Caution! Extremely Opinionated Posting!
- Thread starter DeeDeeK
- Start date
- Status
there's a lot of that going around. par for the course on most fish forums, methinks. unfortunately...
You're right. I apologize. I can't boldly state anything I want. I can only whisper anything I want, and only to fish.:dance2:
This thread is extremely conflicting to me. Given your background in art, I would think you would be much more open-minded, considering that art is so extremely subjective, and your argument is based around aquariums as art.
I find it highly ironic that you are so critical of some "unnatural" elements- box-filters, fake plants, even certain tank shapes for example, and talk about how you strive to make your box of fish as close to perfect as you can, yet something you do makes me cringe and is about as unnatural as you get. One of my personal pet peeves is mixing fish from different parts of the world- something you seem to do.
Not only is it visually unappealing to me (one can usually look at a fish and tell by scales and mouth where it hails from- barbs, for example, have a distinct Asian look, while the neon tetra has a distince South American look, and side-by-side do not complement one another, IMO) but it is generally best for the fish to keep fish from similar origins together. Often when you pair fish from different regions you have a harder time in regards to water chemistry, compatability, etc., then if you choose species from the same "general" area. I think (I could be wrong) that Mr. Amano whom you refer to may cringe over that as well- I believe he creates biotopes with his flora and fauna.
Of course people generally don't walk into the hobby knowing this, and my first bunch of fish included pairing rasboras and guppies, but something about the combination didn't look right to me. Now my tank includes South American fish that generally cohabitate rather peacefully together. It does have a garish box filter but once my plants get good height in the back the wires and such should be hidden and it doesn't bother me. I seriously doubt it bothers the fish since I have had tetras spawn in my community tank.
Another pet peeve of mine is having a bunch of small fish withouth a medium to large centerpiece fish, but I don't expect others to work around that when planning their tanks.
I think your reflections and efforts would be put to much better use in explaining why we should be humane in our treatment- not why something is "ugly" to you.
And yes, I prefer natrual- I have eco-complete, driftwood, and live plants. But I bought my 1-year-old niece a beautiful blue betta and got it beautiful blue and teal rocks to go with him yesterday and she thinks it's cool and pretty. Different strokes.
Oh- and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar
I find it highly ironic that you are so critical of some "unnatural" elements- box-filters, fake plants, even certain tank shapes for example, and talk about how you strive to make your box of fish as close to perfect as you can, yet something you do makes me cringe and is about as unnatural as you get. One of my personal pet peeves is mixing fish from different parts of the world- something you seem to do.
Not only is it visually unappealing to me (one can usually look at a fish and tell by scales and mouth where it hails from- barbs, for example, have a distinct Asian look, while the neon tetra has a distince South American look, and side-by-side do not complement one another, IMO) but it is generally best for the fish to keep fish from similar origins together. Often when you pair fish from different regions you have a harder time in regards to water chemistry, compatability, etc., then if you choose species from the same "general" area. I think (I could be wrong) that Mr. Amano whom you refer to may cringe over that as well- I believe he creates biotopes with his flora and fauna.
Of course people generally don't walk into the hobby knowing this, and my first bunch of fish included pairing rasboras and guppies, but something about the combination didn't look right to me. Now my tank includes South American fish that generally cohabitate rather peacefully together. It does have a garish box filter but once my plants get good height in the back the wires and such should be hidden and it doesn't bother me. I seriously doubt it bothers the fish since I have had tetras spawn in my community tank.
Another pet peeve of mine is having a bunch of small fish withouth a medium to large centerpiece fish, but I don't expect others to work around that when planning their tanks.
I think your reflections and efforts would be put to much better use in explaining why we should be humane in our treatment- not why something is "ugly" to you.
And yes, I prefer natrual- I have eco-complete, driftwood, and live plants. But I bought my 1-year-old niece a beautiful blue betta and got it beautiful blue and teal rocks to go with him yesterday and she thinks it's cool and pretty. Different strokes.
Oh- and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar
Oh, and I would like to add- I would really like to see your efforts focused on expanding on the overcrowding area. I like large fish (I love fw stingrays) but don't have the room to house them. Sadly, many people don't let that deter them. We need to find ways to get this across to people. One day I dream of owning a freshwater stingray, but until I have the money and space to properly house one, I will not own one, period. I won't cram it into a 75 gallon because I will be upgrading next year, like I read so much about 
I am terribly open-minded. You will see that if you read my posts throughout the progression of this thread. And, as subject to taste as art is, it has history, trends, and techniques around which one can build critical arguments. That I personally dislike ugly little box filters, etc., is my taste and I will stand by it.
I get the feeling you haven't understood me. I am critical of rectangular style aquaria: my critique is that they are easy to compose within. I am critical of other shapes: Other shapes are harder to compose within and have the tank not interfere with the quality of viewing. And ALL tanks are "unnatural." I am not at odds with either natural or unnatural elements - haven't made a statement as to that. I simply think that plastic plants are generally cheap and tacky - but I've also admired their use by thoughtful and creative aquarists. I personally dislike box filters but not because they're unnatural. My overhead filter is pretty unnatural, too, just it doesn't look like a dowdy little plastic box full of rubbish which is what box filters look like to me.
There, you've stated a clear position on what looks good and what doesn't and other good reasons why to create biotopes. I wouldn't tell you you're not open minded enough, and in some ways I agree with you. I am not sure about Amano and biotopes but I doubt they are strict biotopes. If you mean to say Mr. Amano probably would cringe certain things do him the favor of checking out your assumptions first, hmmm?
I don't think box filters are garish. No, they are ugly little things. I never thought they would bother the fish. Nope. They bother me and I hate the bubbles - no justification, just hate the bubbles.
I actually prefer to have a centerpiece fish, myself. In the photos I posted of my aquarium in this thread, you'll see it for yourself.
And I think your reflections and efforts would be put to much better use by putting forward your very good ideas about what looks good to you and why it looks good. How about a positive contribution to this thread or starting one of your own. The whole aesthetics of a biotope thing sounds like a good idea to me. Also, I think inhumane treatment of animals put on display IS ugly. And shameful.
Yup.
Oh- and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar
I don't know, it seems like this thread has caught a lot of flies so far...
. . .
I don't know, it seems like this thread has caught a lot of flies so far...
AHA! So that explains why my fly collection has diminished!
Ah, but without those flies, those walls of text become less self defense and more self aggrandizement. To be honest DeeDee, I have to say I am generally a fan of your write-ups, but this one left a sour taste in my mouth as well. Considering that I agree with many of the points in your original post and still managed to come away with a less than favorable view, I have to say (and purely from an editorial standpoint) that in revised drafts, removing some of the flourish might remove some of the appearance of a hoity-toity attitude. Given that it can often be nearly impossible to discern tone from the written word, I personally have found it useful to cut to the chase and avoid literary flourish as a means of reducing misunderstandings.
As a scuba diver, most biotopes are unrecognizable to me, but perhaps it has more to do with location than anything else. I've never seen a lake bed that wasn't creepy, and traversing the ocean floor isn't exactly a walk in the park. When visibility is good, like beyond 5 ft or so, the most plant life I see consists of blackish rubbery kelp beds. The most green is the water itself and everything else is gray. This is just my limited experience, however, maybe other divers can weigh in here.
Well, gosh, I must say that I agree with you. If you haven't yet, check out the thread more thoroughly and you'll find many other helpful critiques of that original posting as well as my responses - you'll see I take much of it to heart.
I'll admit I'm very tired of all the knee-jerk reactions I've elicited and am losing patience with responses from people who haven't read the first posting carefully enough to comprehend it - frequently complaints are about things I haven't actually said - and haven't read the rest of the thread either. I've been showing it, I am sure, in my silly retorts like "I am the fish whisperer."
I think this thread has been useful even if it's been, let's say, a little rough and tumble. I'm glad to have started it and hope it's been at least a bit stimulating in ways other than stimulating everyone to be annoyed with me. It seems the least useful things about it have been the offensive and easily misunderstood writing of the initial post and all the redundant criticism/defense directed at and coming from me.
Can we start talking about something else? Will the next irritated person who's read the first posting of this thread and jumped to the end to let me have it please read the thread through first? Frankly I think it's kinda dumb to tell me the same things that a dozen other people have and which I've already responded to.
That last paragraph was not meant for Inka4040 but in general. Inka4040's posting is actually thought out and has useful critique. Thank you Inka4040.
- Status
