# IAPLC  top 27



## Iain Sutherland (28 Sep 2013)

Has anyone seen the top 100 images yet now the party is over? Been looking but stuck on my phone til tomorrow....


----------



## Iain Sutherland (28 Sep 2013)

Ah ha
  IAPLC 2013 Top 27 | peHa:68 - akwarystyka naturalna


----------



## sa80mark (28 Sep 2013)

Nice find


----------



## Tim Harrison (28 Sep 2013)

OK...hmmm...there are some nice scapes but way too many dioramas ...


----------



## TOO (28 Sep 2013)

Some freaky stuff in there. Check out the cactus scape .

Not many scapes to my taste, but you got to admire the skill that goes into them nevertheless. But a far cry from the original nature aquarium style. I wonder how Amano himself sees this development?

Thomas


----------



## Aquadream (28 Sep 2013)

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.


----------



## George Farmer (28 Sep 2013)

IAPLC 2013 - YouTube


----------



## aliclarke86 (28 Sep 2013)

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


----------



## Piece-of-fish (30 Sep 2013)

Like the Brazillians. Turkey was a surprise having in mind how I used to hate them  Few more interesting scapes but overall quite boring


----------



## Tim Harrison (30 Sep 2013)

Damn server...the debate on the _ International Aquatic Panoramic Landscape Contest_  was really hotting up...


----------



## ghostsword (30 Sep 2013)

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..


----------



## Nathaniel Whiteside (3 Oct 2013)

What's with all the 'under water water-falls' lol.


----------



## Samjpikey (4 Oct 2013)

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


----------



## flygja (4 Oct 2013)

Samjpikey said:


> 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.


----------



## TOO (4 Oct 2013)

Samjpikey said:


> 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


----------



## Ady34 (4 Oct 2013)

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.


----------



## aliclarke86 (4 Oct 2013)

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


----------



## Tim Harrison (4 Oct 2013)

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 it it’s all a bit too incongruous and, for me, completely misses the point.


----------



## TOO (4 Oct 2013)

Troi said:


> 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


----------



## ghostsword (4 Oct 2013)

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..


----------



## Ian Holdich (4 Oct 2013)

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



 

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


----------



## Yo-han (4 Oct 2013)

I think I see a new style in the top 27. I do not feel this is nature style anymore. Looks more like scenery style!


----------



## ghostsword (4 Oct 2013)

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..


----------



## Ady34 (4 Oct 2013)

Ian Holdich said:


> 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
> 
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Tim Harrison (4 Oct 2013)

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.


----------



## Michael W (4 Oct 2013)

Ady34 said:


> 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.


----------



## ghostsword (4 Oct 2013)

Troi said:


> .And, perhaps more to the point, is it appropriate to judge it against more traditional naturescape styles?


 
Great point.. really good point..


----------



## ghostsword (4 Oct 2013)

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.


----------



## squid102 (4 Oct 2013)

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.


----------



## NatureBoy (4 Oct 2013)

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.


----------



## ghostsword (4 Oct 2013)

squid102 said:


> 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..


----------



## ghostsword (4 Oct 2013)

NatureBoy said:


> 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..


----------



## NatureBoy (4 Oct 2013)

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!


----------



## NatureBoy (4 Oct 2013)

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...


----------



## Ian Holdich (4 Oct 2013)

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.


----------



## Alastair (4 Oct 2013)

Ian Holdich said:


> 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.


----------



## Ian Holdich (4 Oct 2013)

Alastair said:


> 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.


----------



## Eboeagles (4 Oct 2013)

TOO said:


> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
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....


----------



## Aquadream (4 Oct 2013)

Troi said:


> 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.


----------



## Aquadream (4 Oct 2013)

ghostsword said:


> 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.


----------

