Thank you for the thoughtful responses. The first time I approached it I thought that it pretentious rubbish - a visual version of a Marina Abramović performance art. As I thought about it the thing that struck me about Azums Makoto's work was (like
@paul.in.kendal) both the beauty and the message within it. I read this both as a commentary on the destruction of the natural work but also our disconnection from it. It was art but also had a political message within it pushing us to change (a more subtle approach than Banksy).
In relation to aquascaping it was a bit of lightbulb moment - my personal take on this was as follows:
1.
A potential future: The development of further brushed stainless steel 'life support' systems to keep alive a perfect moment through a blend of art and science shown in Makoto's work could (and to an extent) already is one path the ADA (by this I mean the ADA inspired competition approach) is following. Makoto's terrarium seems to characterture of this approach but also give us a glimpse of one potential future for aquascaping.
2. Disconnection: It highlights for me how far the current ADA approach takes us from nature and how the ADA approach attempts to control, manipulate, literally box in life into sterile engineered environments removed from nature. This seems a far cry from Takashi Amano's original philosophy of aquascaping:
“Through building and maintaining natural aquaria, people relearn the intricate connections between forms of life: plants, fishes, microorganisms, and humans. Riches and beauty come from harmony, from balance. Aquaria are great teachers of this truth.”
– Takashi Amano, epilogue of
Nature Aquarium World, Book One, 1992
The aquatic world isn't one of just crystal clear blue water without biofilm or algae. Aquatic nature is rich, diverse and above all messy. Shouldn't we be connecting with and supporting this worldview?
3.
Lack of meaning: Makoto's work has meaning within it in addition to being beautiful. ADA aquascapes are beautiful pieces in themselves, however, as they take us further away from 'nature' and Amano's 'truth' they have lost their meaning and their artistic value. Pretty pictures, however, nothing more.
4.
Spiritual disconnection: Both the work of Makoto and ADA seem to take us away from a spiritual connection with creation, husbandry, nurturing, caring towards engineering short term solutions.* Add in a mirror, discuss the correct fish to show off your aquascape (after all fish they are only pretty objects which function to enhance the photograph of your amazing diorama). If they don't fit with yout latest scape then give them away.
5.
Instant gratification: In my slow ineffective way I see aquascaping as a process of engaging with natural processes, working with them, nudging rather than pushing cajoling over time as a lengthy process rather than a rapid development, rip down and when it's reached perfection (instagram) and rescape.
6.
Outcome focussed. For me the value of aquascaping is and should be the process. It refreshes my 'soul' it's a place of mindfulness and at its' best time slows when I am aquascaping. If the outcome isn't competition standard (it's far from this) and has a bit of algae it doesn't lessen the value of both the object and the process. Makoto's work seemed to point to the importance of the final object which we stare at through glass - something which it has in common with the current ADA approach.
So back to the future of aquascaping. Where now? I think the ADA competition approach is a dead end. Perhaps we need a different approach - drawing upon the knowledge gleaned in the biotope movement, however, blending it with the artistic skills in the mainstream aquascaping community.
Sorry for the longish post...
* On re-reading these are these polarities and mutually exclusive?
