The problem with contest tanks

[TomFromStLouis]

I buried this thought in the Holy Tanks thread but wanted to give it its own thread so y'all could comment.

The contest tanks referred to are beautifully cared for tanks and awesome plants - and also garish displays of tasteless composition, in most cases. This is my opinion of course, but the first place tank in the Aquabotanic contest was a huge vivid red and pink display that SHOUTED so loudly I could hardly focus on it. Admittedly the plants were in great shape, but am I the only one who thinks judges seem to favor the loud and garish compositions? They also seem to favor formal over informal styles and lots of red versus, say, an all green composition of varying leaf shapes. A loosely jungle like look can be a tremendously pleasing tank to live with, and may actually look more "real" than any Dutch setup, but it has no chance in these contests.

I still like viewing contest tanks. They can inspire in one way or other. But I would not want to live with what those judges deem best. Your thoughts?

[Leopardess]

I'll agree with that to a degree, yup. Some of those that scored best I found were the least appealing of all to me.

This was my favorite of just about all of them...plainish...lots of green...simple. At least it got honorable mention though...

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/?&op=showcase&category=0&vol=2&id=24

and the fact that a judge suggested a RED plant in that tank makes my heart palpitate;)

[zin]

Yeah i agree, most tanks i see in contests are dutch style and they are the only ones that seem to have a chance. But its the opinion of the judges i guess. :rolleyes:

[Gomer]

I think that there are three classifications of planted tanks and I think that all have equal merit.

1) A Biotype (the truest representation of a habitat..fish,plants and all)
2) Techical tanks (think hardcore "techi" tanks... like the 1st place AB winner. many of them take lots of skill to grow them really well...and sustain it.)
3) Pleasant tanks (not necessaraly difficult to maintain, and usually not a biotype. Leopardess's 1st pick I think exemplifies this).

[Leopardess]

Well yes, those are the three types. But it seems that only the "technical tanks" get much respect - when, quite frankly, they often aren't the most visually appealing...which I would assume is ultimately the goal (at least for entering into a contest - and excluding some bio tanks)

I don't think it should be based solely on difficulty of plant species - as it seems to lean towards, but instead on pleasantness to look at, functionality,etc. Many of those 'harder' tanks aren't feasible in the way the plants are set up in regards to upkeep,trimming etc.

[Slappy*McFish]

If you want to learn more about the winner's tank(JamesHoftiezer), you can read about it here:

100G aquascape journal (http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=4006090712&f=1306023812&m=1836028832)

Pretty much from start to finish, it shows the development and maturation of this tank over a period of time. Pretty remarkable considering he was rather new to 'planted tank' aquascaping.

and here is his personal site: http://www.hoftiezer.net/personal/aquaria/

[Cearbhaill]

It's a bit of a new medium as far as art and competition go.
And as with any other competition type hobby, the subjects that win are not necessarily representative of what works in real life.

Perhaps in this type competition what they're looking for is the ability to bring such a design to fruition- not the end result itself?
Is there a rulemaking body that has established standards of competition as far as what exactly is being judged?

I know that in several fields I'm familiar with any new type competitions usually turn out some very garish, over the top entrants for a few years until the hobby settles out a bit. Takes a while (and lots of political fallout) for folks to decide just what the standard should be. After a few years they might just end up with a class for "creative aquascaping" that gives folks with the urge to go garish a suitable outlet.

But then I haven't read the rulebook on how the judging works- is there one? A schedule of points? Any written criteria?

[PumaWard]

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/?&op=showcase&category=0&vol=1&id=49

This one's my pick of the tanks that I have viewed.


I agree with Tom, most the tanks that got the top places were not the best looking, IMO. While there were a few in those places that I liked, most didn't have that much apeal to me.

Such as this one
http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/?&op=showcase&category=0&vol=2&id=71

There was way too much red in this tank and it made it look unatural, IMO.

On top of that, the rasboras looked out of place in all that red.



Overall, I think that tanks should be voted on and not picked by a few judges. Votes display more the majority's top pick, not just a handful of people's idea of "nice looking".

I also agree that it seemed that the out-of-the-ordinary tanks would voted down on for that very reason... very disapointing... especially since they have much more artistic value than the others.

[Slappy*McFish]

These are the only rules of the contest, and anybody with a planted tank can enter.

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/brochure-2003.pdf 'adobe acrobat format'

The winner is soley based on the collective opinions of the judges for that given contest. The judges are normally highly respected and very experienced 'aquatic gardeners', themselves. Some notable judges are, and have been: George and Karla Booth, Karen Randall, Ole Pedersen(Tropica), Roger Miller, Neil Frank, Claus Christensen(Tropica), and Kaspar Horst(Dupla)..just to name a few. Now if they could just get Takashi Amano in there;)...

[plantbrain]

I really think is the goal of the hobbyist whether or not the tank achieved the look they were after.

Judging can help improve the thought processes, although many, myself included have issues with judging.

They do try and have several judges to avoid one sided favoritism. Often, judges have conflicting opinions.

My own opinions conflict often and therefore I do not care to judge since I have a hard time being fair with conflicts even with a good judging score sheet.

I would rather suggest methods and design ideas to improve and explore the hobbyist's notions about design for themselves and let their own eye and opinions be the real judge.

If you are happy with that, doesn't matter if so and so got a 1st place or not.

We all have different goals.
But it's nice to see the level of aquascaping rise in North America and elsewhere. Many good aqascapist are now out running around here:)

I can help a great deal with growing, but they have to design and excute the tank layouts.

I encourage folks to enter the contest, most everyone that deos in earnest, does learn a good deal about their tanks and improves as an aquarist/plantie.

Open house's for planted tank clubs is even better, lots of feedback from many folks that you know, no trick photographs, they can ask you all sorts of questions etc, see the tank over the course of a year etc etc.

I'd like to see non CO2 tanks have a place in competition/ along with SW planted tanks.
Biotopes are great, but the other types are more encompassing and more interesting to many folks and should be encouraged as well through these types of contest.

That is the main goal here, not to be snide, scare folks off with red plants etc.
My Salt water plant tank is mostly red, and I mean bright red tanks but many folks like that and see that in the ocean along with neon fish, many in North American like that color mix, vs subtle greens and leaf textures (I like those also).

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Robert H]

Lets not forget that James not only won first place in my contest, but best of show in the AGA contest. In fact most of the winners in my contest also placed as winners in the AGA contest.

Much of it is subjective taste. I think garrish tasteless composition are pretty strong words, and I personaly would strongly disagree, but everyone has their own idea what looks good.

Winners of a contest stand out in one way or another. For whatevcer reason the winner usually has something about their aquascape that makes it really stand out. James had more red than most people, but I do not think he won for that reason. He won because his aquascape really is dramatic and was very unique looking.

Look at past winners of the AGA. Do you think Luis Navarro is garrish and tasteless?

Here is one of Luis's:

http://www.aquabotanic.com/images/luisnavarro1.jpg

I think all of the winners have very well thought out composition, that is difficult to duplicate. I could not re create James aquascape and make it work, could you?

[TomFromStLouis]

No, I could not duplicate it. Not with the effort I now expend. And I made it clear that my criticism was exclusively aesthetic. And we all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I remain in awe of the technical achievements.

I used strong words to convey the essence of my thought - a little stretch to make a point. Maybe LOUD is the single best word. Luis' tank that you show is nice. It is relatively quiet, has compositional balance, and I could look at it a long while with enjoyment even though I am not a fan of blue backgrounds. It also did not win your judges top affection.

Maybe BALANCE is what these winning tanks lack. A quiet balance between the plants and the fish for a total environment that can be enjoyed a long time. I think James tank has fish but who could watch them? You know how sometimes a person can wear a stunning outfit and look terrific and sometimes the outfit wears them? Same thing here.

I am the first to admit that these points are my opinion only and that aesthetic differences will always exist. How else could anyone sell those sweatshirts with sparkley writing on them?

ps - I LOVE the contests. I just don't care for the judges' bias.

[Robert H]

Well, I agree James aquascape is bold, but I don't think it is typical of the contests, and I don't think there is any biased for any particular style. Look at the judges of the AGA contest, none of them are accomplished aquascapers. George Booth is an old school hobbyist, Karen Randall is, well, a knowledgable grower, but no Amano. Balin Shaw is just an average hobbyist.

I can tell you the Aqua botanic contest was very difficult for the judges. The results were very close, and the judges did not enjoy having to make a descion. Which is probably why they do not want to be judges again! I know AGA judges have made simular comments.

some of my favorites from the AB contest were:

http://www.aquabotanic.com/contest/2003/resized/17/fulltankshot.jpg

http://www.aquabotanic.com/contest/2003/resized/24/fulltankshot.jpg

http://www.aquabotanic.com/contest/2003/resized/23/fullview.jpg

[AthagaMor]

While not being an expert and being new here, I'd like to toss my opinion into the mix.

I'd agree that the best in show/1st place tank was a bit loud/overly-red. I also found it very horseshoe-shaped. From the little I know about planted tanks (I'm trying to start one) I can assume it was quite difficult to do as well.

I liked several of the other tanks linked and posted in this thread much more. I think the author of this thread has a point. How strong of a point?.... personal perspective dictates...

Also, I noticed that all of these "great tanks" lack duckweed... just out of curiousity, is this a no-no? I've seem some VERY well done tanks with the ol' quack quack...

The other thing I wanted to ask about was the lack of fish. Undestanding that this is a aqua-botanical contest and all, but going along with the biotope argument, shouldn't there be more fish??? I mean when I think "amazon river basin" I think 'fish' before 'plants'. I saw a couple smaller schools, but none of them looked very 'full' to me. To the 'lay and opinionated' (like myself), I initially went "nice plants, when are you going to finish cycling and add fish?" -perhaps harsh, but I would think an ecosystem would be tougher (and more noteworthy) than a tank full of wet plants.

...just me.

[Tempest]

-Athaga I'm kind of cracking up laughing mainly because sometimes it *is* hard to find the fish in a heavily planted *and* well stocked tank. I can always see the angels and the cardinals in my 55 gallon tank but sometimes it's necessary to look around for the rest of the crew. This is a well stocked tank too but...

[Gomer]

Originally posted by Tempest
-Athaga I'm kind of cracking up laughing mainly because sometimes it *is* hard to find the fish in a heavily planted *and* well stocked tank. I can always see the angels and the cardinals in my 55 gallon tank but sometimes it's necessary to look around for the rest of the crew. This is a well stocked tank too but...


hehe...I just looked at my most recent pic of my 29g. I can count only 5 fish and 4 snails in the picture. ...but there are really 15 fish, a few hundred snails and maybe 50 or so cherry shrimp (counting baby shrimp and baby snails)

[plantbrain]

Duckweed is a particularly baneful weed.
Some folks have opted for Salvinia which is more manageable in aquariums.

If the fish want to come out, let them, but providing cover for them is much better I think for the fish than being able to see them in a typically very boring non planted tank aquascape.

I worked with rock and wood before plants, planted designs look infinitely better and it's much more interesting for long term development design.

Rock farming is not going to make you much $ either for your hobby. They grow real slow.

The tank design/aquascape is the stage, the fish are the actors: this is one way to look at it.

No one is obligated to have a fully planted tank, you can have some plants and mostly wood/rock etc and still have a very nice design.

It depends on the goal of the person. I have designs that I really like a lot that have only a few plants. Likewise I have designs that use only plants, no wood or rocks.

Of course there are folks that like fluorescent plastic plants, plastic bubbling divers and so on.

If a design holds up on its own without plants, often adding plants really makes it look better IME.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[DarkTetra]

The judge's comments terrify me into not entering every year. Some of them are down right mean!

[Slappy*McFish]

Nah, it's constructive criticism. Think of it as a tool in the improvement of your tank.;)

[plantbrain]

They do not mean it personallty, it's the tank, not you.
Although after considerable work into what you think is nice and great, they might come off completely insane in the membrane.

This is the issue for me judging really. I need to know what the owner's goal and vision was when trying this out and did they achieve it.

But NEVER be scared to enter. It's a good experience but I will say an open house is far more intense.

you can take some of the critique as a challenge. "I will make each problem go away so they will not have anything to complain about"

If you look at some of the rules, the past judging etc, you can figure out what it is that the averages of judges want.

Then you know what is being expected of you. If you feel like you are simply guessing, then that's no good.

You do NOT have to enter the judging part of the contest either, you may enter the showcase part where it's non judged enteries only.

So you now have nom excuse not to try it.
I am encouraging folks not for fame/glory/prizes etc, but rather to you to improve your own tank keeping skills/photography/balancing the plant growth rates/pruning etc, it's much more about a contest between you and yourself.

The only barriers are those that you create.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[TwoTankAmin]

I keep fish in planted tanks. I use plants because they are great bio filters; because they are good for the fish in that they provide cover, O2 and cover for fry and finally, because I like the way they look. I also like to garden.

I would never think about entering any of my tanks in a contest and I have not visitied a site to view contest entry/winner pics in a couple of years. I consider myself to be the Anti-Amano.

I have 12 planted tanks ranging in size from 5.5 gals to 75 gals and from 1wpg - 3wpg w/ co2. All are prize winners as far as I am concerned and I dont care what anybody else thinks of how my aquatic jungles look. :D

[plantbrain]

I felt that way for many years and was just concerned about plants for their utility and was mainly interested in fish as the primary consideration for the hobby. Many/most folks fall into this group.

Reef folks use plants as their utility also.

It';s reallty too bad MORe folks do not use FW plants for their utility alone and make/produce plant filters.

It'd be nice to see Aquaria Inc. start making something.

Folks might just be slightly interested in certain fish, plants reefs etc, but after a while they want to try Killi fish, plecos, Reef Tangs, and plants. Some are content with their own area of the hobby. I was for many years then decide3d I'd had enough and wanted to have everything.

I upped my own standards and learned a lot along the way.
Most people will follow that same path if they try to grow.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[DarkTetra]

I may still give it a shot. Thank you for encouragement. But two years ago, they harshed on an eight year old. That's just cold.

[AthagaMor]

wow 12 tanks! My GF would never let me... any pics?

I'm a bit in awe at how influencial this Amano is. Is there no other? that would be sad. personally, if i was going to get into botanical design, I'd be spending my time on Korean arrangement art and not in a single book. Anyone seriously interested can PM me and I can try to put you in contact with the only American to ever win the gold medal at the annual competition (woman btw). ...very interesting approach and I think it could be interestingly added to aqua-botanic concepts. ... good thing for judges to look into too. it seems red vs. green seems to be the big debate right now (sorry, if this isn't accurate).

...off on a tangent... what was I going to... oh yeah, plantbrain, if you have any specific stuff to look at (link are nice) that would help someone attempting to jump from guppies/platies/swords to SA apisto cichlids, rams, angels, and/or some kribs in a mod-heavily planted tank... it would be much appreciated. I want the functionality as well as the aesthetics.

[plantbrain]

Yes, tagging on a younger kid is not cool.
Tagging on a first time person in general is not good either.

I think there should be levels of judging, say novice/1st timers, intermediate etc, but there are not enough folks entering really to make all these divisions.

Just do it and be happy. Don't worry about what they say, worry about your own goals and standards.

As far as jumping into SA fish, check www.thekrib.com for more.
They are fine and easy to keep although I'll keep softer water for ther Apisto's and Rams. Tghe others' are fine with moderate hard waters. But if the KH is 5-6 or less and the GH close, you should be fine.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[TomFromStLouis]

Plantbrain has jolted a related thought in my rattled head. Currently contests divide tanks by size, and this makes complete sense to me. But one of the impossible tasks facing a judge is ranking a deluxe Dutch style tank against an Amano look or less formal look. I doubt they could subdivide the contest into tank styles very well - it would be difficult to categorize a lot of these setups.

Maybe my rant against the judges is really a rant against the concept of comparing distinctive styles (an impossible task). Maybe that explains why they tend to favor a formal style - it is easier to see the effort and perfection in a formal arrangement.

[plantbrain]

Try to judge a water color and an oil of vastly differing styles.

My idea of style and what I like is nowhere near the normal style of the Dutch aquascape. That is a fairly distinctive style for judging and that makes it easier.

But styles that use other media(different gravels, wood, rocks) and use space more often have trouble comparing the differences.

There is no perfect solution, I'll certainly say that but us feeble minded humans try to place a 1st place on one vs second place on another.

I grade about 60 students each semester, we have the same darn problem with grading. Everyone is different and trying to be objective is tough since every class is different. I switched to standarized T score like they use for the SAT, GRE etc test.

I think some more thought should be placed on some form of standerization and a better method for judging. What that might be, I don't know at this time.

I was looking at a few of the contest winners and other so called styles, Amano's style of using a white sand etc in the front of the tank for ther foregrounds.

Sorry looks __just like__ the reef design for coral tanks.

I like plants there, not sand. That's just me and my personal bias.

Some/many Dutch tanks do this also.

I have very little space to work with in my tank, I do not want to see any gravel. You can use plenty of "space" for effects without showing gravel.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Robert H]

I have a hard time understanding what you mean by a formal arrangement. What is a formal arrangement, something that looks good? How should it be judged? Composition, balance, color? what? How about the golden ratio principal? The "formal" arrangement uses the same principals as professional photographers, painters, landscapers....

The judging critertia of the AGA contest is pretty well stated. It is open to any "style". Its just that there are only two basic styles people recognize other than biotopes, Japanese and dutch. Nobody has come up with anthing distinctly different that someone can recognize that is any good! I have a feeling many of the entries you see and would call dutch may not be the true intention of the aquascaper at all. I know one guy who entered and someone called it a dutch style and he was offended! He considered it an Amano type aquascape.

How about Jeff Senske? He has pictures of his tanks published in EVERY issue of the TAG magazine. He has a public art gallery of planted aquariums. He maintains a long list of planted aquariums that he designed for his customers. What style does he have? Is he the American Amano? He breaks all the rules, he doesn't follow any of the current super duper fertilizer schemes, but he is a pro. And he has won in the AGA contest.

I think anybody that wins deserves to win, and many others who didn't win deserved to win as well. Thats the beauty of it, getting to see all those gorgeous tanks!

Two tank, I respect where your interest lies, many people do feel as you do, nothing wrong with that, but for those people who do have an interest in keeping planted tanks for the visual affect, it is only natural that they would be interested in honing their skills and they appreciate those that are skilled at it. I greatly admire people who can build something beautiful, and these contests are great showcases for that skill. If you have a skill you should show it off, or if you just have a love or a passion for something then there should be a vehicle for you to express that passion. Thats what these contests are. Everyone who enters them has a passion for what they do or they would not have the courage to put themselves up to be critiqued by you and me! :)

[AthagaMor]

one possible solution to the sub catergories is to let the entrants decide which category to enter in... <shrug>

anyway...


Nobody has come up with anything distinctly different that someone can recognize that is any good!

hmmm.... not sure I agree. Korean floral arrangement art has been around for hundreds of years and I can offer that they take it EXTREMELY seriously. (I'm not Korean btw - just did a lot of history research on their culture.) In short its based on three angles, 360 degree perspective, and height... in short.

Inability to 'recognize' it, lands on the viewers' knowledge and openness to "new" ideas. Though this art would hardly be "new."

Anyway, not ripping on anyone or trying to give any one person a hard time. Just saying, is all. I think the other avenues exist - many having been around a while.

Instead of creating something new from scratch, why not find something that was lost or, at least, is hitherto unrecognized?

[plantbrain]

The Judge's critique is not meant to be a blast, it's suppose to be constructive, something that may improve the look, expand the grower's concept.
Sometimes the judge's themselves cannot say what it is about a tank that bother's them, it's just a "feeling". Hopefully all judge's will justify the comments, often they do.

But look at your own tanks and ask, do I like the "feeling" or can I improve it? Many are too scared, perhaps lazy to change the design, insecure with their abilities.

My advice is don't be, you need to take some risks to grow. Growth is good. :sick:

Looking into past methods and genres is very worthy to expand ideas.

Regards,
Tom Barr:

[Robert H]

hmmm.... not sure I agree. Korean floral arrangement art has been around for hundreds of years and I can offer that they take it EXTREMELY seriously. (I'm not Korean btw - just did a lot of history research on their culture.) In short its based on three angles, 360 degree perspective, and height... in short.

That sounds fascinating! Has anyone tried that in an aquarium? I agree, I think there may be other techniques from other mediums that could be brought to the aquarium, but what exists today is either dutch or japanese: nobody yet has defined anything else. There are also just plain simple basic rules that have been used long before the terms dutch and japanese came along: tall plants behind shorter plants, light colored plants against dark colored plants for contrast. Using a centerpeice and basic focal points. Is it these rules or principals that make a "formal arrangement"?


The Judge's critique is not meant to be a blast, it's suppose to be constructive, something that may improve the look, expand the grower's concept.

Every year the judges comments is a bone of contention. It is difficult to be critical without offending, but often the comments seem ridiculous, from left field somewhere. Personaly, I think they should do away with the comments all together, and simply have a point grading system. Leave the comments to the public.

[TomFromStLouis]

Let's take land based gardens as a model. "Formal" here would be something like the gardens at Versailles - very rigid 'bones' with neatly pruned shapes lining up in straight lines etc. Mazes are often a part of a formal garden. The Dutch style and its "rules" strike me as the best aquatic parallel.

Then along comes the English cottage garden, a less structured layer upon layer of forms and shapes tumbling about and spilling onto pathways etc. It too has "rules", but the whole look is less structured and, to me, more "natural". My land garden is more along these lines. Still plenty of work, but if a perennial self sows here and there, I might just leave it here and pluck it there - over time things find their own order and the garden changes every year.

Contrast both of these with Japanese gardens. I consider these more "formal", but certainly different than the European type. American style gardens with lots of natural grasses and native plants give yet another style that does not easily fit into a formal/informal stereotype. There are too many styles and the lines are too blurry between them to make these distinctions of much use in aqautic garden contests. My whole point originally was that the judges seemed to favor what I think of as more formal styles, but I see the point that the lines are less distinct than I first thought. It IS impossible to judge a Japanese garden against an English cottage garden, but I do not know how to remove this issue from tank contests.

The more I learn about how the judging works, I am willing to concede that they are doing the best they can. I will stick to the comment that they tend to favor "formal" (witness comments suggesting pruning when anything is at all unruly) and that their keen emphasis on the plants sometimes tends to crowd out a balance with fish or a quieter look that I personally prefer.

[Robert H]

I guess I agree with you more or less.... There has to be some form otherwise it is just chaotic. Its funny though how people define things differently. I have usually heard dutch designs being compared to English gardens.

Reading the judges comments can be frustrating. On more than one occasion Karen Randall wrote that she felt the plants were not appropiate for the aquascape because they would be high maintenance, requiring frequent pruning!! What the heck does that have to do with anything? There has been a number of things said from the judges that I thought was ridiculous.

I think everything that has been done has been criticized. some people hate dutch tanks, some people hate Amano, and even more simple geometric designs have been criticized. I don't know if you read TAOPA or whatever its called, but someone there brought up Oliver Knotts work and criticized it as being too geometric. But it works, it is visually appealing and its kinda different from the current norm

Here are some examples of Olivers work

http://www.aquabotanic.com/images/knott123cm.jpg

http://www.aquabotanic.com/images/knott130cm.jpg

Now in a contest this may not do that well because of its simplicity, but maybe that is the whole intention of the aquascaper and what it should be appreciated for??

[TomFromStLouis]

I like that. Especially the first one. See fish? See balance?

I agree about Karen's comments. Every contest tank I have seen looks like a lot of work went into prepping it. She seems stuck on a few more themes than most (don't submit a tank without red to her!), but she does take the time to spell out her thoughts in her comments and I have learned from them.

"English gardens" is sort of a broad term, which is why I threw in the "cottage" qualifier. I am not fully conversant, but I think several major English designers were instrumental in developing the "formal" style I referred to when laying out large tracts around the mansion and estate. The cottage style came later as a middle class wanting a garden with their smaller abode came into play. Partly because the plot was so small, things got scrunched up and layered and a whole different aesthetic was born.

[plantbrain]

Many plant keepers as they get more involved tend to focus less on the fish and more on the fish.

Eventually some wear out, some never lose the thrill of the fish at all and keep sustantial fish loads.

Some go off and keep lots of plants and few fish, then return later after they feel more comfortable with plants. Many Discus folks go this route.

If you look through some of the contest winners, you'll note some tanks did not have any plants, just rocks, you can certainly do the same with Wood also.

Or just plants.

The best aquascape I've ever seen in person is still mainly rocks, with some Anubias growing in between full of Trophues moorii, one of my favorite fish.

A great tank needs great fish. It'd be like having a great stage without any actors for the show.


But Tom, you don't have to have any plants to enter many contest is part of my point. Nor are you limited to FW, I've seen some very nice Mangrove tanks for Brackish and SW and some very neat macro algae tanks.

The rules are different for judging marine tanks as many of the colors might be deemed gaudy by FW standards.

Robert's point about the judge's comments are on target, I feel the same way. I believe in suggestions for improvements or better yet, ideas to explore.
But these comments need something to them, like:

"Something like Ludwigia repens might look more interesting in the place of Eustralis in this aquascape and perhaps varying the group size orientation would give a different look worth exploring since they have a nice base to work with and would be relatively easy to explore"

Give them advice that will improve their design development and abilities.

A statement of purpose/what the aquarist trying to achieve also helps to know what the goal of the aquarist is.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[SnakeIce]

I am getting into this kinda late....


How about Jeff Senske?

I took a look at his company's website and am impressed with some of their work

However I find it interesting that they have a picture of them and Amano together and they say that they are so awed to have met him and that he is the source or catalyst of their inspiration.

I find that tanks that I look at and say that is unique in designe and form are the tanks that catch my interest... so many of those classic dutch tanks you would not be able to tell the difference between them if you just look at the plantings as a shaped surface in the tank-- The landscape is the same, just different plants are used to create it.

we all have real life land scapes to draw inspiration from, and no place is exactly the same, so why are so many tanks looking like cookie cutter replicas?

[plantbrain]

Well this is very anti Amano and certainly not a cookie cutter example:

http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=2810752&uid=1473668&membe

But being able to emulate and do a cookie cutter tank like any of Amano's tanks, it a good skill and one that would place you in some of the top circles even if you had little design ability.

Jeff has done extremely well with paludariums.
http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/?&op=ishowcase&category=3&vol=-1

Amano is not particularly interested in showing these types in his work but he does pop out of the water a little every now and then.

Find your goal and get that image in your head and then recreate it. If it's emulating someone's style, it will help your abilities to develop your own style.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Slappy*McFish]

This photo from Senske's site is amazing...and I am very fond of this tank, in general.

http://www.aquariumdesigngroup.com/aquascapes/images/freshwater/fw1zY-f.jpg

[Robert H]

Well, Jay Luto and others are in the midst of planning this years Aqua botanic contest. If you have any suggestions or ways to make it better, contact Jay.