# The canvas, the brush or the paint...



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

I once asked Takashi Amano, owner of Aqua Design Amano and master aquascaper, what is the most important thing to consider when preparing to set-up a planted aquarium- the layout, the fish or the plants? His answer was rather cryptic but insightful, much as I would expect from a teacher.

Takashi Amano: "_Setting up a [planted] aquarium relies on a delicate balance of all factors. This I believe can also be said for any form of art. What is __the most important thing to consider when painting a picture, the canvas, the brush, or the paint?_"

What do you think about this? If you were planning your next aquascaped aquarium, what do you think is the most important thing that you would focus on?



What do you think is most important here:








Photo copyright: Aqua Design Amano Thailand

There's no wrong answer here. However, I'm really interested in your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## |squee| (Feb 3, 2005)

Imho, it's the brush. Master artists can produce works in any form of canvas and paint.

In the picture above, I feel it's the fish that bring life to the scape. Our eyes are naturally attracted to moving things first, then the intended focal point of the scape itself, and then the rest of the picture.


----------



## T-Bone (Nov 23, 2005)

I would have to say the paint is definitely important, it's hard to paint a picture with a limited palette. But more importantly it's the actual use of the paint. You could have all the colors of the world and still paint an ugly picture. The scape in question is very minimalist, but yet has a great deal of depth. There is good use of color shades, as well as shading (light). Use of space is another key factor, here we have height, width and negative space. Negative space is often overlooked, one must not fill every single inch of canvas, or depth and contrast will be lost. There is also a definite horizon, but it's not flat either.

In terms of scaping: the canvas is the tank; the paint is the plants, rocks etc.; the brush is a tool, ie. light, CO2, tweezers and other equipment. We have all seen great looking tanks from 1 gallon to 1000+ and also bad ones. So the canvas is not really that important. The aquascape here shows us that you can acheive a great picture by using a limited palate of plants and colors. We have seen great tanks with and without CO2, high light or low light etc.. You cannot have a picture at all without an artist, so one would have to conclude that it really isn't any one of these single components, but is really the artist his/herself. Good art comes down to individual expression; if everyone was a Picasso or a Rembrandt, art would be pretty boring.


----------



## standoyo (Aug 25, 2005)

i'd say the mind that controls the hand...that controls the brush, paint and canvas. sigh...

ok if i were to choose between the three...the brush it is.
even with just black ink, a chinese painting can represent so much IMO.

most of us will prioritize the canvas...at leat the size of it[biggest we can afford and maintain] and then work backwards and forwards....at least that's how i do it...

Like terence, the fish is the foremost subject not only because it moves but because it's interactive...scared of you, comes up to feed, has eyes!


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

I would have to say that the layout is the most important aspect and here's why:

From a practical POV, talking about both longevity and the reality of day-to-day care, compromising away a strong layout at the benefit of some other aspect or poorly planning the layout will cause you a lot of headaches later on. Sure, doing so will enable you to get the tank up and running sooner but there's no real benefit to that when you decide a month later that you need to pull most of it out and replace. If you're going to place wood or stone in your tank, if you're going to slope your substrate, if you're going to tie anything on, you need to do it as early in the process as possible, ideally at square one. The layout is the most permanent of the three aspects. It's the hardest to change and changing it disturbs everything else so the layout should be the top priority from the get-to. 

Concerning the other two aspects, the plants and the fish:

Deciding on your layout indirectly takes care of the rest. When you choose a layout, you are choosing it with a "look" in mind and this look is never just about the hardscape, it always takes plants into consideration. If you put this piece of wood on this side and this piece of wood in the middle, you might not be deciding glosso or hairgrass, rotala or ludwigia, but you are dictating at the very least the kind of empty space you are creating and that in turn will often make your plant selection easier.

If your layout is full on one side and empty on the other, that's going to make it easier for you to select fish since you'll likely need schoolers to take advantage of the open space. 

Besides, it's easy to pull up one family of stem for another, change a color, etc or swap out fish, but what happens when you wake up one morning and decide half the rocks should be moved over to the opposite end of the tank and the remaing half would look better if they were turned upside down?

Layout is the backbone. Plant specifics and fish are accessories, they are easily changed, mixed and matched, to alter the overall appearance as needed but they always operate as a function of the layout. Something has to give you, the caretaker, a focus, a solid and unchanging element that you can't accidentally wipe away through simple tinkering. It's nice to know that you can pull that plant up without risking that it was the linchpin that made the whole tank "work", that you'll never be lost, that you'll never have to come up with "something" after making only a minor change. 

My use of the term layout can be interchanged with the term "hardscape". A good hardscape does a lot of the work for you and it protects you from the potential loss that can come out of your endless need to try making small improvements.


----------



## Chris S (Feb 27, 2006)

I agree that a work of art must balance all the resources available. Not neglecting any one factor. Such a simple design but so complex when I really look at it. It is burned into my memory. It is like the scape is telling us a story. 
I put myself in a natural body of water. I imagine the scape going on forever. An endless sea of grass in the background. The flats where the fish know that natural food sources will come in from that area's eb and flow. They seek security by relating to the "cover" of the rock bed at the transition to deeper water in the forground. That is where they will flee on the sight of any danger. The small ram reminds me that predators are also aware that this is a sweat spot to sit,wait and ambush. It is like a photo of a natural transition in the wild. That is where all action is and the fish chose to live there, and just there. I would if I where them.
His design "Puts me there." And i dont need to tell you that "there" is where I like to be. I think the canvas brush and paint are all equally important. But then again, I hate painting.


----------



## tao (Jun 15, 2005)

Am puzzled by the painting analogy. Personally I would think the most important part of the design would be what you are trying to say with the tank and with what other people would take away from it. The layout, fish and plants should be used to complement each other. not necessarily balanced but so that one part highlights another. Like color contrast. 

Personally, I like specificity in tanks, it makes it less generic and more personal, even if I have to go with a smaller tank to do it. 

I like the negative space( possibly not a good name for it) at the top. It makes me feel small. Like you are sitting outside on the ground and wondering if you are alone.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

I think the discussion is interesting, but a bit pointless on some level. It's like asking which is more important, the heart or the brain. Well, one doesn't get very far without the other......

I take a simple view of art. It either works for me or it doesn't. Of course, the finer points of this are completely lost on me - probably becasue I haven't put forth the effort to understand the subject.

Without a question the most important is the person that bought the canvas, found the right paint, and held the brush. Starting out with an idea of what you'd like to accomplish cannot be overstated. Just my $0.05.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

guaiac_boy said:


> I think the discussion is interesting, but a bit pointless on some level. It's like asking which is more important, the heart or the brain. Well, one doesn't get very far without the other......


Maybe that is just what Amano was getting at. Each has some importance, but no one thing makes or breaks a tank (a carelessly placed rock could break the tank, but that's another...).

For me the most important thing in a design is life, that spark that keeps going. Contrast is next, life contrasted with unchangeing stones, life and driftwood's death.

Each of us tries to capture something of the magic we felt as kids watching the buds swell and sprout green in the spring. Bring your magic place home.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

Here are a list of quotes from artist Robert Henri.....

These quotes apply as they are spoken by a true artist. They imply unity of all things to convey what needs to be said.

"....something you want to say definitely about the subject; this is the finest condition of a portrait (scape). The work is done when that special thing has been said.

No feature should be drawn except in its relation to the others....

A good painting (scape) is a remarkable feat of organization. Every part of it is wonderful in itself because it seems so alive in its share in the making of unity of the whole, and the whole is so definitely one thing.

You can look at a good painting(scape) in but one way. That is, the way it is made. Whether you will or not you must follow its sequences.

There are some paintings(scapes), very remarkable for the skill they display, which are, however, a mere welding together of factors which belong to many different expression of nature. Many a school drawings of this character have i seen held up as an example, given a prize, and yet being but a mere patching together of many concepts---unrelated factors nevertheless cunningly interwoven -- there is not in them that surge of life, that unity which is the mark of true organizatioin."

jB


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

|squee| said:


> Imho, it's the brush. Master artists can produce works in any form of canvas and paint.
> 
> In the picture above, I feel it's the fish that bring life to the scape. Our eyes are naturally attracted to moving things first, then the intended focal point of the scape itself, and then the rest of the picture.


Terence,

I think you bring up a great point. When I look at the picture the first thing that I see is the school of fish. Then I focus on the background.

I suppose you stated that the brush is most important meaning that it is the aquascaper's talent (the hand holding the brush) that makes the difference. Give an aquascaper driftwood, rocks and plants and he'll produce a good aquascape?

What conclusions can you draw about the aquascape or the aquascaper's intentions by observing the fish, their color and their swimming behavior? Do you think Amano gave a lot of thought to it? Is his choice of fish appropriate?

Sorry about the many questions, but you bring up a great point.


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

T-Bone said:


> You cannot have a picture at all without an artist, so one would have to conclude that it really isn't any one of these single components, but is really the artist his/herself. Good art comes down to individual expression; if everyone was a Picasso or a Rembrandt, art would be pretty boring.


T-Bone,

I also agree with you that the aquascaper is key to the aquascape. Individual expression is interesting. Aquascaping is really a form of art, isn't it?

In that train of thought, what overall impression do you get from looking at Amano's aquascape above? What was he going for?


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

It's interesting that several of you mention that the fish are the most important. In your opinion, can you have a good aquascape without fish?

Random,

You mentioned the permanance of the hardscape and using it as your foundation for the aquascape. All other things being interchangeable. I'm interested to know if you think that an aquascape who's goal is to look good for a specific period only is really a good aquascape? Some people think that's cheating.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

I really enjoy reading these "deeper" threads. Thanks Art.

For me all elements are equally important; each adding up to the end product. To favour one over another seems to upset the whole balance concept. I realise that may sound oversimplified but I'm a simple person!


----------



## standoyo (Aug 25, 2005)

Art_Giacosa said:


> It's interesting that several of you mention that the fish are the most important. In your opinion, can you have a good aquascape without fish?
> 
> Random,
> 
> You mentioned the permanance of the hardscape and using it as your foundation for the aquascape. All other things being interchangeable. I'm interested to know if you think that an aquascape who's goal is to look good for a specific period only is really a good aquascape? Some people think that's cheating.


hi art,
you can have a good aquascape without fish but it would be only be a good one. not great. a great house with nobody home?

IMO a great aquascape is designed around the fish...biotope or semi biotope.[a true biotope is pretty bare!]
Art imitates nature and imitating nature is part of Mr Amano's philosophy in his designs.

An aquascape that is meant to look good only for a short period of time is like cutting flowers and making an ikebana arrangement and while it is very artistic it's doesn't have a permanence like a redwood forest but still is a valid aquascape skill itself...
However, IMO the impermanence of it makes it trendy but not classic. a bit like modern art versus rennaisance...

i like jason's quote of artist robert henri, '... an amazing feat of organisation...'

i must say nature does not look perfect all the time...and different kinds of art affect people differently. the Amano grass scapes remind me of playing in a grass plain as a kid. I also played a lot in orchards and jungles so there's lots of inspiration to draw from.

Many roads lead to Rome, the easiest one is not the most satisfying one...


----------



## |squee| (Feb 3, 2005)

Art_Giacosa said:


> Give an aquascaper driftwood, rocks and plants and he'll produce a good aquascape?


Imho, indeed 


Art_Giacosa said:


> What conclusions can you draw about the aquascape or the aquascaper's intentions by observing the fish, their color and their swimming behavior? Do you think Amano gave a lot of thought to it? Is his choice of fish appropriate?


In reference to the picture posted, it's a rather "unmoving" picture imho, because of the black background used and the "solidness" of the rocks, and the overall "dark muted blurred" feel of the whole picture. Amano probably realises this, and thus when introducing the "life" into the tank, he used muted-coloured fish too, but with red tails. The red tails added interest into this picture imho.

Amano has mentioned that fish complete the aquascape in some book if I'm not wrong, so he definately gives it a lot of thought (I'm pretty sure I read about him expressing his desire to write a book about fish choice if he ever decides to publish another one). I wouldn't say if his fish choice was appropriate or not, but it definately makes me think that "hey, I'd never consider changing the fish if I were him".


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

Art_Giacosa said:


> Random,
> 
> You mentioned the permanance of the hardscape and using it as your foundation for the aquascape. All other things being interchangeable. I'm interested to know if you think that an aquascape who's goal is to look good for a specific period only is really a good aquascape? Some people think that's cheating.


I don't consider them aquascapes at all. To me, they are photos, plain and simple. Aquascapes are, what, aquatic versions of landscapes? When I think of a landscape, I think of something solid and at least semi-permanent. I believe that submitting them in regular aquascaping contests is cheating and I'm glad to see Amano calling them out about it.

To me, it's deceptive, like taking a photo of a flower that blooms once or twice a year and then passing that photo off as the standard for identifying that flower. If it's a delicate moment in time then it should be noted as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think they are a valid form of expression and that they do have their place. I just don't like seeing them and true aquascapes being thrown into the same pot together. Like what has been mentioned, longevity and stability should be highly desirable traits, if not our primary objective. I guess it comes down to how you interpret "recreating nature". To me, nature does include changes but it's also built on a foundation of stability.


----------



## T-Bone (Nov 23, 2005)

The overall impreassion I get from that scape is, an expansive landscape. I know that scape is in a smallish sized tank from the species of plant and their relative size compared to the rest of the tank. Yet the tank looks big at the same time. To me it feels like I'm looking at a mountain range in the distance. with a forest surrounding it. I'm pretty sure Amano carefully thought out all the choices of everything that went into that scape. But then thats why he gets paid for his art, and we pay for ours.


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

Chris S said:


> It is burned into my memory. It is like the scape is telling us a story.


Chris,

This is excellent! True art impacts the soul and tells a story. This is the first thing I try to do when I see an aquascape. I try to let the aquascape take me to where the aquascaper intended.


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

guaiac_boy said:


> I think the discussion is interesting, but a bit pointless on some level. It's like asking which is more important, the heart or the brain. Well, one doesn't get very far without the other......
> 
> 
> > This is interesting in itself. Aren't you stating that all three are important and cannot exist without the other? This is an answer and reveals something about aquascaping.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Art_Giacosa said:


> This is interesting in itself. Aren't you stating that all three are important and cannot exist without the other? This is an answer and reveals something about aquascaping.


Oh no, you're seeing through my carefully crafted subtleties..........


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

Here's perhaps some food for thought...

What we're looking at here is a *picture* and this is an especially important point with regards to the fish.

What would you think if, at the moment the picture was taken, the entire school of fish was bunched up on the right side, near the surface?


----------



## Deni (Jul 6, 2005)

When I was looking at the most recent ADA contest pictures, a comment by one of the judges about an aquarium made quite an impact on me: _I even like that you have allowed your fish to swim and behave naturally rather than the current and highly artifical fad of "scaring" them into schooling in the center of the tank._ Since I read that, whenever I see fish in a school in the center of the tank, I realize that they have been frightened into that position and it detracts from the overall feeling of the artistry for me.

I guess I'm not a big fan of the Amano style. To me, the artistry is in creating something that is beautiful every day that enriches the lives of those who come to see it in its regular state. Over and over again, people talk about how the fishkeeper should have removed the equipment from the tank before taking the photograph. While the style is supposed to be natural, this is most unnatural. There's no way that the example tank in the first post is like that all of the time. It would be an incredible amount of work -- if not impossible --to keep a tank like that with no heat, no filtration, no CO2... no hardware at all. I find it much more artistic to show a tank where all those things exist, but have been cleverly hidden or incorporated into the aquascape.

When I see a photo of an aquarium, I would like to know that if I walked into the aquascaper's living room, this is what I would see. With the Amano style, even though the pipes and wires aren't there, I see them in my mind because I know they were there a few minutes before the photo was taken and will be there again a few minutes after the photo session is over.

I suppose it's all in what the reason is for having an aquarium in the first place. For me, it's just soothing to watch the fish and to be able to grow something. (Aquatic plants seem to be the only ones that don't shrivel up and die when I touch them.  ) If I take photos of it to show others, it's only because I can't have everyone over to my house to show them the tank in person. But the photos will always be what anyone would see if they sat in my living room. (Well, they will be. I don't have a tank up at the moment.  )


----------



## standoyo (Aug 25, 2005)

i agree on the scaring the fish for the photo...but i normally lure my fish out with promise of food!

anyway dither fish are naturally shy of cameras and photo equipment.

i've seen my 48 lemon tetras create a sine wave in my 125g. it was so amazing i wonder if could ever replicate that in as still...

i agree with not removing equipment and hiding it [not always possible but minimizing it's presence]


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

SnakeIce said:



> For me the most important thing in a design is life, that spark that keeps going. Contrast is next, life contrasted with unchangeing stones, life and driftwood's death.
> 
> Each of us tries to capture something of the magic we felt as kids watching the buds swell and sprout green in the spring. Bring your magic place home.


SnakeIce,

I love this! I'm always fascinated by the different perspectives people have when viewing aquascapes. You've focused in on the contrast of living and non-living. That is yet another way of looking at it.

One of Amano's goal in creating the Nature Aquarium concept is to do just as you say- make you remember that feeling we get when we stand in the presence of nature.


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

Jason Baliban said:


> "A good painting (scape) is a remarkable feat of organization. Every part of it is wonderful in itself because it seems so alive in its share in the making of unity of the whole, and the whole is so definitely one thing."


Jason,

This is my favorite. When you view the aquascape, what do you see?

I think some of use delve too much into the details and miss the overall impression. However, isn't it those very details that make the whole seem majestic? So simple when viewed overall, but so complex when delving into the details! Can't that be said of many things in life including ourselves?


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Art_Giacosa said:


> I think some of use delve too much into the details and miss the overall impression. However, isn't it those very details that make the whole seem majestic? So simple when viewed overall, but so complex when delving into the details! Can't that be said of many things in life including ourselves?


I agree completely with this.

The total is greater than the sum of its parts. Physically impossible but artistically.......


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

gf225,

I like these threads too. I'm trying to get us thinking about modern aquascaping. 

Many of you may not know it but we are on the cusp of a rennaissance of planted aquariums. Only in the last 10 years have so many people taken to aquascaping as a form of art. As a result, it has been elevated to a true art form.

No, this is not the only purpose for keeping a planted aquarium, but it is important for all of us to try to understand and appreciate it. I stand in awe of the time, effort and skill of today's aquascaping artists.


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

Stan,

To me, whether an aquascape has fish, driftwood, rock or even plants is simply a matter of intent of the aquascaper. Just like their are different types of paintings, we should try to understand the aquascaper's intent. An aquascaper may intend to have a beautiful aquascape that is only short lived. We should appreciate it for what it is. Others may create an aquascape that is intended to stand for a long time and it should likewise be appreciated for its purpose.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

*Aquascaping in the UK*

Art - I have learnt so much in the last 12 months through APC, particularly on the artistic side.

I've only had an aquarium for 3 years, two of which I can say it's been "properly" planted. But it's only in the last year or so have I looked into this hobby with more depth and thought of it as more a form of art. I suppose once one has understood how to set up a tank with the right balance of light, plants and nutrients etc. so plants grow and algae does not then one is free to concentrate more on the aquascaping aspect.

I have all of Amano's books (and I've just ordered two Aqua Journals) but to read other member's real-time experiences and opinions is enlightening almost beyond comprehension. I have very little natural artistic talent myself but I think it is something that can be learnt to a degree, just as learning an instrument is possible - it is just easier for some than others.

I live in the UK where the planted tank is still regarded by most hobbyists as a fish tank with a few live plants. Aquascaping as an art form is pretty much unheard of. However I can feel the wind of change coming soon. I'm the planted mod on a big "general" fishkeeping forum and through my work, and I hope positive influence, I'm helping in a small way to boost the UK planted hobby and therefore by default the art of aquascaping.

Pressurized CO2, decent lighting, ferts etc. are becoming more commonplace and it's great that we have access to Tropica plants. With the likes of Aqua Essentials taking the bold yet very positive step of specialising in planted tank goods and now supplying ADA stock the UK is in for an exciting future I'm sure.

Sorry for going a little off topic.


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

Laith said:


> Here's perhaps some food for thought...
> 
> What we're looking at here is a *picture* and this is an especially important point with regards to the fish.
> 
> What would you think if, at the moment the picture was taken, the entire school of fish was bunched up on the right side, near the surface?


Laith,

You bring up an excellent point and one that I think we don't discuss very much but that everyone knows intuitively. That is, an aquarium must be healthy before one can see its true beauty as an aquascape.

To follow your train of thought, what would be everyone's impression if the bottom was covered with thread algae or if the plants were a pale green with yellow between the veins?


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

gf225 said:


> I've only had an aquarium for 3 years, two of which I can say it's been "properly" planted. But it's only in the last year or so have I looked into this hobby with more depth and thought of it as more a form of art. I suppose once one has understood how to set up a tank with the right balance of light, plants and nutrients etc. so plants grow and algae does not then one is free to concentrate more on the aquascaping aspect.


Exactly! Isn't it wonderful when you don't have to stress about the algae or keeping plants healthy? When you reach that point, you just focus on the way things look and your understanding of aquascaping expands very quickly.



gf225 said:


> I have all of Amano's books (and I've just ordered two Aqua Journals) but to read other member's real-time experiences and opinions is enlightening almost beyond comprehension. I have very little natural artistic talent myself but I think it is something that can be learnt to a degree, just as learning an instrument is possible - it is just easier for some than others.


This is something we strive for here at APC. Everyone has a talent. Some have a talent for the artisitic side of things. Others, not so much. I fall into the latter camp. However, for the most part, aquascaping can be learnt. It is possible for anyone who applies themselves to have a breathtaking aquarium.



gf225 said:


> I live in the UK where the planted tank is still regarded by most hobbyists as a fish tank with a few live plants. Aquascaping as an art form is pretty much unheard of. However I can feel the wind of change coming soon. I'm the planted mod on a big "general" fishkeeping forum and through my work, and I hope positive influence, I'm helping in a small way to boost the UK planted hobby and therefore by default the art of aquascaping.


I commend you for this. Keep up the good work!


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

I find it very interesting how we seem to be finding some common truths about aquascaping (it seems we all believe it to be a form of art) and yet have some different definitions of it.

*What is aquascaping trying to achieve?*
Does an aquascape have to imitate nature to be considered true aquascaping? Or, is its purpose to remind us of an idealized view of nature? I would submit that a true represenation of nature would be a biotope aquarium and its purpose is different than an artistically designed aquascape. Both are beautiful in their own way, but each has a different purpose.

Like painting, aquascaping has different forms. Some aquascapes can be impressionistic whle others are more representative of reality. Compare the picture in the first post with the following Dutch Style aquascape. What similarities are there between the two? How are they different?









Photo copyright of J. Wiedenhoff


----------



## MiamiAG (Jan 13, 2004)

Some of you have focused on the movement of the aquascape or lack thereof. I find this to be a great observation!

*Is an aquascape living art?*
Can we truly judge an aquascape from a photo or is it meant to be experienced to gain the full effect? I'm just back from France were I saw the Mona Lisa for the first time. Seeing the painting in person is a whole other experience than just seeing a picture of it and the Mona Lisa isn't alive. Isn't an aquascaping living art? As such, isn't it meant to be experienced?


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

> Isn't an aquascaping living art? As such, isn't it meant to be experienced?


 IMO, absolutely! Unfortunately, contests have to have a common thread, which is the photograph. As such, we look at frozen moments in time as our measuring rod of 'artistic' prowess. We all know that a lot of these beautiful tanks which we see in the aga, etc, are momemtary images which 24 hours later might well lose their appeal. Experiencing our little 'jewels' on a daily basis is the anchor which holds it all together.

One thing we all ask ourselves is how much effort are we willing to put into our scapes? The tanks that are heavy into stems are a nightmare to maintain. That's why those pics, imo, can be so misguiding. Maybe there ought to be a contest for 'realistically sustainable aquascapes'. 

Just some ramblings...


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

I am not one to "trade in" or get rid of my fish for a new scape. So as such I base myscape around the fish I have, not the otherway around.


----------

