On that we can agree, and I'm glad we have some common ground. Do you think the IAPLC would benefit if diorama were to have its own category and perhaps different judging criteria? Then it would be up to the contestants to decide what style their scape best fits, and it can be judged accordingly. At the polar opposites, and some not inconsiderable way toward the centre, Diorama and Nature Aquarium are apples and oranges and I don't think it's really appropriate to judge them in the same category any longer.I think if you read my earlier post, I mostly disagree— about the categories, and how suited the diorama style is to the categories. I do think ADA could be more clear on what they mean by “Natural Habitat for Fish,” but those who do understand it deal with it well.
I can see how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote, but that's not really what I was trying to get at. I meant if contestants want to win they pretty much have to enter a diorama. Which is perhaps bad news for the development of other aquascaping styles. That is, if it's accepted that those styles can evolve further, and in to something other than diorama.The “what kind of entries it attracts” argument sounds a bit like victim blaming to me. Just as I wouldn’t blame an assault victim for what she/he was wearing, I wouldn’t blame IAPLC for Alberto’s cheating.
I don't blame the IAPLC for Alberto's dishonesty. I just think because of the dominance of diorama and its progressive arc it's drifting ever further from reality, and the temptation to photoshop a little detail here and there is understandable (not that I'm condoning Alberto's actions). Also, I suspect photoshopping has been more common than IAPLC would like to believe. Diorama seems to be a style that simply lends itself to ever greater flights of fantasy and fabrication.
I'd be interested to see if the IAPLC scrutinises past entries too. I think it risks loosing all credibility if it doesn't. And I hope it doesn't try to brush Alberto's dishonesty under the carpet or use him as a scape goat and then pretend all is well. Again IAPLC risks loosing what's left of its credibility if it does.They do have a responsibility to take action when it becomes apparent though. I hope ADA is making considerations— they historically take their time and are measured in taking action to these types of circumstances; they may want to make sure they are lined up with a proper response before making it.
I don't disagree with this statement. The legacy is still there and maybe evolving in a different direction to diorama. Either way, it's like a breath of fresh air when you see scapes like Amano-Gawa, with more of a leaning toward traditional Nature Aquarium, ranking well in the IAPLC. But they are clearly still the exception to the diorama rule.I disagree. The legacy is clearly there-
Diorama is clearly an accomplished art form, and hate it or love it you have to admire the creativity, skill, dedication and hard work involved. And it's an art form that dominates the IAPLC's top prizes and those of other scaping competitions as well, so clearly diorama scapes have impact and are greatly admired and appreciated. And I hope it continues to evolve and breath life in to all aquascaping competitions.High impact, technically savvy Diorama skills alone will get you into the top 27 inconsistently, or even top 7 here or there. But year-in year-out performance at the top level definitely requires dedication to studying nature, appreciating Amano's legacy, and "Recreation for a Natural Habitat for Fish," or "Creating a Sense of Nature."
However, as an ecologist that has spent many years researching the ecological principles behind the conservation management of semi-natural wetlands I can assure you that most dioramas have very little in common with natural aquatic habitats.
And that's fine, but the IAPLC needs to be honest about it, and acknowledge that the progressive arc of diorama creativity has perhaps become more important than the original Nature Aquarium concept and its fundamental ethos of the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. The two have almost become mutually exclusive.
If the IAPLC fail to acknowledge this it may risk becoming a caricature of itself and may struggle to convince anyone that it still believes... 'To know Mother Nature is to love her smallest creations'. Which brings me full circle to my opening contention at the top of this reply... perhaps diorama needs it's own category with different judging criteria?