• 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

Orinoco Drainage, Flood Pond, Rio Tomo Biotope/Vichada-Colombia

_Maq_ said:
I think this is what makes the difference. You've created an aquascape with personality.
The rest of us who are not gifted artists should better focus our effort on creating healthy habitat for our plants & fish. Creating a piece of art - aquascape - when you're not an artist leads to pitiful results. Look around. Almost all those creations follow the same pattern, use the same substrate and decorations. This beautiful and noble hobby is degraded and effectively replaced by a construction toy like LEGO (for "LEGO" think of "ADA"). It's sad. And, in most instances, quite pathetic. It's like an amateur attempting to make a copy of a painting made by an artist.
Aquarists of the world, disunite and be yourselves.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you said. The designs they call 'aquascape' are starting to look similar and boring. In the trilogy of light, fertilizer and CO2, 'hormone' tanks have become a showcase where fish are viewed as ornaments. That's why it didn't interest me at all. I am interested in algae, fungi, dry and wet botany, and sediment layers of the freshwater world. I like macro and micro creatures to be in biotic and abiotic environments, in conditions as close to their nature as possible. I think I achieved this by making biotope installations. I tend to create a landscape that will meet the shelter, nutrition and reproduction needs of fish and that is suitable for their habitat. While doing this, of course, instead of an ordinary visual, I am trying to make a design that will reflect the principles of artistic arrangement with a natural integrity, based on the underwater visuals of the habitat. While the fish and plants are happy, I also feel peaceful by watching them in a beautiful theme. There is a random aesthetic in nature itself; I reconstruct the elements I choose from this randomness in a limited area in a way that is pleasing to the eye. We can compare it to this: The Alps of Switzerland are beautiful, but we do not act randomly when taking a photo there, we find the frame that pleases our eyes; We take our shot. Because the aesthetic elements that affect us more are in that frame.
 
PARAGUAY said:
Those ADA creations look pretty healthy habitats to me, and very inspirational to look at . @Arifhb’s Aquatics would you agree there's a artist in everyone sometimes it just needs to be uncovered
Click to expand...
Everyone has a gene and perception that understands aesthetics. In some people, this emerges as what we call 'talent' and is quite easy to train; There are even those who have a perspective that can educate themselves. Like me, for example :).. In some people, this ability definitely needs more or less training. And yes, the answer to the question is, aesthetics can definitely be learned.
 
Arifhb’s Aquatics said:
aesthetics can definitely be learned
Click to expand...
I'd draw the line even further: Aesthetics MUST be learned.
I'm poor in visual arts. I haven't got brain cells for it, and my ability to learn is limited. On the other hand, I've received from God (and from my father, a violinist) good cells for music. Once I've played Saygun's violin concerto to a friend of mine to reveal its beauty to him. I admitted it's not easily accessible. He responded: "Why should I listen to something I don't like?"
He outright dismissed my argument that perceiving true beauty must be learned, that it's impact is not instant, easy coming. He prefers Pink Floyd, and that's that.
This is a general problem. People watch movies, read second-rate books (if they bother to read at all) and listen to pop-music (or look at aquascapes, for that matter) and think that they "know" beauty. Most often, they do not accept the fact that they remain ignorant of the most beautiful artistic achievements, and that it presents a deficit in their humanness. The importance of beauty rests in its ability to teach us what is good and noble. If you watch soap operas and listen to pop-music, you remain on very low level of enlightenment. And truly, people consuming solely the lowest/easiest art are seriously limited in their ability to solve problems which life is bringing, to tell good from bad, to make correct decisions, to love and to hate, to enjoy life.
Unfortunately, modern society is too much concentrated on technology, and education schemes prefer creating economically able creatures instead of humans with heart & soul. That's why you probably perceive my laments ridiculous.
 
One man’s meat is another man’s poison
I don’t believe that not liking something is an indication of being poorly educated, or lack of intelligence, or awareness
I don’t watch soap operas, reality tv, or tennis, none of them appeal to me
Don’t listen to classical music either, I do like punk rock, cricket and football
 
To tell the truth, watching a football match/visiting an exhibition hall or listening to popular music/enjoying a concerto is all a matter of preference. It cannot be specifically categorized. Intellectual knowledge should not be an obstacle to watching football or a reason to attend an opera night. I think that loving, being interested and embracing the things brought by social culture cannot be the indicator of intellectual status.
 
Arifhb’s Aquatics said:
To tell the truth, watching a football match/visiting an exhibition hall or listening to popular music/enjoying a concerto is all a matter of preference. It cannot be specifically categorized. Intellectual knowledge should not be an obstacle to watching football or a reason to attend an opera night. I think that loving, being interested and embracing the things brought by social culture cannot be the indicator of intellectual status.
Click to expand...
I most certain that academic ability and intellectual status do not preclude one from attending football matches and or punk rock gigs, pretty sure the same applies to classical music events 😉
 
IMG_9429.jpeg
 
Great video @Arifhb’s Aquatics - the tanks look awesome.

I have always wondered with biotope tanks like this - is there a technique for rapidly achieving the fluffy mulm on the hardscape and substrate, and some plants, that gives the that natural look as though the scape has been in place for years? I assume this is added manually somehow?
 
Wookii said:
Great video @Arifhb’s Aquatics - the tanks look awesome.

I have always wondered with biotope tanks like this - is there a technique for rapidly achieving the fluffy mulm on the hardscape and substrate, and some plants, that gives the that natural look as though the scape has been in place for years? I assume this is added manually somehow?
Click to expand...
Thank you. I usually soak thin branches and dry leaves in hot water for 15-20 minutes and then add them. In this way, I speed up the work of detritus organisms. I do not draw water from the sand, nor do I sweep up fish droppings or the remains of wilting and dying plants. My filter always runs at half flow, which reduces ground movement. In fact, I let everything be as it is in nature. After measuring NO3 regularly, I change the water when I see values above 10 mg. If everything is fine, I do not interfere with the tank. After adding the dry botanicals, the mulm and detritus layer forms within two months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top