# First Iwagumi - need help on positioning



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

So - this is my first Iwagumi...

My plan is to use Utricularia graminifolia to cover all the gravel and Eleocharis acicularis in the back, to give some hight...

The tank is a 9L :rolleyes

Dimentions: 25x20x20cm

Here my first try... I really need some help 










Looking at it, now after some time, i wonder if i should remove the back middle stone, and move the back left more into the middle?


----------



## MrSanders (Mar 5, 2006)

I personally think it would look a lot better with a MUCH more slope in the substrate, its looksing very flat right now. Also the rocks may be a bit small, I know graminifolia is a pretty short plant, but it still grows 1"-1.5" tall, If you have a dense carpet of that height all around those rocks, your barely going to be able to see them in the finished scape. I know its a small tank and, these little guys are hard to work with, but I would consider using stone that is a bit larger


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

stones are somewhat short for iwagumi. I'd get bigger rocks, or else use a stem plant in the back like rotala green


----------



## mrbelvedere138 (Jan 18, 2006)

Wouldn't use U. graminifolia. Tank is too small and rocks are too short. HC would be a better option. Hairgrass still a good idea.


----------



## Dave Spencer (Mar 4, 2007)

For an Iwagumi, the drama comes from the rocks. Plants are generally more subdued in these types of layout. 

Get some of the rocks standing more upright and thrusting in to the open space above. The plants tend to play a secondary role, so the rocks have to be interesting.

Dave.


----------



## Dave Spencer (Mar 4, 2007)

I forget to mention, congratulations on choosing an Iwagumi, the King of all aquascapes. rayer: 

Anyone dare to differ? :boxing:


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

Yeah, I differ. Iwagumis are ok, didn't see any top 10 the ADA though


----------



## Dave Spencer (Mar 4, 2007)

Damn you and your facts Mr Chong! 

Still, all judgement is subjective. Page 40 of the 2006 ADA catalogue is a vision of beauty to me.

Dave.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

What Iwagumis lack in diversity - they make up in beauty. 

My plan - for now - is to go rob the railroadtracks for some more rocks - bigger and more powerfull. 
Make more sloping 
Consider different plant than U. graminifolia.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

Wow Pjerrot-- now there's an audacious statement! The assumption being that visually complex aquascapes lack in beauty! :heh: 

Not saying right or wrong one way or another, just wow, what a statement . . . lol

I think getting at least 1 large rock would help. u gramminifolia might get too big, I'd have to agree there. Good luck


----------



## BJRuttenberg (Sep 25, 2005)

Steven, you assume that because Pjerrot feels iwagumi scapes are beautiful he automatically feels that complex scapes - those of diversity - are not beautiful...Pjerrot never made any statement refering to diverse aquascapes - that was an assumption unfairly drawn by you...IMO both are equally as beautiful but each have their own merits


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

BJ-- I am making an assumption-- unfair? No.

What I'm about to say is rather worthless to discussion and not meant at all to be condescending, but I don't really like being unfairly accused of making unfair assumptions as if I meant to accuse someone else of something not nice. @[email protected]

Anyway considering the mechanics of the English language and the words used-- this assumption is a meaning that is IMPLIED by the pjerrot's statement.

"What Iwagumis lack in diversity - they make up in beauty."

The words in this sentance say: lower diversity is compensated by _greater_ beauty.

Greater beauty than what? Greater than the beauty of tanks with more "diversity" (visual complexity?). That's the way the words work here-- they _imply_ (rather implicitly) that tanks that have diversity are not as high in beauty.

I don't know about others, but in the English I grew up with a phrase like,

"What he lacks in size he makes up with speed."

means that ball player in question has GREATER speed than rivals who are bigger than him-- not the SAME speed. Also the implication is that the other players are bigger but slower. If this wasn't the case than there wouldn't be much point to the sentance.

So yes, the words above DO SAY that tanks with greater diversity have less beauty than iwagumis do.

No idea if that's what he meant or not. Personally I do think that is incorrect. I'd rather agree with your statement BJ that complexity and simplicity can both lead to beautiful scapes. However, that's not the statement that was made.

This has officially become thread hijacking though. Sorry for that Pjerrot!


----------



## BJRuttenberg (Sep 25, 2005)

Steven, while everything you have said above is true, the fact still remains that Pjerrot never stated implicitly or explicitly that diverse aquascapes "lack in beauty" as you believe he said. While they may be less beautiful than Iwagumi scapes (as was implied by his statement which you have so gracefully dissected), *that in no way confers a lack, nor a deficiency, nor an absence of beauty.* Rather, only a degree of beauty less than that of the "Iwagumi."

I don't know about you all but I grew up learning English with phrases like "he lacks the proper abilities to play ping-pong" - which is to say he "does not have" those fundamentals necessary...

And while I appreciate the lesson, I do not appreciate the smugness with which it was presented.

But lets not get bogged down in semantics - after all, beauty is subjective therefore making this a senseless argument anyhow. And I agree with the statement agreeing with my statement...so lets just drop it.

Sorry Pjerrot, I just felt I owed myself a chance to defend against this insult to my intellect. (ie the language lesson)


----------



## gacp (Sep 11, 2006)

I have to agree, that there is a certain beauty in simplicity itself. I believe many people, I can think right now of scientists and specially mathematicians, do consider simplicity beatiful---they (er... we) usually call it "elegant", like in elegant experiment, elegant hypothesis, elegant demonstration.

Myself, and closer to the subject, I find many highly prized aquascapes too complex (cf. my choices at http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...8-peoples-all-time-favorite-aquascapes-2.html ). I guess, since I love cichlids, I've been doing iwagumi for over 2 decades before I ever heard the term iwagumi. Also, my rule---heavily influenced I guess by my prof deformation as an ichthyologist, but also by my very personal aesthetics---of having only half a dozen spp. of macroflora and other half of macrofauna per tank; much more than that looks "messy", unnatural to me... dare I say "fake" or "pretentious"? Need I say I've never, that I remember, seen a Dutch-style tank that I liked?

So yes, I agree that a simpler aquascape that "works" tends to be more beatiful than a complex one. As Saint-Exupery put it, perfection is not adding as much as it will accept, but stripping it until you are left with what is necessary and nothing extra.

*In shallow waters, 
colourful fish swim deep:
evolution flows.*​


----------



## BJRuttenberg (Sep 25, 2005)

This would be a haiku were it not for...too few syllables... you need one more in the middle...it is a great poem however...with or without the syllable.



> *In shallow waters,
> colourful fish swim deep:
> evolution flows.*


----------



## gacp (Sep 11, 2006)

BJRuttenberg said:


> This would be a haiku were it not for...too few syllables... you need one more in the middle...it is a great poem however...with or without the syllable.


Then I guess it was "colourful fish*es*". Quoting from memory, sorry.

And thanks. 

BTW: syllabe separation in English is only second in nerve-wrecking to its spelling. Gods, what a dreadful pidgin you people speak!  Had I been born Usan, I'd chosen a modern form of Latin, like Castillian---by age 4.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

BJ-- you have a PM, hopefully we can clear up our miscommunications behind the scenes in a friendly manner.

BTW-- What kind of rock is that Pjerrot? It really is a beautiful color/texture, and very striking.


----------



## Blacksunshine (Aug 11, 2006)

I like your idea and foundation however I must aggree at this point it just looks like a pile of rocks. (yeah I know it is) A larger or taller formation i think would make a bolder statement and have a more striking presance.


for the other debate. I think both well designed and thought out complex scenes can have a great beauty. As well the simpler designs also have a clean dramatic almost non aquatic look to them can be equally as good looking. It really all has to do with how the artist puts it toghether. ultimatly if it is pleasing to their eye then it has succedded.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

wow - before i actually saw the coments after my rather bold statement, i thought that i needed to make a change to the phrase - they make up in beauty. Now i passed that change, so i rather explain what i meant...

My feel on the iwagumi is that they are stronger in one form of beauty, one that i dont think can be compaired to ex. nature - Its some kind of sheer and simple beauty, that i feel is stronger from iwagumi. 

I dont know... like a plate of sashimi compaired to an italian meal. They are to different to be compaired.

You dont realy need diversity to make a good aquascape, since the "feel" you want to create, whether its a tranquill, rough or wild feel you want, can be made by some few, strong components. 

So to sum up my quote. It was not exactually what i meant, but i do feel iwagumi have a stronger something, since the feel is done by more simple effects. But what im not saying is that iwagumis are more beautyfull than a more diverse scape - like nature (scapes)
Its just some how more effective in doing the job!


Maybe it could be:

What Iwagumis lack in diversity - they make up in efficiency.

But then again - i need to define what i mean by efficiency. Maybe effective beauty - sounds crappy...

Is it even possible to make a bold statement like this, on something like aquascaping.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

The rocks is granite. Its crushed and can be found in all different sizes - to industrial purpuses - all over Denmark. Our island Bornholm - consists mainly of granite and ships it to the mainland (Sjælland) Here we dont have it in the ground. We have mostly clay and chalk. So my only chance to get a "rough-looking" stone is to find it around the railroad or in the holes in the road...


----------



## gacp (Sep 11, 2006)

"a more diverse scape - like nature. "

Anti-Pjerrot: do you mean that Nature is more diverse than an iwagumi-style tank. Not for that size, not usually. Nature is often quite monotounous for large expanses; e.g. one species stand of aquatic plant may extend for hundreds of meters with very little variation. We just tend to focus in the more striking, showy, "sexy" aspects of Nature.

Oh, BTW: I used to do the same. But do get LARGER roks. Or seek another than Jap-style iwagumi.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

I meant nature aquarium world-style aquariums are - often - more diverse than iwagumi layouts.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

ok - I robbed the rails for a selection of new rocks and this is what i just came up with. No deeper ideas - just putting rocks in.










Should the big left rock be bigger and pointier?

What about the rock on the far right? bad?


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

Just made a new one - something to compare with.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

It's hard to say anything without knowing where the top of the aquarium is, but if the top of the picture is the top of the aquarium, I'd say that the 2nd one is good, but the last one is excellent.


----------



## Blacksunshine (Aug 11, 2006)

There ya go! those rocks have presance, they are a center peice now not just a afterthought. 
Way better.
all you need is to find a nice low laying plant that you can get to carpet it and maybe a couple stems.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

No stems. The cost of having such wide rockwork is that the background space has been shrunk to the point where there's not enough space for nice thick stem groups. Just use eleocharis species in back. If you want a tall one, vivipara might be able to be kept in control.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

Heres a full shot of both without the top cutted:



















Im leaning to the last layout.

Im not having stems - no room at all. Only Eleocharis acicularis in the back.

How a bout glosso as foreground?

I had an idea - how about making the sand slope from the top left to the bottom right?

Somehow i feel the sand could improve the left side if it were more slopee..


----------



## Dave Spencer (Mar 4, 2007)

The rocks are looking more dramatic every time you rescape. I think you are right to question the substrate though, it is way too boring for this set up. I think you need to build it up in both rear corners and add an off centre dip at the front.

Remember that the plants will only compliment what you are doing with the hardscape.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

Only problem is that the substrate is sliding down... but ill try!


----------

