Aquascaping Contest Scandal

[Steven Chong]

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 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.

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.


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 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.


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.

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?

I disagree.
I don’t think ADA risks anything that you say it risks.

Also diorama doesn’t need it’s own category, and they’re inseparable anyway with lots of room for exploring hybridization.

The diorama scapes are often superior to the NA style ones in the habitat and nature sense categories, and are already an inseparable part of the Nature Aquarium tradition. There is nothing of Amano’s ethos lost by judging all the layouts together.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Guest]

That's fine, agree to disagree. I'll watch future competitions with interest and wish you good luck in those you enter.

 

[Steven Chong]

That's fine, agree to disagree. I'll watch future competitions with interest and wish you good luck in those you enter.

Thank you— my aim is to win next year. Once again, just as in this year and every year— Habitat for Fish and Sense of Nature and passionate research will be first and foremost in my strategy.

 

[cbaum86]

Really interesting to see so many views on the topic and potentially what keeps the hobby interesting. I don't feel that my views add any particular depth or revelation to the conversation but it's better to air them and maybe trying to write them out helps clarify ones beliefs in your own head.

I will take out the 'cheating' side of things as that is clearly unacceptable and as there is no clear evidence on any other entry it's unfair to make a comment. However, the response from ADA/IAPLC is important and hopefully, as mentioned by others addressed and not brushed under the carpet.

As for the entires made to the competition and the ranks then in general I have no complaints. I may not agree with and like all the top entries and I'm not a fan of the overly contrived layouts but I think from the past few years they are becoming less and less so with this hybrid diorama NA style becoming more prevalent. Personally I like it and I think it's an evolution, styles will always evolve and circulate; fashion is the obvious go to example as base trends from decades ago recirculate with twists. I don't think the top entries in this years IAPLC are true diorama, to me they are something else.

Should these types of entries be disallowed, marked down, recategorised etc just for being what they are? I don't believe so.
Does the current judging criteria allow for these entries to score as highly as they do? I believe so.

To me the criteria of 'Recreation of a natural habitat for fish' and 'Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work' are not so literal. 'Recreation of a natural habitat for fish' can be satisfied in (almost) any style of scape. Without necessarily being biotope or full NA but by providing representative elements of what would be a natural habitat for fish; creeping root systems or huge overhanging ledges in these style scapes may satisfy that criteria. If I look at a scape and it makes me think of nature, evokes the same feelings as when I'm walking through a forest, swimming in a lake or climbing a mountain then it satisfies the criteria 'Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work', how effectively it does that is another matter.

Maybe I believe and twist those criteria to fit what I want because I like the scapes produced I don't know.

On a side note and whilst Steven is on the thread I do have something that baffles me...

my aim was to take the audience inside of a log, to see the world as a fish would see it.

I feel that the use of mirrors and illusions of puddles detracts from this aim for me. There would be no puddle under water? This takes me out of the mindset of the fish exploring a fallen log underwater and into an environment above the water - where it is impossible to be a fish. Not a criticism, but a question that maybe I don't understand something in the scape?
Whilst I say that I have the greatest respect for this and your past works as well as the time you give to the community explaining and assessing your own, others works and aquascaping in general. Yours and the other works both in and out of the competition give inspiration on developing our own styles and scapes we can be happy to either live with at home or enter ourselves.

As I say, more a ramble to help me understand my own thoughts and feelings.

 

[glasscanvasart]

I feel that the use of mirrors and illusions of puddles detracts from this aim for me. There would be no puddle under water? This takes me out of the mindset of the fish exploring a fallen log underwater and into an environment above the water - where it is impossible to be a fish. Not a criticism, but a question that maybe I don't understand something in the scape?
Whilst I say that I have the greatest respect for this and your past works as well as the time you give to the community explaining and assessing your own, others works and aquascaping in general. Yours and the other works both in and out of the competition give inspiration on developing our own styles and scapes we can be happy to either live with at home or enter ourselves.

I was just going to bring this up. Reflections can only exist terrestrially, so this undermines the feeling of being underwater, though I understand their purpose was to reflect the swamp surrounding the log. I would say this years layout's concept of inside a fallen log was brilliant, the depth and impact are great and there is still strong a sense of nature despite losing out on an underwater feeling.

As you are a Japanese speaker, it would be great if you could explain what is meant by 'Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work' and 'Recreation of natural habitat for fish'. The way I understand them, doesn't match with the point allocation year after year. However, I would say Amano-gawa would score significantly higher than most Nature Aquariums.

Diorama and Nature Aquaria should not be judged separately and their features are not mutually exclusive as Josh and Siak and others have shown.

Oh, and thanks for your work on YouTube; I've learnt a lot from you.

 

[Steven Chong]

I feel that the use of mirrors and illusions of puddles detracts from this aim for me. There would be no puddle under water? This takes me out of the mindset of the fish exploring a fallen log underwater and into an environment above the water - where it is impossible to be a fish. Not a criticism, but a question that maybe I don't understand something in the scape?
Whilst I say that I have the greatest respect for this and your past works as well as the time you give to the community explaining and assessing your own, others works and aquascaping in general. Yours and the other works both in and out of the competition give inspiration on developing our own styles and scapes we can be happy to either live with at home or enter ourselves.

As I say, more a ramble to help me understand my own thoughts and feelings.

Great questions!

Yes, I was aware of the logical fallacy there-- and it's not the only one. For instance, you're not going to have trees underwater; or why is there a water surface above (it's an aquarium, we're under water) and a water surface below (the mirrors). Two water surfaces!

One comment I got from Toshifumi Watanabe (Previous world rank 5, Previous Amano Best of Show winner in TAU): the top half feels like an underwater biotope layout, bottom half feels like a terrestrial diorama layout.
^another contradiction

But when you plan out the scape you have to set aims for what you want to achieve, and think about how it will be received by the audience. Of course if you think about it very literally the logical fallacies (fish don't live above water, there are two water surfaces) are noticeable by anyone. But since so many aquascapes are already putting forth a terrestrial theme, I decided that this issue was not really important. If it was, it's pretty much the same issue facing every above-water theme. But we're not going to ban every above water theme; if we do it might as well be a biotope contest.

So I decided I didn't care, and I didn't think the judges would care either. I think it turned out I was right.

Instead, I decided it's enough if I:
-Use the main log to create the point of view
-Use the trees/mirrors to connect all the background space into an easy to understand theme
-show a new face of nature never shown in aquascaping before

If Watanabe-san felt the above half felt like an underwater biotope layout, AND I had the mirrors making a new scene of water-->

that cued to me that the layout REALLY had a feeling of water, and I was going to be knocking the 50 points of "Natural Environment for Fish" out of the park. Can't say until we get the contest book from ADA, but I was probably right on this point as well.

Sometimes as an artist we have to interpret the critique and see if it can be turned on its head— a weakness could actually be a strength. Even if there is a logical contradiction, if the judge is spending time sorting out that contradiction in their mind, it means they are spending extra time thinking about this layout -> in other words, they’ve already decidedly that this is a top contender that merits extra consideration.

There are give-and-takes for every decision you make inside the glass box. It's up to the aquascaper to interpret what's important in art, and which sacrifices can be lived with in pursuit of obtaining something even more important.

 

[cbaum86]

Great questions!

Appreciate you taking the time to reply. I always think it's great to understand the thought process of the scaper and you put across your points well. The final image can give us inspiration but your explanations give us the knowledge. Not only in the decisions that lead to the layout but how they would be considered as a contest entry. I guess both of these need equal consideration when creating a layout that is intended to win and a slightly different though process to that of creating a personal aquascape. I love the inside of a fallen tree concept which is executed beautifully and the technicality is mind blowing. Still, the puddles are a step too far for me as are those true diorama scape where it becomes a miniature landscape. There can still be fallen logs, trees with complex root structures or rock formations underwater and so I think I enjoy these hybrid diorama/NA style scapes more as maybe my mind is more believing of them. However, if we all had the same favourites, ideals and artistic expression life would be boring and the hobby/competition stagnant. Yours and your peers work will still serve as an inspiration to me.

I won't continue the conversation further as I feel I'm dragging the thread in a direction away from the topic at hand but thank you Steven.

 

[zozo]

I'm still waiting for a scaper to get the idea to do something with the 3D pavement art concept painted on the bottom panel in a tank instead of using a mirror... 🙂



If I was this creative I definitively would have tried it t see if and how it works. 🙂

 

[Guest]

Now you mention it. My IAPLC entry for 2021. Absolutely no Photoshopping...just shopping 😬

 

[zozo]

A tad more realistic could really work well, paint a sort of Mariana trench on the bottom panel. 🙂 With some good rockscape around it could greatly accentuate the 3D effect.

Why not? I guess it's an idea we need to send to Olie... If one can pull it off he will...

I always found this scape of his a stunner that i would not hesitate to put in my living room.

 

[Guest]

Not sure it’d do very well Marcel. Not enough logical fallacies...

 

[zozo]

Not sure it’d do very well Marcel. Not enough logical fallacies...

Me neither... But I've seen awesome 3D art pieces that look awefully realistic.

Believe it or not but this is painted on the bottom of the tub and pan then resin is poured in..






For me, it still gets the benefit of the doubt till I see it... But then it surely needs to be a very good realism artist.

 

[zozo]

Hmmm!?

That is more than just a mirror already... Some green reflective foil even recreating water wrinkles.

 

[Guest]

I think that @cbaum86 and @glasscanvasart raise a very interesting point, and @Steven Chong's answer reveals much about the IAPLC mindset which will undoubtedly prove helpful for those thinking about entering the IAPLC. But the Emperor is still immodestly dressed...

I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.

So I decided I didn't care, and I didn't think the judges would care either. I think it turned out I was right.

You are right Steve, the IAPLC doesn't care what constitutes the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”, quite clearly...

I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.

Yes, I was aware of the logical fallacy there...you're not going to have trees underwater; or why is there a water surface above and a water surface below (the mirrors)...fish don't live above water.

Is it a logical fallacy? I disagree with you there Steve. It's only a logical fallacy if you're still labouring under the delusion that diorama is a “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. Once you disabuse yourself of that psychosis it's just logic...

I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.

top half feels like an underwater biotope layout, bottom half feels like a terrestrial diorama layout.
^another contradiction

That just sounds deeply schizophrenic 🤪

I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.

AND I had the mirrors making a new scene of water-->
the layout REALLY had a feeling of water, and I was going to be knocking the 50 points of "Natural Environment for Fish" out of the park.

I rest my case...🙄

There are give-and-takes for every decision you make inside the glass box. It's up to the aquascaper to interpret what's important in art, and which sacrifices can be lived with in pursuit of obtaining something even more important.

So I was right all along then... The art is more important than the original Nature Aquarium concept and its fundamental ethos of the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. The two are mutually exclusive. So why pretend otherwise.

Agree to disagree.

Yeah sure, whilst some of my sanity is still intact.

Seriously though this is beyond absurd and I know I'm not in a minority of folk who feel this way; tho' politeness and pluralistic ignorance might suggest otherwise. It's kind of ironic, but Albert's actions may have done aquascaping a great service by tipping an already precariously absurd movement over the edge of reason and in to the abyss of the imbecilic.

To misquote a friend slightly, 'Takashi Amano's Nature Aquarium values are not a movable feast in the service of innovating works'. Something the IAPLC has conveniently lost sight of... If the IAPLC no longer respects those values surely it losses much of its reason for being?

 

[glasscanvasart]

So I was right all along then... The art is more important than the original Nature Aquarium concept and its fundamental ethos of the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. The two are mutually exclusive.

What do you define as a ‘Nature Aquarium’? I’d argue it was always about the art. Not just for the competition, but also for Amano.

 

[glasscanvasart]

I can’t comprehend the ‘Recreation of natural habitat for fish’ allocation. It appears to be an extension of ‘Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work’. I would have no qualms with this, but this is not what the judging criteria articulates. If you could try and explain again Steven that would be much appreciated by more than just me.

 

[Guest]

What do you define as a ‘Nature Aquarium’?

What is Nature Aquarium?
ADA define it as - Nature Aquarium recreates an ecosystem that is found in nature by growing aquatic plants... Simply that, no smoke or mirrors.

Do you spot any logical fallacies in this definition. I'd be so bold as to venture that - no you do not. But apparently logical fallacies are perfectly acceptable as far as the IAPLC are concerned. Go figure 🤪

 

[Djoko Sauza]

Honestly I'm happy the judges show little regard to the point allocation criteria. What better way to judge the world top aquascaping competition than having a group of experts use their judgement to choose which ones are the best?

Seems like ADA wanted to have some sort of structure to the scoring but in my opinion the criteria are useless.

After all how good a scape is is completely subjective or is it not?
Just like a painting, either you like it or you do not. Either it touches you somewhere or leaves you indifferent. Or somewhere inbetween. But it is definitely something personal and up to each ones judgement.
In my opinion that's what the world's top aquascaping competition should be about.

 

[glasscanvasart]

What is Nature Aquarium?
ADA define it as - Nature Aquarium recreates an ecosystem that is found in nature by growing aquatic plants... Simply that, no smoke or mirrors.

Do you spot any logical fallacies in this definition. I'd be so bold as to venture that - no you do not. But apparently logical fallacies are perfectly acceptable as far as the IAPLC are concerned. Go figure 🤪

As you’ve found above (the case of ‘Recreation of natural habitat for fish’) actions speak
louder than words 😜

I‘ve never been sure of what a ‘Nature Aquarium‘ is, but I’ve always viewed its ‘recreation of a natural ecosystem‘, as abstract. I challenge you to find an aquatic ecosystem that Nature Aquaria parallel. The majority of plants we use are not commonly found submerged or in good health, let alone sharing the same geography and we pump our tanks full of CO2 and fertilisers. When I see ADA going on field trips, they don’t focus on underwater environments; They observe and absorb the feelings, patterns and compositions of nature. This sense of nature, rather than a literal representation, is what is portrayed in their work. At least that’s what I think.

 

[glasscanvasart]

Honestly I'm happy the judges show little regard to the point allocation criteria. What better way to judge the world top aquascaping competition than having a group of experts use their judgement to choose which ones are the best?

I too am glad they show little regard for the criteria. I mostly have no problem with the ranking and don’t think the competition would be in a better place if they followed the current criteria. The competition is about what can be done within the confines of a glass box and to repeat the quote of Amano brought up by Steven ‘All these layouts are just copies of my work. Can’t the world show me anything new’; This, in my and also Amano’s opinion, is the spirit of the contest.