impress me. Thanks.



Left Coast DJ said:


> Whatever happened to Steven Chong anyway? I don't see his posts anymore.
> 
> DJ


Funny you should say that. I was thinking Steven would have liked this thread as I wrote it.

I think he would also agree with me that by discussing these things and taking them "seriously" is all part of the enjoying the hobby/art/craft/whatever.

Aquascaping is "seriously" fun, innovating or imitating...


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

I think everyone on Page 2 of this thread has made some excellent points! I have to give all of you some well-earned kudos! I do not always agree with what is said, but that doesn't make ME right and everyone else wrong!

gf225--I have never thought about it like that; however, my example would be that, given your point, then a student who doesn't do well in math should copy off of his friend's test who is good at math so he can gain some confidence in order to start studying, doing his homework, and seeing that he to can be good at math given enough practice. It ISN'T exactly the same, but it is how I kind of see it. With enough practice, chances are that anyone obtain a certain level of accomplishment without having to resort to "photocopying" someone else's hard work. You say, in summation, that immitation builds confidence in order to become innovative; I say, in summation, that immitation provides a false-sense of security. Immitation is not the highest form of flattery; it is self-degragating and self-limiting. But if you choose to clone a tank, then by all means go ahead. HAVEN'T WE LEARNED ABOUT THE EVILNESS OF CLONING FROM THE STAR WARS MOVIES?!?!?!?! lol!

No worries buddy! I'm a teddy bear! Most big guys like me are. 

BertH--Thank you for pointing out the "luck" aspect of it all. You are absolutely correct in that point, in my opinion. But chance favors the prepared mind as well. I, again, slightly disagree that copying off of someone else, as a general rule, is a big "No No," but this is a hobby and not school, so I'll admit that it isn't the same thing exactly. Still, it is difficult for me to change my mind on this topic. Otherwise, as a rule, I don't disagree with moderators here. HA!!!  

Roger--THANK YOU for pointing out that the planted aquarium existed before AMANO! Gasp! I think most people need to go back and explore the history; maybe we all should try to understand the history of our hobby PRIOR TO the 1980's. I hated the 1980's anyways, with the exception of Sioxie and the Banshees and Joy Division, and that technically the late 70's anyhow. What a gawd-awful decade! 

And I believe that MORE people should start attempting what isn't very common from time to time, as you aptly alluded to. You may not like the end result of said tanks, but it makes it more fun to look at pictures for sure.

Jessie--Chris Hansen: I like what he does, but there is part of me that wants to punch him in the face sometimes  You are lying to yourself if you think anything differently, quite frankly! 

Pretty much agree with you. I let Steve off the proverbial hook, mainly because he's a kid who is still growing. He takes what he learns in school and his studies, and applies it to his hobby/work/profession/etc. He's not grown up enough to have much wisedom, and is a bit of an idealist. But his talent and potential is both extraordinary and uptapped, and it'll be interesting to see how he grows and matures and how that effects his style. For his age, he is nothing short of amazing. A bit cocky, sure, but what boy at that age isn't? He does good work by following his rules, is a bit of a purist, but also pretty innovative as well. He has no right to be condescending, I'll agree whole-heartedly with you on that. All things considered, though, he stands out and having PM'd me a few times over that past year, he's a pretty good guy and seems down-to-earth. I am willing to give him a little bit more leeway. Besides, he isn't able to defend himself right now, so we are just being a couple of "gossipy birds" now, aren't we?

Mainly, like you said, just have fun with it, and the practice and enjoyment will lead to a higher plain.

DJ--You are right. There really is no right or wrong in this topic. Just opinion.

DJ and Jess--Steve's actually back in Hawaii (his home) right now; school let out for him about late May, and yes, he had to disassemble his scapes. I think that he was thinking about going to Japan for part of the summer as well. I'm sure he'll be back in another two months.

Oh, and sorry to all of you.........I'm just trying to up my post count!


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Is this innovative?

http://www.pbase.com/plantella/image/73757584


----------



## Jessie (Apr 23, 2007)

Don -- Just because I love to grab the wheel and swerve off the road, here's some off topic for ya. I believe Chris Hansen got started in the "creep busting" deal after one of his own children was preyed upon by a predator. Could be false.. but...

I'm sure Steven would be really interested in this conversation - perhaps his ears are ringing  But in all sincerity, he's a good guy with some very enviable talent and the love and passion to boot. I believe he has stated before that he knows he opens himself up to scrutiny at times because of his intense involvement. I didn't bring him up because what he says is _bad_, but as an example of the levels that this hobby can be taken to and how some others may interpret. His particular thread just popped into my mind first... there's many others by other people who I could pick at as well. 

I'm curious if he ever got to have his tank in his dorm or in the science hall (I believe) that he was rallying to accomplish.

gf225 -- See, I look at that aquascape with mixed emotions. Slight dislike because that's not my deal, like most of us. I think most everyone here has it in common that we're attracted to natural and non-artificial aquascapes. I don't think that tank is ugly in the least bit. It's well arranged, pretty colors and even though probably temporary, appears to be very clean and fun. Oliver obviously had certain intentions when making that, and he did it very well. An aquascape doesn't have to be a portrait of rolling hills or a cascading mountaintop to be well done and beautiful. This one in particular is just against the grain and a-typical for an aquarist of Oliver's stature. I'm sure there are a tone of grandmothers and children that would pick this tank over an Iwagumi.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

gf225 said:


> Is this innovative?


I think so. I don't like it very much, but it gives me ideas of things I would like better. As innovation goes, I think that makes it successful.

Use just one of the masks (probably the one in the middle) and position it looking upward, partly burried in the substrate. It would work better if the mask were more naturally-colored. Given time under water the probably inevitable growth (particularly on a rough surface) would give it an aged look. It should look either like statuary partly buried under water or (if you tend more to creepy interpretations) a person emerging from the substrate.

Roger Miller


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Gw225- Yeah, it is innovative and fun to look at. It is also "gaudy" and not something I would do. But I would have to say that he has guts to do something like that, and you have to at least appreciate the fact that he tried something quite a bit different. 

There is a delicate balance between "innovative" and "tacky." However, as long as you have the courage to try something out of the norm, whether I like it or not, I can't criticize that.


----------



## andrew__ (May 18, 2007)

reading this thread I suddenly got a strange urge to try out an iwagumi using small stone carvings of the Easter Island Moai (the Rano Raraku Moai, first pic on wikipedia page) instead of natural rocks...

Anyway! I think what a lot of people lose track of is the fact that these rules have always just been guidelines and were pretty much always meant to be used that way. There are things that are important like proportion, usually seen through the 1:1.618 we all know and love, colour, texture that are important to take into consideration and can then be used to create scapes that range from very uniform (similar leaf size/shape/colour) to diverse (nothing's the same) to any number of scapes that could be a healthy balance of the two.

Copying the same old iwagumi will never get us anywhere... But, trying things like using larger than average rocks like in jsenske's ADA/ADG 90cm Iwagumi, or using different plants than just HC/glosso/dwarf hairgrass/b. japonica, or for tanks other than iwagumis using terraces so that you _can_ use HM as a background plant if that's what would fit your scape best and not just saying "well, it's short, so it goes in front"

To the original question: No, innovation is not necessary to make a scape that looks "nice/great", but with as many "nice/great" scapes as there are floating around it would be nice to see some rougher looking scapes that tried to do something new.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Perhaps, then, innovation is key when used with perfect technique to create something that people will remember?


----------



## fredyk (Jun 21, 2004)

my feeling is that an artisit has to be a visionary. However, by following a group consensus, it's always going for the middle ground, avoiding extremes, controversies, and that includes new thinking. in other words, democratic, group thinking is middle of the road by definintion, and you're not going to get anything new. Why? because the sharp edges will be objectionable and whitled down to a happy medium. perfect example of unique vision middled down: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/aquascaping/34848-ada-240-liters-mountain-like-2nd.html


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

This is a great thread with some healthy discussion. I think the question "Is innovation necessary?" can be applied to any form of artwork. Look at sculpture or paintings. Almost always, the "great" artists are great because they became very strong in one certain style. A Picasso is a Picasso, Renoir is Renoir.

Amano is Amano. There is no denying he's an "authority" in the hobby. He'll probably always be regarded as an aquascaping "great". There is no denying that his style has evolved over time, but let's be honest here. His style is fairly fixed. He uses subtle variations on a few themes to produce nice paintings time after time. He understands the "paints" and the "canvas", but it's pretty easy to see that his style is not the only acceptable style out there.

If we were all forced to look at nothing but Picasso's I'd quickly lose interest in paintings.

For me, there are three general rules:
1) It should be fun
2) If you enjoy looking at it, who cares what "everyone" else thinks? Not every art critic likes Renoir.
3) Tanks are best appreciated in person. Never forget that good photography can compensate for many evils and that poor photography can hide the most interesting 'scape.


----------



## SKSuser (Mar 20, 2006)

I believe that people go to the wrong place when they're considering the creation of a "nature" aquarium. If you are creating a nature aquarium, you should find yourself in nature, instead of pouring through the APC archives, or Amano's book or strictly observing article c17.63.2b of the standardized aquascaping rules.

Some people can isolate themselves in nature and meditate upon it or whatever. Most of us don't have time for that. However, "Nature" doesn't have to be out in the middle of nowhere. I've found aquascaping inspiration while looking out the window of an urban restraunt while eating lunch. It can be in the back yard, or even your window planter.

If you feel inspired to create a scape that is unbalanced or is lacking a foreground; fine. The Parthenon shows elements of the golden ratio. Nature shows elements of chaos.

If, after spending time in nature, you happen to create an aquascape that looks like someone else's, than apparently you were looking at a similar piece of nature. After all, there are only so many ways a forest can grow. If that is true, how much more impossible is it to create something new and exciting in a 2sq foot glass box?


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

fredyk--That is a perfect example of a tank that uses a combination of style done in a tasteful manner. It is incredible to look at! I would have to say that scape is very unique, for now, and is a good example of what I have been trying to say. However, if "Everyone" starts doing scapes like that, then even that tank will start to become boring.

Mr. Moderator Guiac--Amano is not an authority, IMO, but a "visionary" as fredyk states. I agree with you (for whatever THAT is worth) on the enjoyment and personal satisfaction issues, but we are getting dangerously close to that old arguement of "Is this a hobby, art, profession (Senske brothers), craft, blah, blah, etc., etc." Depending on how you view this, the definition of innovation is going to change. Let's not "go there," girlfriend! 

SK--Buddy, I respectfully disagree with your last point. This is the mental, limiting factor that runs so rampant right now. Whereas it is true that the "glass box" is physically limiting, and Nature eventually causes all plants to grow upward (yes, even foreground plants), it would be saying that a painter is physically limited to his canvas, and hence, can only paint a handful of ways. Which we know is not true; the painter is limited to the size of the cavas only--but what he can put on it has no boundary! One shouldn't mentally block their possibilites when it comes to aquascaping. Sure, you have dimensions and equipment factors to work within, but what you put in there is only limited to your imagination.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

DonaldmBoyer said:


> Mr. Moderator Guiac ...
> blah, blah, etc., etc ...
> girlfriend!


Donald relax!

Let's stay on topic. Is innovation necessary? The impressionists would have said yes in their day, the cubists would have said yes in their day. Architects are continually re-inventing what is possible in their "art".

Is it a hobby, art, craft, flower arranging? Yes. Whatever. Just have fun with it. If you'd like, make a living with it. If you'd like, create an aquascaping contest and bring your own ideas and judging criteria to the scoring table. If you want to grow an algae-only aquascape... go for it! That'd be pretty innovative IMO.

There seems to be a growing sense that you need to conform to some "standard" to have a nice aquascape. Asian art is different than European art (and by extension, most American art). It always has been. The Senske's have their own style. Different is not better or worse. Different is refreshing. Amano's tanks get low marks by Dutch aquascaping standards. The opposite is true. Thank goodness we've seen some innovators with new ideas.


----------



## arowanaman (Jun 14, 2006)

My style I admit is not original for the most part with some exceptions. I collect any and every photo of plant aquariums I can to archive for ideas to make a better looking plant tank, I own a huge stack of aqua journal's and all the ADA books to date and I even own some rare inport books from Japan that were hard to get to say the least. As for innovation of looks inside a tank, most all has been played allready on naturescaping and I am now finding innovation in the shell of the aqua scape by finding better means of how to make the system work and work better. To make those High maintenance tanks "Riccia" to be less stress of upkeep. To make the overall look of the whole to resemple a piece of art.


----------



## andrew__ (May 18, 2007)

DonaldmBoyer said:


> ...it would be saying that a painter is physically limited to his canvas, and hence, can only paint a handful of ways. Which we know is not true; the painter is limited to the size of the cavas only--but what he can put on it has no boundary! One shouldn't mentally block their possibilites when it comes to aquascaping. Sure, you have dimensions and equipment factors to work within, but what you put in there is only limited to your imagination.


... and then there are those who paint with oil paints who play with texture and depth more so. Which brings me to this tank which pretty much completely destroys the idea that you are limited to creating your scape within your glass box. Does this scape still follow the golden ratio? of course it does - the driftwood forks about 1/3rd of the way in from the right, the water level is about 2/3rds the total height of the tank/scape etc. Same principles, still inspired by nature, completely different look.


----------



## Norbert Sabat (Jun 26, 2004)

DonaldmBoyer said:


> fredyk--That is a perfect example of a tank that uses a combination of style done in a tasteful manner. It is incredible to look at! I would have to say that scape is very unique, for now, and is a good example of what I have been trying to say. However, if "Everyone" starts doing scapes like that, then even that tank will start to become boring.


Donald that tank isn't IMO fresh and unique . Don't you remember Wayne Sham 4th place in ADA contest 2005? Also heavy planted rock layout.
http://www.cau-aqua.net/images/zoom/waynesham_windforestfireandmountain/a.jpg

My english isn't good enough to write more in this very interesting thread so only my 0.02$

I realy like what guaiac_boy wrote:
_ 2) If you enjoy looking at it, who cares what "everyone" else thinks?_
This is my primary rule ....if you aquascaperes want change the world...go for it:heh: ....i do my "art" for my self. Unique aquascape don't must be innovative...


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Norb--I think both are fairly separate from one another. While they do indeed share similarities, the previous aquascape adds obvious elements of Iwagumi-style. The one you provide looks more like a quasi-Dutch style with prominent hardscape elements to it, but not Iwagumi.


----------



## Norbert Sabat (Jun 26, 2004)

DonaldmBoyer said:


> I think both are fairly separate from one another.


Heh..and that's a point - for you both are fairly separate...for me both are similar, so as you see innovation isn't same thing for different people (you and me  )


----------



## SKSuser (Mar 20, 2006)

DonaldmBoyer said:


> it would be saying that a painter is physically limited to his canvas, and hence, can only paint a handful of ways. Which we know is not true; the painter is limited to the size of the cavas only--but what he can put on it has no boundary!


This is where we differ, I do believe a painter is physically limited by his canvas. No matter how big his canvas, a painter can not construct a building on it that would pass the IRC 2004 Supplimental Building Code for Single Family Dwellings. Painters put oil on canvas, architects build houses.

When an artist paints a portrait of someone, he is following in the footsteps of every other vanilla flavoured portrait artist. 
If nobody had looked past the vanilla flavor of the Mona Lisa, future generations would have missed out on "just another portrait." The Mona Lisa was certainly not the first oil representation of a seated female.

The differences Donald and I have will be what spawns innovation. The question of innovation being necessary is a foregone conclusion. Innovation is not necessary, it is inevitable. How will it come about is the question.
I believe it will be within the constraints of the box. Too much more innovative than that and it becomes another art media. Andrew__'s example is beautiful, but I don't believe its innovative. It is too similar to a paludarium.
If I took an aquarium and filled it up with dirt and used it as a window planter, it wouldn't be an aquarium anymore. I hope you can look past that rash example towards what I'm actually trying to say.

Someone's way of bringing innovation may involve Jackson Pollock style throwing random plants in the general direction of an aquarium. Is the aquascaping community ready for that?
I will always insist that an abstract aquarium is no better than my trash can on pruning day, but some may see otherwise.

If a revolution occurs, I'll be interested to see how it happens.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

HA! LOL! You guys!......

Andrew--now that's innovation and creativity!! It's not so much that one chooses to follow some or all of the "rules," "ratios," and "guidelines," as it is how he chooses to utilize those "rules" to his advantage and creative mind. I think that we are on the same page........

Norb-O--we'll see what we choose to see; you may see a lot of such tanks, however I do not. They may bore you because of that, but for me, they don't yet because I haven't seen many tanks like that.

SK--Umm.....hmmm....(????)
I think you are being a bit too literal in your first few sentences  I said that the painter was limited in the size of the canvas, but unlimited to what he paints on it. Otherwise, it is hard to disagree with your perspective regarding the "innovation" idea you stated. As far as Pollack is concerned, how will we know if we are "ready" for that type of style until more people aren't afraid to start designing tanks like that or similar to that? And it doesn't mean that all new styles will be so abstract like that.


----------



## Jessie (Apr 23, 2007)

Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder, right Don?

I like to gaze adoringly at the works over at Creative Aquascape Union. Especially Dave Chow who is the owner of one my favorite tanks of all:









To me, that is the epitome of color, texture, balance and serenity.

But, he'll get creative:


















Both of these scapes are, from my understanding, "pushing it" when it comes to guidelines, ratios, etc. But he went there and they came out absolutely wonderous.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

DON"T PATRONIZE ME, Senior Member Jess!!!


----------



## BlackTop_Kings (Jan 17, 2007)

this thread is extreamly good, and the thought alone to question has already innovated the hobby, and there is not to much to say that hasnot already been said.

but weither, should one innovate creation or should we create innovation. innovation in the wild is evolution! Some times the rules are slowly bent in the wild and some times there broken-I believe that reflects in the art of the hobby as well, both forms are greats in that way.
Just no one forget that this an ART-3D, if you will and that with art is always expression, once you replace your expression with a pre layout guid. yours will never surpass or equal the oringal...It Cant because that detail that is never seen and many times never known: its the form of expression.
Its import to know the MATH in it as well, but in the end you have to add that little something of your self and perhasp that will create the innovation or innovate the creation thus....A great of your own


----------



## Dave Spencer (Mar 4, 2007)

Just to take the discussion back a step or two, surely there are absolutes that any innovator must still follow. I mentioned taller plants behind shorter earlier on, but in the context that there is no point in planting HC behind Rotala sp. if you can`t see it. Are not healthy plants another absolute that no innovation is going to get around?

I think it was Einstein that said he could see so far ahead because he was standing on the shoulders of giants that came before him. For me, Amano is the first and only giant of aquascaping so far, and would love to see the day when the next great innovator comes along and stands on his shoulders.

Roger, Amano certainly didn`t invent aquascaping, no more than Newton invented gravity, but like Newton and gravity, it was Amano that defined aquascaping.

As for Oliver Knott`s Carnival, I only think it is innovative in the sense that is a talented aquascaper daring to attempt a tank that he knows most people who take aquascaping seriously would think to be crap. Maybe he was interested in the effect it would have and the responses. Had this tank been set up by any one of the vast majority of people that proliferate this hobby, whose tanks have purple gravel and sunken galleons, it would be dismissed for the monstrosity that it is.

Donald: mega koudos on getting the Joy Division and Soiuxsie and the Banshees in to the discussion.rayer: rayer: rayer: 

Ah, the Sex Pistols...such innovation.

Visionary/innovative types of people are rare in all walks of life, and I don`t see any in aquascaping at the moment, assuming that Amano is past his best. Newton and Einstein were three hundred years apart, so I am afraid it is another three hundred years of Iwagumis before the next great innovation. Anyway, it`s back to copying everyone elses` tanks for me. 

Dave.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Dave Spencer said:


> Roger, Amano certainly didn`t invent aquascaping, no more than Newton invented gravity, but like Newton and gravity, it was Amano that defined aquascaping..


Dave -- Amano defined and promoted a style of aquascaping and through it created a large and influencial commercial presence. He did *not* define aquascaping -- unless you choose to ignore all of those definitions that preceeded Amano. Amano wasn't even the first Japanese aquarist to use natural analogies for aquascapes. "The Natural Aquarium" (authors escape me at the moment) was published years before 'Nature Aquarium World."

Amano did very successfully apply traditional Japanese crafts to aquascaping. I think that was an innovation. It wasn't even Amano who first started using the "golden ratio" as an aquascaping guideline. I believe that distinction belongs to the Dutch.

Others -- Most of the great aquascapes I see on this forum (including the photos of Dave Chow's work that Jessie posted a few messages back) are in or very close to Amano's style, which I would prefer to think of as Japanese Craft style. There are innovations within that style, and some of them (like tightly pruned midground plants) may be large enough departures to fall within the range of Japanese crafts, but outside the style that Amano promoted.

The tenor of this conversation leads me to believe that this group is actually not open to innovations in aquascaping. The common standards are closely tied to a specific style and very few departures from the style appear to be acceptable. I stand by my belief that innovation is not necessary to keep interest in the aquascaping; attention to detail, evolutionary change within styles and an increased understanding of aquascaping style and history all add interest to the hobby. If you want innovation then you have to know what has already been done (otherwise we will just "innovate" the same things over and over) and you have to be open to different ideas.

Roger Miller


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Roger, you beat me to it. I could not have said it better.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Roger Miller said:


> ....innovation is not necessary to keep interest in the aquascaping; attention to detail, evolutionary change within styles and an increased understanding of aquascaping style and history all add interest to the hobby. If you want innovation then you have to know what has already been done (otherwise we will just "innovate" the same things over and over) and you have to be open to different ideas.


I like this a lot.

Yoshiho & Kobayashi wrote the book you mention. I've been after it for a while but can't source it in the UK yet.

Thanks again for all the contributions, everyone.


----------



## skylsdale (Jun 2, 2004)

Roger Miller said:


> The tenor of this conversation leads me to believe that this group is actually not open to innovations in aquascaping. The common standards are closely tied to a specific style and very few departures from the style appear to be acceptable. I stand by my belief that innovation is not necessary to keep interest in the aquascaping; attention to detail, evolutionary change within styles and an increased understanding of aquascaping style and history all add interest to the hobby. If you want innovation then you have to know what has already been done (otherwise we will just "innovate" the same things over and over) and you have to be open to different ideas.


Worth repeating. I have visited this board less and less over the last couple years as it seems there really is no room for discussion that will promote true advancement and innovation--people just want to rehash the same old stuff over and over and over and over and over again, essentially just celebrating the dogma of their own personal preferences and styles and treating them like law.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Skylsdale,

I'm really glad to hear your still around, even if not posting so often. I haven't seen your work in a while. I just sent my art student daughter off looking for photos of your tanks. 


Roger Miller


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

Meh, Amano is just the first photographer to aquascape and publish those photos in an accessible form. Photos seem to be about the only way this hobby/art is getting promoted that has much mass impact. And yet photos capture so little of what a scape really is.


I would love to be able to purchase a ticket to go to an art gallery/museum that has actual aquascapes instead of having to look at a book. Short of what amano has done with his office/store where you can go see the creations he over sees in a gallery type display where else would you look for such a thing?


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Snake,

Exactly my thoughts. I think when the hobby reaches a more "critical mass" that this sort of thing might be possible - maybe in a place like NYC or San Fran. Imagine going to a public (or private) aquarium where there were several dozen nice 'scapes. It would be fun to see examples of a wide varieity of aquascaping styles, biotypes, palaudriums, nanos, large tanks, and everything else. Imagine the impact a few places like this would have on the hobby.

Planted tanks aren't exactly mainstream yet in the US and Europe. 95% of Americans have probably never laid eyes on one. My perception is that Asia is far ahead of us here. Most people here seem to be content keeping monsterous fish in big, sterile glass boxes, poor ***mart fish in deplorable conditions, or a few goldfish in a filthy bowl. "Oh look! ... Guppies" (speaking of a huge display of 10" discus).

Speaking for myself here, and not as an APC moderator, I agree with Skylsdale. I fail to see the point behind emulating Amano or any other "famous" aquascaper. His work is great. I use many of his ideas and techniques. If you ask me, the real key to his success (fame) was that he was first a photographer. It's probably safe to say that nobody else had captured the art quite like he had before. Try winning a conteest today with poor photos. His older scapes aren't too fancy. If presented annonymously, some of them would be harshly criticized here. Currently his greatest success is making money by selling his ideas and systems. Good for him. The world should reward a good businessman with a good idea.

Honestly, I fail to see the point behind dogmatically following any advice you see here or anywhere else.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Dave--Heh, heh.....I'm glad SOMEONE understands my musical tastes. Honestly, those bands don't get enough credit for their influences of today's bands, like a Hooverphonic, Goldfrapp, My Bloody Valentine, Air, and so on. They were HUGE innovators, but quickly forgotten; a little less with Sioxie, as she and her husband are still relatively active in their own band (The Creatures, as you may know). Jeeze....I wish they would still visit Detroit more often!!!

Guaiac, Roger, and Sky--does the painting make the painter, or does the painter make the painting? I fail to see how more popularity will lead to an increase in innovation, and more likely, will simply lead to more Xerox type of copy-catting. Innovation will inevitably be created by one person with a unique vision that will catch on with the rest of the artists/hobbyists which will feed yet another huge cycle of vanilla scapes until another person creates something a little different, which will again repeat the cycle, etc. An increase in popularity will just mean more people will copy what they like instead of more people producing a new trend. It is human nature to do so. As individuals, people are very smart; as a species, we are pretty dumb, only caring to "fit in" and be liked instead of trying to venture out from the Crowd.


----------



## Jessie (Apr 23, 2007)

Hooverphonic, Goldfrapp! nice.

Roger Miller, I agree with what you said 100%. 

Amano is only seen as a the poster-child for aquascaping because he was lucky enough to have the resources and backing to capitalize on his photography, product and talent. Is he great? Yes. Did he define natural aquariums? No. He glamorized it. The entire process of filling a glass box with water, growing some plants and stepping back to admire it is what we've been doing for years; we're trying to create a natural, healthy environment for our fish - a chunk of nature. Dust off an old aquarium book from the attic and you'll see mention of this.

Now, I'm not knocking Amano, he's a true figure in the hobby and I'd probably be bashful into speechlessness if I met him. I think his contribution to the hobby was absolutely necessary and needed in probably more of a paramount matter than we all think. He's provided learning resources, products and a mindset of this craft being attainable to more people. He's a talented businessman and knows how to push his product. His presence has in a lot of ways, IMO, told Tropica and Dennerle to sit down. I mean... look at the threads on this forum. ADADADADADADADADA Why? Because they work (well... dunno about the magic witch powders  and were created specifically for planted aquariums. But that, to me, is where it stops.

Having ADA products doesn't instantly make for a great aquarium. Sometimes, it makes for a brand name fish tank with plants in it. That is where my reluctance comes from. Likes it has been mentioned a bazillion times already, posting your thread with the key words "ADA" "Iwagumi" "cm" guarantee the hairgrass, rotala green and baby tears masses to oogle and awe at the edges of their seats in anticipation. It is expected that those key terms will make for an instantly amazing setup, while some others who don't have the fancy acronyms are lucky if they get a few posts here and there on their thread.

There is no law, there's happy fishkeepers.


----------



## andrew__ (May 18, 2007)

Jessie said:


> Having ADA products doesn't instantly make for a great aquarium. Sometimes, it makes for a brand name fish tank with plants in it. That is where my reluctance comes from. Likes it has been mentioned a bazillion times already, posting your thread with the key words "ADA" "Iwagumi" "cm" guarantee the hairgrass, rotala green and baby tears masses to oogle and awe at the edges of their seats in anticipation. It is expected that those key terms will make for an instantly amazing setup, while some others who don't have the fancy acronyms are lucky if they get a few posts here and there on their thread.


Sorry to follow this tangent as it's not entirely the point of this thread, but reading one of these "ADA style" threads and after the first post where you see an empty tank, grey stand, and some glassware with not hardscape or plants (or substrate - occassionally in bags) someone says "Cool. Will you be using Brighty K?" :-s No actually I was going to go to my local hydroponics store and buy everything & spend about a third what you did, because brand name chemicals are _exactly the same_. :crazy: umm... so basically this branding this annoys me, but just a little 

Anyway, I've been looking through a few more of Oliver Knott's tanks and he has quite a few normal planted tanks that are a little out of the ordinary that are very nice. And then he's got these...










But there are also some with ornaments that are tasteful:










(and note that the dragon perfectly fits the golden ratio as well :heh:



> There is no law, there's happy fishkeepers.


Or in some cases happy children with African Savannah animals drinking from a river in their fish tanks


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Andrew--Pics didn't work

Let's get back on point, no offense. Andrew, I do agree that such and such tanks and equipment are a little overblown. We seem to be in the "minority" when it comes to such feelings. Buying a brand doesn't make one "innovative."


----------



## shell (May 21, 2007)

Newbie perspective:

Maybe the next generation of aquascape innovation will be in shaping the substrate to have a bigger influence in the hardscape look. My fav 'innovator' Filipe Oliveira seems to be heading in that direction.


----------



## andrew__ (May 18, 2007)

shell said:


> Newbie perspective:
> 
> Maybe the next generation of aquascape innovation will be in shaping the substrate to have a bigger influence in the hardscape look. My fav 'innovator' Filipe Oliveira seems to be heading in that direction.


While he does have a lot of really nice tanks, most look like nature aquariums. Don't get me wrong they're really nice & thanks for the link but the biggest difference between his tanks and amano's tanks are that Oliveira uses a lot more symetrical layouts. this for example looks a lot like a nature aquarium, only the focal point is dead center. Here again (top tank) focal point is the rock that's in the middle, tank below that and the focal point seems to be the neg. space between the two similar sized rocks. I think I've seen a fair number of amano tanks with sloping substrates though, but I'll admit the first iwagumi on the second link above is "innovative" in that respect (and after looking at it a lot more the focal point still seems to be in line with the golden ratio, even with most elements being symetrical around the center.)

I think (and this may be contradictory to things I've previously said in this thread) that as long as people are trying to imitate nature there's only so much that can be done. I'm not sure how much more innovation there can really be... but that doesn't mean we can't still try


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

andrew__ said:


> .... as long as people are trying to imitate nature there's only so much that can be done. I'm not sure how much more innovation there can really be... but that doesn't mean we can't still try


That's an interesting point.

By definition imitation cannot be innovative. Or can it?

I like this aquascape, and found it quite innovative. Even though it's imitating nature.

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2006.cgi?&op=showcase&category=0&vol=3&id=2


----------



## andrew__ (May 18, 2007)

I'd actually been looking for that tank after shell posted about shaping the substrate  thanks for posting it.


----------



## bryony (Jul 3, 2007)

Rules have value. I think that rules are really just comments on the particular effect an idea usually has on most designs. It's nice to get an external opinion on individual aspects to get a more intense impact.



guaiac_boy said:


> Snake,
> Imagine going to a public (or private) aquarium where there were several dozen nice 'scapes. It would be fun to see examples of a wide varieity of aquascaping styles, biotypes, palaudriums, nanos, large tanks, and everything else. Imagine the impact a few places like this would have on the hobby.


That would be the greatest thing ever, like Amano's showcase, except open to the public. I wonder how hard it would be to find a store that would be willing to do this? If it meant your tank would survive instead of being torn down, I'm sure people would be willing to donate designs.



Roger Miller said:


> The tenor of this conversation leads me to believe that this group is actually not open to innovations in aquascaping. The common standards are closely tied to a specific style and very few departures from the style appear to be acceptable. I stand by my belief that innovation is not necessary to keep interest in the aquascaping; attention to detail, evolutionary change within styles and an increased understanding of aquascaping style and history all add interest to the hobby. If you want innovation then you have to know what has already been done (otherwise we will just "innovate" the same things over and over) and you have to be open to different ideas.
> 
> Roger Miller


... then where do you suggest we take this conversation? Personally I have tried a few of the pot designs that you mentioned, where you drop a clay pot & put the pieces in the tank as they fell + a java fern bottom/foreground and another design with 3 broken pots almost covered in Java moss + Pseudomugil furcatus. I never posted the tanks, because I didn't consider them nature aquariums.

Another of my more radical ideas involves a front lighted tank, with a back-to-front slanted moss wall, with stems planted above the moss in the wall, so that all you see is a field of the tops of a single type of stem plant (preferably light green) + dario hysignon. I would never post it on this forum because there isn't any scaping in that tank.

I think what you really are after is a forum for concept tanks.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Rules have value, but subjective "rules" in a art or hobby do not necessarily have value. Rules=limitations in a medium that has virtually limitless possibilities. 

Whereas I agree with Roger that history plays an important role in ensuring new ideas for the present, I disagree when he claims that "no one in this group" wants to innovate aquascaping; that is quite the strong generalization.

Unless you are in art class in a center of education, nobody has the right to say "You can't paint that!" or "You can't paint this way!" One can critique another's product or art, but they can't smugly dictate that they have better talents because they followed more rules. If you consider this to be art, then that is a subjective medium, and the point (sometimes) is to bend the "rules," break the "rules," use the "rules" to your advantage, or even to say "to hell with the rules!" And you should enjoy having that type of freedom to so! 

I would also say that innovation is quite necessary if this hobby/art is to break into the mainstream. What we have done so far hasn't worked, and photocopied tanks aren't going to be the answer. It is also quite necessary to keep this medium "fresh" and interesting. It is the question of "who has the guts to try?" and "of those people, who has the talent to make that innovation appealing?"


----------



## Dave Spencer (Mar 4, 2007)

Roger Miller said:


> If you want innovation then you have to know what has already been done (otherwise we will just "innovate" the same things over and over) and you have to be open to different ideas.
> 
> Roger Miller


Roger, I would have thought that any innovations from history will have introduced something new that is to be embraced. Consequently, wouldn`t any subsequent work have been influenced by this, as opposed to it just being a copy.

Groundbreaking innovation is a rarity, being able to expand upon it less so. The Beatles were innovative, and have had a huge influence on music since, but music has moved on and all bands/musicians are not direct clones of their work.

To my mind, being open to innovation means embracing it and being influenced by it. Copying it directly is a stepping stone to learning how it works and, hopefully, moving on to add something to it. I don`t see any groundbreaking in the world of aquascaping, but there are a few individuals who are able to embellish upon what has gone before.

Dave.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Dave, you would think that innovations from the past would have an effect on the current standards of practice, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Just a few letters back someone proposed that the next big innovation would be shaping the substrate to emphasize the hardscape layout. That has been done for decades. Unless someone is actually taking the time to learn about what is done or has been done, then any feature that isn't currently popular can be lost and "re-innovated" some time in the future.

Ideas pass out of vogue, but passing out of vogue and being forgotten aren't always the same thing. "Rubber Soul" is no longer ground-breaking music, but it isn't forgotten and we aren't likely to see it re-released as new and innovative music. It seems to me like the past in aquascaping is simply forgotten, with the result that the everything old may be suddenly new again. Its like having a hobby with alzheimer's disease.

Innovations are rarely completed by one person. One person may have the original idea, but the initial applications are often not very successful. They become successful when others are inspired by the original idea and develop it into something with a wider appeal.


Roger Miller


----------



## skylsdale (Jun 2, 2004)

Hi Roger. Yeah, I'm still around...although over the last couple years I've been focusing most of my time and energy on terrestrial vivariums (a few can be seen here). I also uploaded a few images of some of my past tanks to my personal APC gallery, so they should be easier to find that way.

As I said before, I've frequented here less and less, mostly because the conversations that take place are so restrictive. I tend to set up 'dirty tanks,' meaning almost all of my materials are collected. I don't buy substrate, I use sand and gravel and mulm from local streams and ponds. I usually use locally collected plants (unless I'm going with some other geographic locale, and then I try to purchase appropriate species). The wood I use gets rot and mildew. The plants grow wild and are sometimes left untrimmed.

They never pearl.

But even in the biotope section, there is little room to discuss this sort of setup because people are still trying to aquascape in the prescribed dogmatic ways, only with plants they dug out of the muck a few miles away. I live in a small town, and downtown there is a guy who has owned/run a barbershop for decades. You can go into his shop and request any sort of haircut you can think of...but in the end, he's going to pick up his clippers and you'll walk out with one of three variations on the buzz cut. That's all he has room for in his stylistic repertoire.

It seems the same in the hobby. And it amazes me that we can stand on the banks of a river or stream and see all of nature's general guidelines and patterns of growth and sediment deposition, collect some of these materials, and then go home and put them in a tank, placing everything according to a very strict code and set of rules that someone else tells us is the best way to do it.

This just seems to then carry over into the various aquascaping contests, where you end up with biotope entries that aren't even recreations of a biotope: they're just tanks filled with collected materials that are trying to copy the layout of all the other entries. To me, that is damaging to the hobby, when a mentality becomes so completely pervasive among the members that even a category dedicated to something so completely different just ends up looking like almost everything else.

Give me overgrown 'jungle' tanks where succession is taking place among plant species.
Give me open top tanks with plants breaking the surface and cascading over the side.
Give me a blackwater tank that is _actually_ a blackwater tank--no plants whatsoever, but a profuse amount of sticks and leaf litter.

No, none of those are original by any means. But in the atmosphere of what's currently considered the acceptable norm...I think they are completely innovative.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Sky, while I agree that there appears to be an 'expected' way to aquascape, especially if you want to win a contest, in a community such at this, there should be room for any and all kinds of styles. Your jungle and overgrowing tanks, I am sure, would find an audience and interest among some of the members here, while educating others who would not think you could have tanks like that  . While others will tell you to trim and create depth, etc. I guess I am trying to say to you not to keep away due to others 'expectancy of proper aquascapes'. Bend the rules, be the outlier, I will tip my hat to you!


----------

