# Rotala Wallichii and Eleocharis Acicularis Combo



## IUnknown (Feb 24, 2004)

Man, I love this combination of plants, Rotala Wallichii and Eleocharis Acicularis. I think Eleocharis is one of the hottest plants to work with right now. Taken from the May issue of Aquajournal,


----------



## omega (Apr 1, 2004)

Maybe it is just me but I think that this tank is horribly ugly. I see no purpose in having the white foreground. It's as if it's there just because it's the "hot" thing to do now. It would be better if it were populated with some kind of green plant. Even a little bit so the bottom half of the tank can get some color. Even the rock arrangement seems like it's arranged from left to right with no waving motion or any of that. It's as if it's there purely to separate the white sand from the more fertile substrate in the back. I look at the tank and I see it divided in 2 sections whether you look from front to back or top to bottom.

Yuck. I don't like this tank one bit. =;


----------



## John P. (Nov 24, 2004)

Looks a little tall to be Eleocharis Acicularis. Looks like Eleocharis montevidensis to me.


----------



## KathyA (Mar 17, 2005)

I have to agree with Omega somewhat. The plants are indeed lovely, but the scape does zero for me...

Kathy


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

There isn't a listing for the plants? It's very possibly _Eleocharis vivapara_ .

I don't like that tank either. The white sand is jarring.


----------



## gnatster (Mar 6, 2004)

Join us in Chat tonight (Thursday April 28) from 7-8pm EST where we will be critiquing aquascapes with Dennis, one of the Aquascaping mods.


----------



## turtlehead (Nov 27, 2004)

Eleocharis vivapara looks nothing like that, its very messy, not as nice.


----------



## jcolletteiii (Jan 30, 2005)

Um... no. I love wallichii, but no. The color of that wallichii is very drab as well, probably due to bright studio strobes, and the white forground. I think it kind of looks like it should have one of those tiny little rakes on the side. You know the ones that come with those little zen-sand-pattern little thingies that people buy??? You know the ones I mean?








Maybe all it needs is some squiggly lines... :smile:


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

I find this scape reminiscent of what you'd find in a tropical sand bar type setting. Well, maybe not the plants since there's not much salt water vegitation that looks like that, but the rocks jutting out of a patch of white sand is something that I always see when snorkling in Hawaii.

Funny how something that actually exists in an underwater setting should be considered jarring when used in an aquascape. Sometimes it seems that the natural aquarium movement has gotten people to only appreciate 'scapes that convey a terrestrial feel.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

turtlehead said:


> Eleocharis vivapara looks nothing like that, its very messy, not as nice.


It looks nice when it's maintained. So yes, it is possible that's what it is.

You'd be hard pressed to find rocks like that with sand that bright. That's what makes it jarring.


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 24, 2004)

I'll have to double check what plant it is when I get home. I wasn't that impressed with the tank, but I love how the red looks, floating midway up the green background. I thought that was a great technique. It makes it look like a painting, the top right corner.


----------



## jcolletteiii (Jan 30, 2005)

bharada said:


> Funny how something that actually exists in an underwater setting should be considered jarring when used in an aquascape. Sometimes it seems that the natural aquarium movement has gotten people to only appreciate 'scapes that convey a terrestrial feel.


I think that the problem with this aquascape, IMO, is the fact that it looks so *unnatural*. Trying to compare a marine environ with a freshwater one won't change the fact that it may look foreign. Nor is it just the white sand that does this - I have seen quite a number of aquascapes with white sand which are breathtaking.

My problem with this particular tank is that it seems a bit too manicured. It has the feel of a bonsai garden. That may be great if that is what whomever planted it had in mind and desired. But not everyone's tastes run along parallel lines. Granted we all prune and preen, we have to - but how many people here would look appealingly at a tank based on, say, a traditional English garden - one in which plants were neatly arranged in rows and immaculately clipped into designs? I don't think that would go over all that well here. And I believe that is why this particular scape does not either.

But I still think the little rake would be a good accessory there. :biggrin:


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

I don't like the white sand, I don't like the white background, and I can hardly see the Rotala. The tall hairgrass just doesn't work for me in this aquascape.


----------



## SAWALLACE (Dec 24, 2004)

IUnknown said:


> It makes it look like a painting, the top right corner.


That's exactly what I thought when I saw this tank. It certainly is an interesting contrast.

The rest of the aquascape however, has little appeal IMO.


----------



## mlfishman (Apr 4, 2005)

*dont like it*

This is a bit too trendy for my likes...I enjoy small splashes of hot, new techniques (ie: bare white foreground) but too much of a hot new thing quickly makes it cheesy.....To each his own, but this scape is very barren and lifeless....kind of like doctors office waiting room...not unpleasant, but doesnt have that fuzzy, comfortable feeling.....barren......


----------



## dmartin72 (Oct 9, 2004)

I think lifeless is overstating it. There are living fish and plants in there, which is pretty full of life to me. Also, cheesy is reserved for sunken ships, skull heads and hot pink gravel. I want to hear what you would do/suggest to improve it rather than call it names. If it were a member's tank, would you say the same thing?



mlfishman said:


> This is a bit too trendy for my likes...I enjoy small splashes of hot, new techniques (ie: bare white foreground) but too much of a hot new thing quickly makes it cheesy.....To each his own, but this scape is very barren and lifeless....kind of like doctors office waiting room...not unpleasant, but doesnt have that fuzzy, comfortable feeling.....barren......


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

Anyone else notice how this tank has practically no depth to it...very 2D composition.


----------



## Aaron (Feb 12, 2004)

I noticed that too Gomer, and I've been noticing that with other of Amano's newer works. I've been thinking that his intentions and style is evolving into something else lately. Could he be designing scapes with only formal aspects in mind as in Modernist abstract painting and sculpture? This tank reminds me of a Rothko color field...
Take a look at the winners of last year's ADA contest, they are very stylized depictions of nature and very formal, different from years past. 
Perhaps Amano, the innovator he is in aquascaping design is trying to separate himself from the large crowd he created.



I actually like this tank!


----------



## dmartin72 (Oct 9, 2004)

Luis N. said that this particular tank was featured in Amano's magazine as an easy how-to beginner tank!


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

This is definitely a tank you have to see in context to the theme of the Aqua Journal issue from which it was taken. Also, this low-res scan does not do the colors justice at all. If you saw it in context and in the magazine, it has a lot more impact. Every tank in that issue is different also. This is merely one of thousands of Amano's aquascapes and not at all exemplary of any particular "stylistic movement". Just another variation on a theme. 

That IS E. vivipara in the background.


----------



## omega (Apr 1, 2004)

dmartin72 said:


> I think lifeless is overstating it. There are living fish and plants in there, which is pretty full of life to me. Also, cheesy is reserved for sunken ships, skull heads and hot pink gravel. I want to hear what you would do/suggest to improve it rather than call it names. If it were a member's tank, would you say the same thing?


I sure hope that the same comments can be made to a member's tank. I don't think that critiques should be accompanied by suggestions to make things better. Sometimes you just know what elements you don't like without really knowing how to make it better. Pointing out a problem is in and of itself a solution. mlfishman didn't just say he hates the aquascape. He went further and offered his reasons why he thought so too. [smilie=k: I think members should develop a thick skin and realize that comments aren't meant to be malicious.

Person: "What do you think of my tank?"
Omega: "Ummm. The plants are healthy."


----------



## dmartin72 (Oct 9, 2004)

Cheesy!!! Don't call my tank cheesy. Tell me that it needs something or tell me that it uses elements that are overplayed. Or say that something doesn't work. Come on people. It's called constructive criticism.

Omega: "What do you think of my tank?"
dmartin72: "Ummm. Cheesy."



omega said:


> I sure hope that the same comments can be made to a member's tank. I don't think that critiques should be accompanied by suggestions to make things better. Sometimes you just know what elements you don't like without really knowing how to make it better. Pointing out a problem is in and of itself a solution. mlfishman didn't just say he hates the aquascape. He went further and offered his reasons why he thought so too. [smilie=k: I think members should develop a thick skin and realize that comments aren't meant to be malicious.
> 
> Person: "What do you think of my tank?"
> Omega: "Ummm. The plants are healthy."[/QUOTE]


----------

