• 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

My comment seemed to be lost also, this is how I feel about it...this is all strictly opinion based.

I also don't like the 'dioramatical' style, I really don't rate the cactus one...as said it wouldn't look out of place on Skegness market. However there are some that are pleasing to the eye

This one
LqYP1N5.jpg


It is far from what you see in Amanos complete works. I suppose we have to move with the times and all...
 
I really enjoy the IAPLC because it is truly a international show, and you get to see some amazing scapes.. yes, not all to my taste, but all amazing none the less.. :)

I missed it this year, with the moving and all, but entering next year, with a crazy scape.. :) winning would be good, but the fact that one scape can reach so many people, and be discussed internationally I feel is very healthy for the hobby.. :)
 
My comment seemed to be lost also, this is how I feel about it...this is all strictly opinion based.

I also don't like the 'dioramatical' style, I really don't rate the cactus one...as said it wouldn't look out of place on Skegness market. However there are some that are pleasing to the eye

This one
LqYP1N5.jpg


It is far from what you see in Amanos complete works. I suppose we have to move with the times and all...

Incredible underwater topiary.
You can get depth from images, but the before and after here show what importance trimming technique has. The moss hills in the background in particular add an extra foot of perceived depth onto what you think the tank limitations are, that combined with lens choice and white out background deceive the eye to think your looking way into the horizon. Id love to be able to see these scapes in real life. It is a great skill, and looks impressive, but the fish just look odd within the scape because of what it depicts. True enough it is an aquatic plant layout contest, and you want to see fish because it is underwater, but in these styles they look out of place so better left out imo.
 
Lol...I like these too...but why flood them, especially if the fish look so out of place (obviously other than the plants are aquatic)? I just don't get why composing them of aquatic plants makes them that special. In fact the more I think about it the more the whole thing amuses me. It reminds me of 70's concept art by the likes of Roger Dean, with more than a hint of Hornby train set, and seaside - kiss-me-quick - kitsch thrown in for good measure, just as Ian intimated above.

Incidentally, film director James Cameron got his inspiration for Avatar's landscape, and in particular the floating islands of Pandora, from Roger Dean's artwork, which in turn inspired the famous floating rock type scape from last years IAPLC. So moving with the times...hmmm...I guess in a way it's all been done before, other than through the aquatic medium. However, is diorama an appropriate expression for the aquatic medium...And, perhaps more to the point, is it appropriate to judge it against more traditional naturescape styles?

Personally, I don't think so, to both questions. And in answer to the latter question definitely no, because diorama and naturescape are rapidly diverging in to two completely different styles which bear no comparison.
 
Incredible underwater topiary. You can get depth from images, but the before and after here show what importance trimming technique has. The moss hills in the background in particular add an extra foot of perceived depth onto what you think the tank limitations are, that combined with lens choice and white out background deceive the eye to think your looking way into the horizon. Id love to be able to see these scapes in real life. It is a great skill, and looks impressive, but the fish just look odd within the scape because of what it depicts. True enough it is an aquatic plant layout contest, and you want to see fish because it is underwater, but in these styles they look out of place so better left out imo.

I agree with Ady I think there are some amazing scapes out there and what people are able to achieve is just phenomenal. Again following from Ady's point, to me these setups that reflect the scenery above water should not include fish, it just makes things seem out of place like the fish should not belong there, something which in my opinion should not cross my mind. If I was to have fish in contests like these then I feel inclined to make the scape fit for the fish. I don't necessarily mean a Biotope but create something with the fish taken to consideration and let the scape and fish complement each other. After all you don't normally see fish swimming in the pastoral countryside or do you?

This is just my opinion, i'm by all means not trying to say these are bad scapes or what ever, they are truly amazing and no doubt a lot of thought a effort put into them and I can say I would not be able to achieve the setups. Its just I feel sometimes too much emphasis is put into the replication of landscapes. Although, aquascapes are anything but natural, I believe our job is to create something as close to nature as possible and to me some of the scapes just does give me the connection to what underwater life would be like but nevertheless I admire the imagination of these scapes in the contests.

Michael.
 
What about the AGA competition? They do not take the diorama seriously, and also they have the Biotope section, I entered once and it was a really enjoyable tank to look at, gave me great fun to set it up and let it develop.
 
Art is always subjective and always evolving. It is good to see new ideas even if we don't like them all. It would be boring otherwise. However, I have no intention of going the Tracy Emin route; my tank is just not big enough for a shopping trolley and an old car tyre.
 
The "essence" of nature that is apparent when I view one of Amano's and say "Tom's bucket O' Mud" seem to be missing a lot in these scenes.
Almost like the more they strive to copy the minute detail, the more the essence is lost...it's like painting styles, and peoples tastes.

Ultimately pushing boundaries evolves the hobby, and it's a healthy sign that people will passionately try to show what their "essence" or understanding of nature is - this will ultimately inspire both camps. It's fair to say underwater diorama is in it's infancy, I know what I like, but I think people are genuinely watching for something to come from this. So long as that isn't a burping hippo, opening and closing chest of draws, dancing skeleton or deep sea diver, I'll be relieved.
 
Art is always subjective and always evolving. It is good to see new ideas even if we don't like them all. It would be boring otherwise. However, I have no intention of going the Tracy Emin route; my tank is just not big enough for a shopping trolley and an old car tyre.

I would like to do it.. a trolley and old car tyre into a tank.. as a biotope.. :)
 
So long as that isn't a burping hippo, opening and closing chest of draws, dancing skeleton or deep sea diver, I'll be relieved.

I started like that in the mid 80's, and funny enough there are still a lot of people that like those. yes, I still do it for the kids, and they love the tanks..
 
Ok I admit... I've always thought a laughing budha aged in a wabi sabi style sat on a pearling lawn of HC, etc would look pretty cool!
 
Just watching the highlight clips from the party.

Interestingly Amano's fave scape is biotopesque (it's no. 55), maybe this place does / does not exist in nature, kind of scape. Reassuringly for all there are heaps of awesomeness throughout the top 100s...:clap:
 
Number 69 actually looks out of place in the top 100, not sure that deserved top 100...

Again, I know it's subjective and all that tosh lol.
 
Number 69 actually looks out of place in the top 100, not sure that deserved top 100...

Again, I know it's subjective and all that tosh lol.

I agree that didnt look anything special at all and everything looked out of place and just thrown wherever.
What was the appeal of it???
I personally liked 42 and 35.
 
I agree that didnt look anything special at all and everything looked out of place and just thrown wherever.
What was the appeal of it???
I personally liked 42 and 35.

I'm not sure mate, I've seen better scapes on here.
 
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

Ha Thomas your too kind! I was a few glasses down I believe.

But yes I totally understand that these scapes people are labeling as 'dioramas' aren't to everyone's taste but I think people are kidding themselves if they think that 'nature aquariums' are from a totally different place, to me it feels like a natural progression and its adding some fun and something different.

What else is left to these talent scaper's? These guys are trying to push the limits of the hobby which is very much in the tradition of Amano. Surely there must have been a plethora of doubters when he first burst on the scene no? He definitely has something very special that means he doesn't have to resort to gimmicks but he was the first and never had to, everyone else is following and trying to get their talent noticed.

And what about the scape that has the impression of looking up through a forest? Is that natural or a diorama? It has fake tree's in after all.

As Luis says its what grabs people attention - I've only been in the hobby just over two years and its because of the Iwagumi scapes - they just blew me away. I'd never kept fish or aquariums in my life before & I'm 40 now I'm fully obsessed and I have friends that are trying their hand at it as well...even I've seen the difference in the planted tank market in my short time.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and anything creative is subjective. Even for me the cactus scape is too much but I applaud the guys inventiveness & creativity and for that I believe he deserves a spot in the top. It's a competition of under water gardening and whichever way you look at it gardening includes topiary, alpine, cottage, jungles, walled, Japanese to name a few of many styles and you may like some and despise others, thats life! Some people even have gnomes in their gardens!

To me the real shame in these competitions is that a good % of it is about photography. Having these skills is essential whether you're an amazing under water gardener or not....
 
Lol...I like these too...but why flood them, especially if the fish look so out of place (obviously other than the plants are aquatic)? I just don't get why composing them of aquatic plants makes them that special.

Now this is a very good question.
What I think makes them "special" is that they puzzle people's imagination. How is this possible?- would be the question most will ask them selves when looking at this kind of scapes.
And yet making any miniture version of a landscape in old style dry conditions can allow folks to create real lanscapes in small aquarium size volumes with way better success. Needles to mention the choise of terrestrial plants vs aquatic ones.

I believe that aquascape should be somewhat a middle ground between a landscape and underwater picture.
Number 17 looks to me like a tapestry project. Well made, but not pleasing to the eye for its lack of natural expression.
 
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.. :)
Well then. Take them for a walk in the mountains. Lots of trees, hills and moss.:lol:
 
Back
Top