# Fish-- Pals or Paintstrokes?



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this question, because posting in the aquascaping forum might bias responses (but I doubt it).

What do you guys think of your fish? Pals or paintstrokes?

Note that in the context of aquascaping, the difference might just be a difference of thinking, not acting. Most of us would definitely accept that healthy fish are more beautiful fish-- and for me, that would be the motivation for taking care of their health, as one more aspect I have to take care of alongside propper planning, trimming, dosing, etc.

Is it,

"Fish for the planted aquarium"

or

"The planted aquarium for fish"

?

I got back into the hobby of fish keeping 3 years ago since I loved corydoras and wanted to keep some. However, when I saw my first aquascape, I made the metaphysical leap--

"In the context of this art that's before me, plants, stones, and fish, are paint."

Maybe many others did not experience what I did, but after making that mental jump, I've always thought of the fish as just one more part of an aquarium-- because artistry is more important to me than enjoying fish keeping. It's been a long time since I thought of fish as a pet in one of my aquariums. While this does not lead me to sacrificing the health of the fish (this thread was triggered by a different discussion where someone mentioned keeping discus in a 10L tank which I would personally not find aesthetically appealing), it is a difference of mindset that does effect some of our decision. In my opinion, the focus of the artist should always be the art. Of course I love fish. I love plants too. However my larger goal is for the sake of grasping higher and higher artistic excellence-- the health of these living things just happens to coincide with that goal-- to a degree.

For those of you who follow my threads, you know that I tear my work down 1 every 3 months. What do you think happens to the fish? They go back to the pet store. Personally, I don't think I'm doing much good for my white cloud minnow, even if they are living in here:










What does every creature want? Reproductive success. Are they going to get that from the environment I give them? Well no. This tank is hardly set up for cyprinid breeding, and I won't change parameters/feeding to accomodate it if it takes me off my normal regimin. Otocinclus? Amanos? Neither of them are going to have reproductive success in this tank-- they won't achieve their highest desires. Is that going to deter me from my aquascaping??

Um, no. And all of you who are also keeping Amanos, otos, or any other fish or shrimp without breeding them, IMO, cannot say that the good of your fauna comes first without being hypocrites. I keep my fauna healthy really for the sake of their beauty-- and I know it.



> _Originally Posted by Rain_
> OT. I heard of this really amazing art piece, blender, water and goldfish and then you turn on the blender and watch the amazing art.
> 
> I think that when you keep living creatures you can't think of them as decoration only. Keep fake fish if you want your tank to look artsy and leave the live ones for the people who try to offer them the best.
> ...


First of all, art like that first piece really bothers me. I know that there can be "meaning in morbid things," but for me I've never found pleasure in it. I don't know, it's a difficult topic to talk about. However, I can say some things about other parts of this comment,

I don't like the use of the words "Decorations" or "artsy." For me coming from an art background, those words imply "Just putting them there to be pretty." Real art is different.

I think this difference of thinking appears in our aquascapes too Rain.

Your tank, with its wide variety of species and obvious collectoritis, and never taking a deeply designed submerged layout is-- well, it's "Artsy," it's "Decorative," and it shows your interest in these plants and animals more than your interest in the art.

My tanks are deeply thought through in regard to design. Real _art_, art with passion and single-minded determination. Art with the search and grasping of inspiration, and the desperate pursuit of greater artistic _excellence_. This is how I aquascape, and this is my mentality.

People who see my aquariums may think "Wow, what lucky fish" (though only after several minutes of simply jaw-dropped silence or excited yelps), but personally I think they'd be better off in a breeder's tank where they'd have some chance of rearing their own young. I personally believe there's things they can't get out of living with me that they would get elsewhere-- including the wild.

If I go to a fish keeping forum, I've heard many times that we planted tank keepers are people who put plants before fish, and that it's horrible to keep fish in a tank saturated with CO2. I've heard them say that we've lost our passion for fish because we only care about the little species (which, is true except for the angels, discus, and rare odd-ball planted tank). I don't know-- I can't stand going to those places. Closed-minded pet-keepers who can't see the birth of a new art form.

This sounds like an almost silly question to me (because for me the answer is obvious), but which is true?

Are aquascapers _artists_ first?

Or are we _fishkeepers_ first?

It goes unsaid that we are actually both, and that caring for fish is a big part of it. But-- which is _first_ in the context of aquascaping? Which do we do for the sake of the other? Which has the higher priority?



It's also true that the answer will vary from person to person. I just want to hear opinions-- though I can guess that the art opinion is not the one that will be more common.


----------



## goalcreas (Nov 20, 2006)

That question is not going to go over for everybody, it is more of a poll then a quetions.
you should put out a poll to find out who the fish keepers are and who the artists are.
Personally I am a fish keeper who prefers to keep fish in planted tanks. And my fish breed in my tanks, so from what you say, they are well kept and happy. 

But the next person might be an aquascaper and the next a fishkeeper, so there is not really an answer to your question.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

This question is phrased in the context of aquascaping. If you're an aquascaper first, than are fish paints or pals? That's the question.

I don't really care for polls-- statistically flawed, and doesn't produce much meaning to me. I'd rather have discussion!

If one considers him an aquascaper first, can he really think that while putting the fish before his art?


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

I'll just repeat part of my comments on this subject in the other thread:



> ...And there is no reason to have to sacrifice or ignore the well being of the inhabitants in order to have a beautiful aquascape...


Why does it have to be either/or?

Nothing wrong with using fish as part of an artistic aquascape (your paintstroke analogy)... in fact a lot of times the fish can make or break an aquascape. But that certainly shouldn't mean that the fish's wellbeing can be ignored. All the great aquascapers whose work I've admired (I'm not much of an aquascaper!  ) spend a lot of time on the plant choice, positioning etc but would never ignore the wellbeing of the fish.

Let me put it this way: let's say as an aquascaper you find a certain chemical that brings out the perfect reddish/brown hue on a certain plant's leaves that you've been trying to get just right for ages. The aquascape would be perfectly complemented by the presence of 10 fish of species x. However, you know that this chemical will surely slowly kill these fish over a period of a month or two. What do you do? If one says that it doesn't matter as these fish are the perfect compliment to his/her art and therefore can be sacrificed for the sake of art, I'd find a lot of problems with that.

It's been a long day so maybe I'm just misunderstanding the whole discussion?


----------



## Squawkbert (Jan 3, 2007)

< not an aquascaper, so it's fish first, plants second with the number one priority being a healthy environment for both.

That said, I have developed some appreciation for aquascaping and I try to make my tank look as pleasing as I can given my resources. The aquascapes frequently presented here do inspipre me to try to do better with respect to presentation of all of my tank's inhabitants.

When it comes to choosing fish & inverts, color is way down on the list. I try to combine several species from a given ecosystem type while hoping for some contrasting colors and some schooling behavior. Looking at my stocking lists, it's obvious that this is not a hard and fast rule.
(5g: Malaysian fish, Thai shrimp, Indian & new world plants,
46g: SA fish (except for the DG, plants from Asia, and the Americas, Asian and American snails live in both tanks).

So, in a word, Pals.


----------



## rain- (Dec 16, 2005)

I come from a long line of artists, I've had some training and I do understand art, but...

I just feel like it's wrong to see a creature just as part of some art piece. I enjoy Amano's aquascapes and think that he is a real genius when it comes to artfully planned tanks. I like it more wild though, not as strict, not as planned. And the fish, well, I don't have any actually, come first when I am thinking about what to do with the tanks. I'm into more organic evolution of a tank, it will show it's beauty later and every living thing in the aquarium is just as important, from living creatures to plants. It's true that I don't see them as art pieces, they are pieces of nature of which I am responsible of till the end.

To me, your way of doing things feels somehow shallow and your attitude a bit condescending. But your way of doing isn't wrong either if you are still providing good care for the fish you have.

Animals aren't humans, but they still deserve appreciation. Of course we select the fish and creatures that aesthetically please our eye, but we also (hopefully) take into consideration their needs and behavior. I don't think they should be something that get returned back to the store when they aren't needed anymore. 

Well, there's not much to say, I basically disagree with you about nearly everything and I bet we couldn't be more different from each other even though we both are artists.


----------



## Afroturf (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't believe that people who consider themselves fishkeepers but keep their fish in hi-tech planted tanks results in a detrimental effect to the fishes happiness most fish that people buy from shop are bread for the trade and have no idea of what it is to live in their natural environment and in most cases the owners tank should be the best environment that they have lived in I think that you are much more likely to find a ill or dead fish in a fish store than you would in a aquascapers tank. 

I personally believe that my current tank based towards plants is the healthiest environment i have created that fish live in, as i now keep a closer eye on the water conditions than i did do when i only kept fish.

I don’t really know if I’d call my self an artist or a fishkeeper, I was never very good at art when I was at school. But when you create beautiful aquascape they are just as good as any piece of art, and they do the exact same thing as art, they are there as a thing of beauty and are there to be admired. 

In a standard community ‘fishkeepers’ tanks tank you are likely to be many different types of fish in this one tank each fish will look attractive but if these species were than transferred to a ‘artists’ aquascape again each individual fish is likely to look very nice but the overall aquascape is likely to be spoilt and therefore the aquascape ceases to be art anymore. 

I would therefore say if I had to categories my self as an artist or a fishkeeper as I know choose the fish to suit the aquascape i would say the fish are paintstrokes i don't care for them as much as my dog but i'm still unhappy when any pass away.


----------



## freakmonkey1423 (Jan 21, 2007)

In my tanks, I look at the plants and fish as cohabitants. Fish give off waste, and the plants use it. The plants give off waste and the fish use it. It is the way life on earth has been going for millions of years. If your plants require a certain water chemestry, I believe it is best to choose the best fish for that chemestry. A "happy" medium can be obtained in many cases but it is usually at some small sacrifice to the wellbeing of the plants, the fish, or both. I would lean more towards sacrificing the health of plants over the health of fish, simply because by observing social fish behavior, we can infer that the fish have feelings of some sort, at least they are concious of their life. If a plant dies, it doesn't know it nor do its "friends". Plants don't feel pain in a long slow death, but a fish does. If fish are looked at as just another medium, I would compare them to tattoos. A temporary tattoo looks bad from start to finish and wears off quickly but a real tattoo will stay forever and is much more beautiful IMO. Maybe it isn't the best analogy but it's all I've got. So, in short I guess I will say, if it knows it is alive, it should take priority over something that doesn't.


----------



## Kelley (Aug 27, 2006)

All forms of art have constraint. Painters accept the limits of two dimensions, the limits of the canvas and the media. Professional artists of all must accept the limitations imposed by the client's wishes, their chosen theme and what the market will accept. This last one is difficult. I've watched my husband progress from rebellion to acceptance to thriving under this last constraint over the last twelve years as a professional artist. 

I believe that the health and wellfare of fish is a constraint of the media of aquascaping. I am disgusted by the very notion of "fish as paintstrokes". I strongly believe that if you take a living creature into your life, you accept the obligation to keep it to the best of your ability for the duration of its life. If this does not agree with the design of one's aquascape, then compromise needs to be reached. In addition, I don't think that anyone's art is worth the extinction of a species in the wild, as is happening to Galaxy rasboras right now. 

Though it perhaps is not a perfect analogy, I would hope that an architect or interior designer building a home for me would not suggest I get rid of my dog to suit their design aesthetic. Compromise must be reached.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

I am not an artist. I probably don't have the talent to be one. I spent my working career as an engineer, which is almost the opposite of an artist. But, I really enjoy growing plants, whether outdoors in a garden or indoors in tank of water. I like to arrange my growing plants so I enjoy watching them grow, and I like having fish and shrimp in the same tank to add some motion to make the scene more enjoyable to watch.

I grew up with fish being something you go catch to eat. In fact most animals were viewed by me as a food source - dogs and cats excepted. So, I don't view my fish as pets or pals. I do hate to see a fish suffering in my tank, and will try to stop the suffering if I see it.

Some farm children raise their own food animal as a pet - a lamb, pig, cow, etc., but they are not excessively bothered by knowing those animals will someday become meat for someones meal. I kinda fit that category.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

Laith--

As you said, it'd be hard to think of an example where the health of the fish and a good aquascape DON'T coincide. That said, I like to know where my priorities/loyalties lie, because you never know. That's all.

I personally don't think that I'd find a fish attractive, nor think of it as "the perfect fish" if I knew that it wouldn't be able to live in an aquascape for long. That said, even Amano has done something similar to your theoretical example with his Heckel Discus tank in Nature Aquarium World 1. He defined "success" for his aquascape as being able to keep the system going for 6 months-- not indefinitely. I personally (based on aesthetic reasons) would choose a fish comfortable in its environment, but if another aquascaper (say Amano with his discus) defined "success" of the aquascape otherwise, I don't think I'd see anything horribly wrong with it.

Rain-- Ah, we do disagree, though I do have high respect for you and your opinions. We just have different loyalties to seeing things. My loyalties are more to art, and yours more to your personal sense of ethics. My personal definitions of moral imperatives do not prevent me from seeing things the way I do.



> Animals aren't humans, but they still deserve appreciation.


However, please don't assume that I do not appreciate the beauty/virtue in fish as living things without understanding my personal philosophy. I love nature-- love all things in it, and find beauty in all living things-- definitely in fish!!

I was the kind of little boy who'd spend all his recesses in the library reading-- Over the course of 1st and 2nd grade I read all the books in my elementary school library on crustaceans, and moved my way through fish, spiders, dinosaurs, birds of prey, lizards, snakes . . . they called me a walking encyclopedia (though all those books were old and the information was often wrong compared to things I learned in middle and highschool). I love nature and living things!

That said,

"If nature has rules, than the most important is survival of the fittest."

Everything in nature is beautiful, but everything appreciates its own beauty the most. Of course I'm selfish. Being alive is having selfishness. Losing one's selfishness _completely_ is being a martyr-- that is, dying. At some level, you would also have to admit that the very nature of this hobby is selfish!

Removing organisms from their native habitats and denying them the chance to reproduce (which IMO is their highest desire/priority), and keeping them for your own pleasure is selfish to a degree and unfair to the organisms. Seeing as you breed your shrimp and grow your plants Rain, your own behavior is probably exempt from this and its possible you're entire not-selfish in this, but condoning other hobbyists non-breeding of their fish is basically condoning a certain degree of selfishness.

IMO, selfishness isn't such a horrible thing. Living is beautiful, nature is beautiful-- and is selfishness a part of nature and life? You bet it is!! Every organism on this planet would be long extinct if it weren't selfish! And I love them all!

But me the most, because I'm selfish and part of nature too. 

I hope that wasn't too shallow for you, I tried my best to think deeply. 

Kelley-- You are absolutely right that art has limits!!

And I'd have to agree that the health of the fish is absolutely a limit and something that must be met just as time to develop the photo if he's using film!

That said, that doesn't say anything about me having to perceive my fish as pals and not paints-- except for the fact that it disgusts you, which I'm sorry for.

I absolutely agree that it's disgusting that the galaxy rasbora are going extinct-- but again, my reasons are different from yours.

You feel a ethical response to the extinction of a species.

I on the other hand, am enraged because I have a strong belief that human beings will suffer with the destruction of the species we have evolved alongside of. That is, aversion to the extinction of the species is not from ethical imperative, but because _I am worse off_ as the species of my world go extinct. We are all worsened off for it.

So I keep white cloud minnows.

I will be always be sad when I return the fish I use to the store at the end of the aquascape's life, but what more can I do? I will help them insofar as it does not deny my personal aims. I

will not change the tank to a WCM breeding tank because that is the desire of the fish.

I will not choose not to aquascape at all just because I know that at the end of the semester I must go back home to hawaii from california, and tear down the tank before that.

As my personal ethical imperatives, I'd rather not touch on that. A semester on Morality and Religion, from Natural Law to Kantianism, I never found a convincing proof of the existance of morality at all-- so I'm definitely not willing to make the (IMO rather arrogant assumtion) that I can know what's right and what's wrong.

If you were to say that ethics simply comes from one's sense of right and wrong, than I would say I wouldn't want to cause a species to go extinct, but am I willing to deny reproductive success to a few individuals for the sake of my art? From just my gut feeling-- yes.

I can't prove ethics exists, but evolution is something easy to believe in. From a Darwinistic perspective, the end of an organism's chance for reproduction is the end of its life. There is no future for that organism's genes. Therefore, I am a _consumer_ of WCM, otocinclus, and Amanos.

I am as much a consumer of them as of chicken. I am a predator to them. Am I ok with that? Well yes.

I may not be a good judge of the true and ultimate wrong and right, but my gut feeling says that my art is important enough to me that I can be a consumer of such things just as I consume chicken.

Sorry for writing so much and instigating such a difficult discussion-- i just love thinking about philosophy!


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

Missed you Hoppy-- I see! Very insightful and discriptive!


----------



## SUBORPHAN (Apr 20, 2006)

Steven_Chong said:


> Is it,
> 
> "Fish for the planted aquarium"
> 
> ...


For me it's neither. instead it is an aquarium for plants and fish.



Steven_Chong said:


> And all of you who are also keeping Amanos, otos, or any other fish or shrimp without breeding them, IMO, cannot say that the good of your fauna comes first without being hypocrites.


That may be seen by some as offensive. none of us can possibly know what others think or what they put first. Surely a lot of people may keep fish like discus and dont want to breed them but still the good of their fauna may come first. It's like saying that people who keep dogs or cats, but castrate them, dont care as much for them as someone who breeds their dogs or cats.



Steven_Chong said:


> If I go to a fish keeping forum, I've heard many times that we planted tank keepers are people who put plants before fish, and that it's horrible to keep fish in a tank saturated with CO2. I've heard them say that we've lost our passion for fish because we only care about the little species (which, is true except for the angels, discus, and rare odd-ball planted tank). I don't know-- I can't stand going to those places. Closed-minded pet-keepers who can't see the birth of a new art form.
> 
> This sounds like an almost silly question to me (because for me the answer is obvious), but which is true?
> 
> ...


Those people who say that aquascapers dont care for their fish are partly true. to make that statement more correct i would add aquascapers (not all of them) who change their scapes more often than a king changes his clothes.

"close minded pet-keepers who can't see the birth of a new art form"??!! without meaning to be offensive i would say that that sentence sounds a bit pompous. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. what can be art to us may not be such to others.

as for the two questions i think there are two types of scapers. one type who creates a scape adds fish to it and cares for and enjoys them (scape and fish) for a long time by making minor changes here and there when needed. this type i personally think is a fishkeeper first.

the other type of scapers gets their buzz by creating scapes enjoying them for a short time, taking some pictures, destroying the scape and build a new one in its place. this type i personally think care more for the end result scape. some will argue they are artists. i think they are a strange type of artist (a mixture of scaper+photographer). most artists i know care for their creations and want them to last and be enjoyed. if scapers 'do and undo' their scapes every few months
the only thing is left to enjoy is the photographs.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

I think many have started off in this hobby as fishkeepers. What fish can I get next type of mentality, but eventually some find more enrichment from keeping a scape, where the scape comes first. It's almost as if I builds upon the fish to appreciate the total environment eventually, and yes until the fish just become a piece of the whole. I don't think Steven would purposely put a fish in a "toxic" situation just to make his scape work. It would go against the very artistic value of the scape. There can only be an exchange of views since everyone's opinion of art is different. Who's to say where fish keeping ends and art begins. I think the biggest offenders to fish are not artists that see them as mere props, but manufacturers who show sensitive reef fish and others that show 40 fish in a 12g. Who hasn't seen those ads for the Eclipse setups that show a ridiculous number of fish in those small tanks. These tanks are aimed at beginners who don't know any better and purchase to many fish or sensitive fish only to have them suffer and die. 

I DO think there is value in reminding people that it is for example an "aquascaping thread" as oppossed to a fish one. Many times one might give advice that would make sense in a "fish tank" but not necesarilly work in a pristine scape. Something that comes to mind is of course stocking, feeding and medication. If these were applied to many scapes in the same proportions as a "fish tank" it could prove to have very bad consquences for all inhabiatants. 

There is such a broad spectrum of planted tank people here. On one hand you have someone who breaks down a tank every 3 months once his/her vision is realized and the photos are taken. It sounds reasonable that one with those habits would be more de-senstitived to the fish since they are so focused on their vision as opposed to one who has the same planted tank up for 5 years and has grown old was his fish.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

Waa-- some really great and interesting views coming out . . .

Orchid-- you're right, that comment is pompous-- it just comes from my love for aquascaping, and my frustration with those who look down on it. Especially if they do so unthinkingly.

For your comment about "buzz," I'll say this--> Beauty need not be forever. There is meaning in a single moment.

-- The mear months or weeks a brilliant killifish rise from the mud to spawn before dying in the face of definite drying of its pond.

-- The Moment when a Cicada after its long sleep opens its eyes for the first time above ground and spreads its wings.

-- The moment I spent with the special girl, to watch a sunrise on the beach-- and never again will anyone have that single sunrise.

Aquascapes aren't sculptures or pots to be sure-- no matter how we care for them, likely the will not see the next century. Paintings, photos-- they also cannot last forever. And yet art has meaning. There is meaning in a single moment, a single aquascape-- even if it should live for only a month it carves a place in my heart and memories-- and in those of the people with whom I share it.

3 months, 5 years-- in the course of things, the differences in time can be unimportant. So yes, for me just a moment is enough-- and I am seeking to create the most amazing moments I can with my aquascapes.

You might not believe this-- but just because I take my aquariums down, and say goodbye for the fish and plants I've cared for more easily, doesn't mean I love or appreciate them any less than others do. As you said, no one has the right to gauge the emotional strenght of others.

I'm just not afraid to move on, and have many aspirations and desires that are stronger still.


Aside from that-- great stuff House and Orchid! To which I have nothing to add.


----------



## SUBORPHAN (Apr 20, 2006)

Selfishness and nature. now that is a vast topic.

in my humble and ignorant opinion i see animals and plants as part of nature. they live in and contribute to nature. true, animals have to consume but still they do not disrupt nature's harmony. even though animals consume each other and plants they do not cause their extinction. 

on the other hand i see 'humans' as part of nature who live in it but dont contribute to it. on the contrary we are just a type of parasites (the most dangerous ones) who use nature and destroy it (and it's animals and plants and scapes). we are the only species who are responsible for such destruction and so many crimes of nature and the only species who have caused the extinction of so many plant and animal species (hell, we are responsible for the extinction of so many of our own species). now that is what i call selfishness.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

SUBORPHAN said:


> Selfishness and nature. now that is a vast topic.
> 
> in my humble and ignorant opinion i see animals and plants as part of nature. they live in and contribute to nature. true, animals have to consume but still they do not disrupt nature's harmony. even though animals consume each other and plants they do not cause their extinction.
> 
> on the other hand i see 'humans' as part of nature who live in it but dont contribute to it. on the contrary we are just a type of parasites (the most dangerous ones) who use nature and destroy it (and it's animals and plants and scapes). we are the only species who are responsible for such destruction and so many crimes of nature and the only species who have caused the extinction of so many plant and animal species (hell, we are responsible for the extinction of so many of our own species). now that is what i call selfishness.


No offense, but that is ignorant. Or rather, it's naive.

Humans are part of nature too. And don't be so arrogant as to think we could destroy it. We could shoot off all the nuclear bombs right now-- blast the entire face of the earth with nuclear radiation and kill off all humans along with many other species.

And yet, that would have only the tiniest fraction of the destructive power that was carried by a meteroite that would have been needed to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs. A hundred million years later, this planet would once again be covered with life-- completely different life to be sure, but don't think for a second that humans are capable of destroying nature.

Life, is much stronger than we are.

What's really at stake is not life, not nature-- only ourselves and the species with whom we have evolved. If humans save the species on the planet today, it's really for our own good and the good of those species with whom we have evolved.

Nature? Haha. Nature can, and has over its history, lost over 99% of all its species, and yet rebuilt from there to where it is. And don't think we are the first species to ever exterminate others. Everything balances in the long run yes-- but in the short run, species that don't have a place-- die. At the hands of other species.

Humans are a part of nature. The things in nature are selfish-- and there's nothing wrong with that.

For my own part, I find nature beautiful-- and human nature is a part of nature too. Our selfishness is beautiful. I love people for caring about themselves.

The real tragedy, is when people are too stupid to realize what's really imporant-- like the survival of their brother and sister species.

Amano wrote, "It's not healthy to eat rice grown on land that frogs cannot live on."

Humans need to take care of the other creatures we live with yes-- but we ought to know to that we need to do it for our own sake as well as for theirs.


----------



## SUBORPHAN (Apr 20, 2006)

Steven_Chong said:


> No offense, but that is ignorant. Or rather, it's naive.
> 
> Humans are part of nature too. And don't be so arrogant as to think we could destroy it. We could shoot off all the nuclear bombs right now-- blast the entire face of the earth with nuclear radiation and kill off all humans along with many other species.
> 
> ...


It's only a hypothesis that a meteorite caused the exctintion of dinosaurs.

there is a distinction between destruction caused by a meteorite and destruction caused by humans. the first is natural cause, the second is artificially induced by us.

i talk about nature as we know it and not in 100 million years. in 100 million years time we probable would not exist as a species anyway as a result of evolution.

and when i talk about extermination of other species i mean extermination caused artificially by a living creature. i dont mean extermination caused by natural causes.

i personally dont know if we are the only species to have exterminated others or not (is there a known species that has caused the extermination of another? i have never heard of one). however i would say (with a reasonable amount of certainty) that we are the only species to have exterminated MANY others.

i dont think Amano (as much as i respect the man) is a philosopher. you can take a piece of land, sterilise itno worms, insects and such and you can still grow rice on it and it and be able to eat it. yet the frogs probably wont survive due to lack of food.

you say people care about themselves? how does that happen? we smoke, we drink, we fight and kill, we exterminate other tribes and nations, we eat junk food, do drugs. there are many cities where you fall or have a heart attack in the street and people just go past you as if you are non existent. we abuse children, elderly etc. we use other nations, colonise them, use their resources and then leave thembehind undeveloped and in poverty. Africa is in crisis, war, death, poverty and disease everywhere and nothing is being done about it. these are just a few examples i can think of now. and you tell me that you love human selfishness and how we care about ourselves??!! i am sorry but i would say That is naive.

i never said that we arent part of nature. we are, but i view human species rather as a disease.


----------



## B.A.T. (Dec 10, 2006)

I think that most people are fish keepers before they get into the genius behind aquascaping, at least thats how it was for me. I can see both sides of the story, but I have to agree with Steven on this one. Whether he claims to be an artist or a fish keeper he is actually both. Thats, perhaps, why they call it "living art". Being an aquascaper, to me, is in no way showing depreciation for the fish in the tank. If he doesn't appreciate the fish then why are they in his tank, just as healthy as anyone elses? Returning a fish to the store dosn't mean he depretiates it, it has the same chance with anyone else, just like it got with him. I have returned fish to the store too, and I don't see any problem with it. If I kept the hundreds of species that I desired to keep, I would have way too many to maintain and take care of. At least we give them the same opportunity they had before we purchased them, some people flush living fish down the toilet when they get tired of them (not joking). all of this leads me to beleive that aquascaping is not a form of disrespect to the creatures that inhabit the environment, but glorification, as the chosen fish are put there because the scape makes them look really good. Aquascapes are usually as healthy or healthier than most other tanks as it has come down to a precise science that requires much attention to small details in water quality etc.. C02 does exist in nature you know, maybe not in such concentrated quantities, but captive raised fish have come a long way and can adapt to almost any water so long as it is within certain perimeters. If the goal of aquascaping is for the tank to look good and be healthy, which it has to be to thrive, why would someone put in fish that looked bad because they were sick. If someone can have a healthy living masterpeice with all the aspects of the hobby converging to create joy and entertainment then I see absolutely no problem with it.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

Suporphan-- Edit: On second thought this is enough:

Oh, that's really really depressing. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way about people.


B.A.T-- nice

After all, it's best not to send my own thread off topic. :heh:


----------



## skylsdale (Jun 2, 2004)

I think this discussion (and the original question that spawned it) is a bit pointless...at best misguided. You're creating a polarization that doesn't necessarily exist or even need to.

But I guess we like to give the ol' straw man a good swing or two every once in a while.


----------



## SUBORPHAN (Apr 20, 2006)

Steven_Chong said:


> Suporphan-- Edit: On second thought this is enough:
> 
> Oh, that's really really depressing. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way about people.


Steven, (you might have not meant to) but dont be patronising. When we stop and come out of our selfish rosie painted worlds that is what can be seen. it might not look like it but in general i am a very happy chap. in my post i merely pointed out some of the facts of reality.

however, i agree with you, we did get a bit carried away and went off topic so i promise i wont say anything more in the subject.:-#

:focus:


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Well humans can't be that bad, we haven't been able to destroy algae..............Yet!


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

It does matter-- it's a relavent topic to talk about. If aquascaping continues to grow as an art form, the number of hobbyists and fish-keepers will increase yes, but _so will the number of aquascapers who think along the lines I do._

That's just what this art form suggests. There are bound to be other besides me who emerge and come to decide for themselves to see fish as paints-- not pets/pals.

What This question's purpose (in part) is to gauge whether the planted aquarium world is ready for that transition and sub-culture to take hold.

If people always see it as "disgusting," I really don't see it as a good thing. When serious art emerges, people who are dedicated to it, and not its related hobbies will inevitably emerge. Being that I am that type, I have a vested interest in that way of thinking becoming acceptable to others.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

On the fence - I think a little of both, pals _and_ paintstrokes.

Stating the obvious, by creating conditions for healthy plant growth we generally, by default, make a nice environment for our fish. Pals.

And most serious aquascapers choose the fish to compliment the layout design. Paintstrokes.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, of course. For instance, my wild-caught _Microrasbora nana_ spawned in my 2.5 gal. nano. I did not deliberately set up the tank for this goal (paintstroke over pal), but the conditions I created were obviously "good" enough for them to go about their reproductive ways.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

That's great news George! Congrats! But again, I doubt the fry hatch make it to adulthood unless you go out of the way to help with that.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Steven_Chong said:


> That's great news George! Congrats! But again, I doubt the fry hatch make it to adulthood unless you go out of the way to help with that.


True Steven. Paintstroke over pal, like I said.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

I really do think that's going to be true-- to various degrees-- for a sizable community of people in aquascaping in the future. I wonder if the fish keeping world will be able to accept that . . . APC is by and large one of the MORE open minded places after all.


----------



## littleguy (Jan 6, 2005)

Interesting discussion. Made me think about my own views quite a bit. Thanks for the read.

Ultimately I realized I would not be in this hobby if I weren't able to see fish as BOTH pals and paintstrokes. I'm not trying to be trite. I'm saying that if I could only do one or the other, I would never bother setting up a tank in the first place. For me it's all or nothing I guess.


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

Yes, as I mentioned in one of my other posts, I'm having problems understanding why it needs to be either/or...


----------



## mrbelvedere138 (Jan 18, 2006)

I go more for pals. I think that when not exclusively aquascaping, keeping fish/inverts and keeping plants are seperate entities. Example:

I keep a bunch of C. habrosus in my planted tanks. They don't school in an "artful fashion", nor do they complement my 'scape. I still like them a lot though.


----------



## B.A.T. (Dec 10, 2006)

wow, I think the lion is coming out in quite a few of us. I still don't see whats wrong with aquascaper's livestock. To be honest, most of the aquascaper's tanks that I have seen, seem to have healthier fish than alot of non-scaped tanks. I have been to the houston zoo and seen their tanks run by " marine biologists" and thier discus were very unhealthy (this does not include any of their other tanks). To top it off, the discus were in a biotope set up to replicate their native habitat. The whole point of an aquascape is to acheive "artistic excellence" as Steven says and to look good, then why would an aquascaper put in an unhealthy, unattractive organism? Despite whether people see them as pals or paintstrokes they are mostly healthy in both issues. This is what it comes down to right, the health of an organism? Aquascapers obviously care for their fish or they wouldn't be alive. Despite how people view aquascaper's motives, ultimately there is nothing they can do about it as it is taking the world by storm and bringing many people into the hobby, which it really needs.


----------



## riverspryte (Sep 16, 2006)

Being new to this, I can't really say that I am a fish keeper or an aquascaper. But I can understand both views. As a fish keeper, you want the fish to be as healthy as possible, and as an aquascaper, you want to set off the scape to its best advantage. I think that it would make sense to pick fish that "flow" with the aquascape. For example, I keep and breed bettas, but when I set up my planted tank, I picked a betta whose colors fit with the plants in my tank, not just which ever fish I liked best. 

From the art perspective, I would like to think in theatre terms. The fish are like the lights, and the plants and scape are the set. The lights have to complement the set: you wouldn't use green lights on a red set, that would just look bad.

But I do agree that the health of both the fish and the plants is the most important thing.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

I'm thinking in terms of what attitude we bring to it. For me, it'd be like this:

The most important thing _is the aquascape,_ and the good health of plants and fish are a by-product.

IMO, for the aquascaping's sake, it's better to think this way because it sets you a higher goal. That is, you can have a non-attractive tank with good health, but you can't have an attractive tank without good health. So if you have a beautiful aquascape, of course the health of the tank will be there as well.

It's odd but, looking through this thread and over others, I'd have to say that I see a correlation between acceptance of artist mentality (that is moving away from hobbyist/fishkeeper mentality) and aquascaping skill. It's by no means a perfect correlation, and of course correlation does not mean causation, but hey-- it's there.


----------



## apistaeasy (Jul 16, 2004)

Steven_Chong said:


> The most important thing _is the aquascape,_ and the good health of plants and fish are a by-product.


Yes, my aquascape is for me. There is no purpose for the aquarium, plants and fish, but for my viewing pleasure.

My final goal is beauty. I believe this goal to be consistent with prominent aquascapers throughout the world.

With that in mind, I enjoy having healthy plants and fish. Healthy plants and fish are beautiful to me.

I find one comment by Steven to be interesting relating himself as a predator of these fish we put in our tanks. From a Darwinistic approach, these fish are limited in their reproduction capabilities, and therefore dead. Unfortunately for the fish, there are more things they need to successfully breed. This is easy to figure out why, since they are a more complicated life form than our plants.

If fish are properly chosen for the accompanying aquascape, the chances of successful breading increase. However, in a healthy aquascape it is impossible to focus enough on the fish to account for any consistently high success rate of breeding fish. Many fish require eggs to be taken out which is impossible in a planted tank.

In my opinion, having plants and fish in the same tank for purposes of propagating both is unrealistic. In 99% of tanks these concepts are mutually exclusive. The only exception could be fish who take care of their young (like cichlids, Apistogramma sp, Kribensis, or Discus), and tanks that are very, very large and stocked sparingly. With a very large tank stock sparingly with fauna we emulate the conditions found in nature. We are effectively limiting competition for the young fry, increasing their chances for survival.

So, let me sum up:
With a goal of beauty in an aquascape I believe propagating flora and fauna in the same scape to be mutually exclusive.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

Steven, I think the time frame of the aquascape puts more or less pressure on a person to consider the fish as you do. Fish generally live a number of years, yet your aquascapes last only a few months. Constant moveing also means your tanks are typicly small so you don't have the space to keep more of the types of fish that become pets.

Speaking from a terrestrial gardening perspective there are annual gardens that are replanted each year (the 3 month tank), Perenial or shrub gardens (perhaps equivalent to the tank up for a year), and those gardens done with trees (cirtainly able to keep a pet fish in since the tank will be around for a time)


I don't see any less artistic potential in a flower arrangement or a bonsai.


----------



## eklikewhoa (Jul 24, 2006)

In my planted tanks it plants first fish second

I have other tanks that the fish come first and those tanks don't have plants in them.


----------



## gnob (Feb 8, 2007)

nice read.. 
very interesting views on a simple question to some people.. :d

been a fishkeeper all my life and just started this planted hobby 4 mos ago..

If you asked me 6 mos. ago I would definitely say Pals..

but since I started aquascaping and being able to express myself from my aquascape.. priorities do change.. I am somewhat experiencing that metaphysical leap that steven have mention.. 

but i cant say paintstroke (not yet  ).. 

Its all about balance..
see when Im creating an aquascape i start out with vision first and then choose plants and fish accordingly.... they should co-exist.. or I have to make adjustments..


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

I think for the most part it's true that thinking about this question would normally not matter in regards to actions-- that is, normally our decisions leading to a great scape are also decisions that make a tank good for fish to live in.

However, I like to know my priorities because you never know what'll come up.

Just recently I was reminded of this question because a guy at PT posted a really fascinating and exciting new layout-- but was including a piece of mopani for no real purpose other than that he wanted to keep plecos in the tank and the wood was for them. When I read that, I couldn't help but sigh. First thought to mind was, "Still green; still letting his interests in fish get in the way of the aquascaping."

I don't know-- sometimes these weirds issues/situations/decisions come up, and when they do a dedicated aquascaper would do well to know his priorities.

Maybe one of my issues is that people who see fish as pals often are those whose passion for fish keeping leads them to buy fish that they like instead of fish that look good with a scape. In other words, there's a problem similar to collectoritis connected to this as well.


----------



## va3svd (Dec 10, 2005)

Steven_Chong said:


> Maybe one of my issues is that people who see fish as pals often are those whose passion for fish keeping leads them to buy fish that they like instead of fish that look good with a scape. In other words, there's a problem similar to collectoritis connected to this as well.


I don't know if this is my first post here or not, truthfully, and I'm awfully sorry if resurrecting this thread leads to some harsh sentiments. 8-[

Firstly, since fauna in a planted aquarium are - as you say - paintstrokes, why is it invalid to create an aquascape based on the fish? For instance, when my financial situation improves (hopefully soon), I intend on doing an aquascape in a 150 g tank featuring bala sharks. There will definitely be (I hope) proper design principles in the aquascape itself, such as appropriate plant selection, positioning, hardscaping, etc - but all of those decisions will be made in such a way that the bala sharks will be displayed to their utmost best by the aquascape.

Is that artistically dysfunctional? I don't think so. I think it just considers all the elements of aquascaping (hardscape, flora, fauna, plan, etc) all together.


----------



## npnailer (Apr 16, 2007)

For me, Fish health, and well being first. After all...an aquarium by definition, is a place to keep fish as pets.
The rest is just the background, for me. Nice if it looks good along the way...but the main reason for all of those plants and logs in the end, is to provide a habitat for the fish. Obviously..if one can make it both healthy for the fish and nice looking, that's a bonus worth pursuing. I think of modern zoos as compared to older ones. Now, habitats try to mimic the native areas that the display animals come from. But...while they end up looking alot nicer then a square, cement bottom cage...that is a secondary bonus. The main reason to "scape" a zoo display, is for the benefit of the residents, NOT because it looks nice, or is considered art. I personally see aquariums that way, and I would guess that modern aquascaping is primarily an evolution of the desire to make the best possible home for the finny residents of an aquarium.
I am working on a tank right now..have used all native plants, even the substrate is "free range". The reason for that? I want to have local fish, and local flora and substrate will be the healthiest for them, I would think. In the end..to ME, it seems a bit selfish to put the well being of the residents of the aquarium secondary to how it looks.
That's just me though...to each their own.
Oh, I needed to add...none of the above means I have ANY disrespect for those who consider aquascaping an art form. I agree, it IS most certainly an artistic endeavor. As long as the well being of the fish is not compromised, then placing them secondary to the look of the tank is fine by me, if that's the goal of the person who owns it. My only concern was if the well being of the fish is placed far enough down, that it is compromised just to get a look. I am by no means saying anyone here does that, just that if so...yeah, I'd have a problem with that. 
We owe it to the fish to make sure they are taken care of to the best of our ability. If not...they should be left out, and a plant only tank set up.


----------



## Raul-7 (Feb 4, 2004)

Why would one put the effect of an aquascape before the health and needs of their fish? That's selfish to say the least, IMO. For example, the way Amano had an overstocked tank filled with Chinese Banded Sharks simply for the 'wow effect' was rather shocking to say the least. If you want to have an effective aquascape you need to have a balance between the two, a 'win-win' situation for both sides is what makes an aquascape truly beautiful as it shows the aquascaper knows how to deal with both sets of challenges effectively, IMVHO. 

Anyways, it's all subjective and down to the particular hobbyist. Some focus solely on the art while others focus on the fish. Some like a tank with a large group of one species that simply enhance the aquascape while others prefer an interacting community of different species. The beauty of this hobby is in it's diversity, IMO. You have the fish breeders, aquascapers and a mix of the two (which most of us fall under). Why do we need to change it?


----------

