• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

IAPLC top 27

I have seen some to use the label "Turkish style" ironically. It seems to me those same guys will have to reconsider now. The Turkish style is getting real good. Well done for the Turkish participants.
I strongly disagree however with the first place. Nise scape, but nothing in it to deserve the first place. I see better choises from the top 27 for the first prize.
 
Really cannot wait for Monday to see these it just is not good enough on my phone :( I get my internet back on Monday BTW....

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
 
Like the Brazillians. Turkey was a surprise having in mind how I used to hate them :) Few more interesting scapes but overall quite boring :(
 
The turkish effect is now in full flow, and they got really good..

The brasilians also did really good..

Some outstanding scapes.. others.. hmm, not my style.. But I think the competition is more than just winning, it is a display of what is out there..
 
I have a question ...
These tanks are amazing don't get me wrong but why are a lot of them trying to Create something you'd see above the surface of water rather then what's actually going on below. ??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
I have a question ...
These tanks are amazing don't get me wrong but why are a lot of them trying to Create something you'd see above the surface of water rather then what's actually going on below. ??


Well that's art for you. Don't forget Amano himself started it first with mountainscapes. It's just evolved into what it is today.
 
I have a question ... These tanks are amazing don't get me wrong but why are a lot of them trying to Create something you'd see above the surface of water rather then what's actually going on below. ??

You are right. Before the server crash there was, as Troi mentions, an interesting debate starting about developments in aquascaping. A number of people, including myself, were rather critical of these "dioramas" (I don't know if this is the semi-official term or Troi's invention), but I remember Eboeagles posting some good counter-arguments (perhaps you could repeat if you see this).

But I don't think the above surface thing is out of sync with the "old" (Amano) nature aquarium style as such. If you look in The Book of ADA they quite explicitly show a number of scapes inspired by terrestrial landscapes (my own recent scape, Alpine Gardens, as the title suggests, is an example). You will also find numerous scapes at UKAPS that more or less directly point to often specific places as an inspiration.

What is the difference between this way of thinking and the diorama style is in the word "inspiration". The traditional nature aquarium style takes a lot of inspiration from terrestrial scenes and landscapes, but apply them as elements in a decidedly under water landscape. The diorama style, in contrast, attempts to create an illusion that we are actually above water. In the traditional style, then, you don't find any elements that only exist terrestrially (water falls, cactus, trees, etc), but only elements that can be found both above and under water (stone, wood, sand, etc.).

This is just my way of trying to make sense of the differences. Would be great to hear what others think.

Thomas
 
Yeah I agree with that, unless biotope, all aquascapes are illusions of nature really. Inspiration is taken and used to create interest and beauty, however dioramas are a step too far for my taste. The fish become almost pointless and are chosen to represent birds or something which seems crazy to me. An aquascape for me should be a place for both flora and fauna to interact, the interest in creating a place where I enjoy both elements together, sometimes watching the fish, other times the bigger 'picture'. These dioramas would be best left without fish IMO. You could argue that they do interact by their representations and I'm sure the fish can't really tell but it's not for me.
Mountain scapes and tree representations are somehow more acceptable to me than cactus and waterfalls so maybe I just need to open my mind further :)
Can't argue with the skill and dedication it takes to create and nurture them though, that is second to none and seems to be the main focus at present.
Cheerio,
Ady.
 
I kinda feel as though these diarama style scapes are driven by competitions. The need to create something fantastic and that stands out. Personally I am not a huge fan but like ady says its I do admire the dedication and attention to detail that comes with the portrale of these type of scapes. I do feel though that they are one step away from having a log cabin or rail road running through them and that in my opinion is a large step away from nature aquariums.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
 
I think that more than a few aquascapers no longer enter competitions for those reasons, and perhaps non-more-so than the IAPLC or - International Aquatic Panoramic Landscape Contest.

IMO good aquascapes don’t necessarily have to be biotopic, but should nevertheless distil the essence of an aquatic habitat. Dioramas don’t and consequently rob aquatic critters of dignity because they become totally decontextualized - like fish out of water.

I should imagine that the plant growing skills required for both naturescapes and dioramas are very similar, but I think it requires a great deal more creative talent to produce an award winning naturescape. What-is-more, I don’t see the point of reproducing a fantasy terrestrial landscape and then flooding ito_O it’s all a bit too incongruous and, for me, completely misses the point.
 
IMO good aquascapes don’t necessarily have to be biotopic, but should nevertheless distil the essence of an aquatic habitat.

This is another important distinction. The nature aquarium is by no standards a biotope aquarium. The nature aquarium is a free and creative application and combination of elements found in freshwater habitats. The biotope aquarium is a much more restricted category (depending on, of course, how one defines it; topic for another thread :)).

Thomas
 
Some of those dioramas are truly spectacular.. I shared two scapes on facebook, and I got friends from all walks of life, age and hobbies.. The one I liked, a natural aquatic landscape did not receive many likes or comments.. the diorama of the forest, from Turkey, received lots of comments, and likes.. some even asked how to accomplish that and what plants were used.

That is the issue, we may like the natural scenes, what we know is normal, but we are already in the hobby, we are not spending that much money in new kit, we are using EI, making our own lights, looking for improvements to new things. OK, we spend a few bob on plants and rocks, but we also share a lot with eachother.. we not that important to the big companies, not the same way as a new buyer is.

Some of the people that saw the tank want me to help them out.. they are going to buy a tank, filter, rocks, CO2 rig, substrate, lights, plants, some fish, food, water products, ferts, scissors, tweezers, some books, etc.. it is for them that these dioramas are made, and no surprise the IAPLC supports them, after all, they are a poster child for ADA kit.. :)

I got a 120x40x40 tank to scape in October, where I pointed out that the dioramas are not natural, and that will involve a high level of work, and that does not come cheap.. do they care? No.. they want hills, some trees with moss, they even want some toys inside a La German dude.. :)
 
Back
Top