Steven_Chong

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this question, because posting in the aquascaping forum might bias responses (but I doubt it).

What do you guys think of your fish? Pals or paintstrokes?

Note that in the context of aquascaping, the difference might just be a difference of thinking, not acting. Most of us would definitely accept that healthy fish are more beautiful fish-- and for me, that would be the motivation for taking care of their health, as one more aspect I have to take care of alongside propper planning, trimming, dosing, etc.

Is it,

"Fish for the planted aquarium"

or

"The planted aquarium for fish"

?

I got back into the hobby of fish keeping 3 years ago since I loved corydoras and wanted to keep some. However, when I saw my first aquascape, I made the metaphysical leap--

"In the context of this art that's before me, plants, stones, and fish, are paint."

Maybe many others did not experience what I did, but after making that mental jump, I've always thought of the fish as just one more part of an aquarium-- because artistry is more important to me than enjoying fish keeping. It's been a long time since I thought of fish as a pet in one of my aquariums. While this does not lead me to sacrificing the health of the fish (this thread was triggered by a different discussion where someone mentioned keeping discus in a 10L tank which I would personally not find aesthetically appealing), it is a difference of mindset that does effect some of our decision. In my opinion, the focus of the artist should always be the art. Of course I love fish. I love plants too. However my larger goal is for the sake of grasping higher and higher artistic excellence-- the health of these living things just happens to coincide with that goal-- to a degree.

For those of you who follow my threads, you know that I tear my work down 1 every 3 months. What do you think happens to the fish? They go back to the pet store. Personally, I don't think I'm doing much good for my white cloud minnow, even if they are living in here:



What does every creature want? Reproductive success. Are they going to get that from the environment I give them? Well no. This tank is hardly set up for cyprinid breeding, and I won't change parameters/feeding to accomodate it if it takes me off my normal regimin. Otocinclus? Amanos? Neither of them are going to have reproductive success in this tank-- they won't achieve their highest desires. Is that going to deter me from my aquascaping??

Um, no. And all of you who are also keeping Amanos, otos, or any other fish or shrimp without breeding them, IMO, cannot say that the good of your fauna comes first without being hypocrites. I keep my fauna healthy really for the sake of their beauty-- and I know it.

First of all, art like that first piece really bothers me. I know that there can be "meaning in morbid things," but for me I've never found pleasure in it. I don't know, it's a difficult topic to talk about. However, I can say some things about other parts of this comment,

I don't like the use of the words "Decorations" or "artsy." For me coming from an art background, those words imply "Just putting them there to be pretty." Real art is different.

I think this difference of thinking appears in our aquascapes too Rain.

Your tank, with its wide variety of species and obvious collectoritis, and never taking a deeply designed submerged layout is-- well, it's "Artsy," it's "Decorative," and it shows your interest in these plants and animals more than your interest in the art.

My tanks are deeply thought through in regard to design. Real art, art with passion and single-minded determination. Art with the search and grasping of inspiration, and the desperate pursuit of greater artistic excellence. This is how I aquascape, and this is my mentality.

People who see my aquariums may think "Wow, what lucky fish" (though only after several minutes of simply jaw-dropped silence or excited yelps), but personally I think they'd be better off in a breeder's tank where they'd have some chance of rearing their own young. I personally believe there's things they can't get out of living with me that they would get elsewhere-- including the wild.

If I go to a fish keeping forum, I've heard many times that we planted tank keepers are people who put plants before fish, and that it's horrible to keep fish in a tank saturated with CO2. I've heard them say that we've lost our passion for fish because we only care about the little species (which, is true except for the angels, discus, and rare odd-ball planted tank). I don't know-- I can't stand going to those places. Closed-minded pet-keepers who can't see the birth of a new art form.

This sounds like an almost silly question to me (because for me the answer is obvious), but which is true?

Are aquascapers artists first?

Or are we fishkeepers first?

It goes unsaid that we are actually both, and that caring for fish is a big part of it. But-- which is first in the context of aquascaping? Which do we do for the sake of the other? Which has the higher priority?



It's also true that the answer will vary from person to person. I just want to hear opinions-- though I can guess that the art opinion is not the one that will be more common.

goalcreas

That question is not going to go over for everybody, it is more of a poll then a quetions.
you should put out a poll to find out who the fish keepers are and who the artists are.
Personally I am a fish keeper who prefers to keep fish in planted tanks. And my fish breed in my tanks, so from what you say, they are well kept and happy.

But the next person might be an aquascaper and the next a fishkeeper, so there is not really an answer to your question.

Steven_Chong

This question is phrased in the context of aquascaping. If you're an aquascaper first, than are fish paints or pals? That's the question.

I don't really care for polls-- statistically flawed, and doesn't produce much meaning to me. I'd rather have discussion!

If one considers him an aquascaper first, can he really think that while putting the fish before his art?

Laith

I'll just repeat part of my comments on this subject in the other thread:

Why does it have to be either/or?

Nothing wrong with using fish as part of an artistic aquascape (your paintstroke analogy)... in fact a lot of times the fish can make or break an aquascape. But that certainly shouldn't mean that the fish's wellbeing can be ignored. All the great aquascapers whose work I've admired (I'm not much of an aquascaper! ) spend a lot of time on the plant choice, positioning etc but would never ignore the wellbeing of the fish.

Let me put it this way: let's say as an aquascaper you find a certain chemical that brings out the perfect reddish/brown hue on a certain plant's leaves that you've been trying to get just right for ages. The aquascape would be perfectly complemented by the presence of 10 fish of species x. However, you know that this chemical will surely slowly kill these fish over a period of a month or two. What do you do? If one says that it doesn't matter as these fish are the perfect compliment to his/her art and therefore can be sacrificed for the sake of art, I'd find a lot of problems with that.

It's been a long day so maybe I'm just misunderstanding the whole discussion?

Squawkbert

< not an aquascaper, so it's fish first, plants second with the number one priority being a healthy environment for both.

That said, I have developed some appreciation for aquascaping and I try to make my tank look as pleasing as I can given my resources. The aquascapes frequently presented here do inspipre me to try to do better with respect to presentation of all of my tank's inhabitants.

When it comes to choosing fish & inverts, color is way down on the list. I try to combine several species from a given ecosystem type while hoping for some contrasting colors and some schooling behavior. Looking at my stocking lists, it's obvious that this is not a hard and fast rule.
(5g: Malaysian fish, Thai shrimp, Indian & new world plants,
46g: SA fish (except for the DG, plants from Asia, and the Americas, Asian and American snails live in both tanks).

So, in a word, Pals.

rain-

I come from a long line of artists, I've had some training and I do understand art, but...

I just feel like it's wrong to see a creature just as part of some art piece. I enjoy Amano's aquascapes and think that he is a real genius when it comes to artfully planned tanks. I like it more wild though, not as strict, not as planned. And the fish, well, I don't have any actually, come first when I am thinking about what to do with the tanks. I'm into more organic evolution of a tank, it will show it's beauty later and every living thing in the aquarium is just as important, from living creatures to plants. It's true that I don't see them as art pieces, they are pieces of nature of which I am responsible of till the end.

To me, your way of doing things feels somehow shallow and your attitude a bit condescending. But your way of doing isn't wrong either if you are still providing good care for the fish you have.

Animals aren't humans, but they still deserve appreciation. Of course we select the fish and creatures that aesthetically please our eye, but we also (hopefully) take into consideration their needs and behavior. I don't think they should be something that get returned back to the store when they aren't needed anymore.

Well, there's not much to say, I basically disagree with you about nearly everything and I bet we couldn't be more different from each other even though we both are artists.

Afroturf

I don't believe that people who consider themselves fishkeepers but keep their fish in hi-tech planted tanks results in a detrimental effect to the fishes happiness most fish that people buy from shop are bread for the trade and have no idea of what it is to live in their natural environment and in most cases the owners tank should be the best environment that they have lived in I think that you are much more likely to find a ill or dead fish in a fish store than you would in a aquascapers tank.

I personally believe that my current tank based towards plants is the healthiest environment i have created that fish live in, as i now keep a closer eye on the water conditions than i did do when i only kept fish.

I don’t really know if I’d call my self an artist or a fishkeeper, I was never very good at art when I was at school. But when you create beautiful aquascape they are just as good as any piece of art, and they do the exact same thing as art, they are there as a thing of beauty and are there to be admired.

In a standard community ‘fishkeepers’ tanks tank you are likely to be many different types of fish in this one tank each fish will look attractive but if these species were than transferred to a ‘artists’ aquascape again each individual fish is likely to look very nice but the overall aquascape is likely to be spoilt and therefore the aquascape ceases to be art anymore.

I would therefore say if I had to categories my self as an artist or a fishkeeper as I know choose the fish to suit the aquascape i would say the fish are paintstrokes i don't care for them as much as my dog but i'm still unhappy when any pass away.

freakmonkey1423

In my tanks, I look at the plants and fish as cohabitants. Fish give off waste, and the plants use it. The plants give off waste and the fish use it. It is the way life on earth has been going for millions of years. If your plants require a certain water chemestry, I believe it is best to choose the best fish for that chemestry. A "happy" medium can be obtained in many cases but it is usually at some small sacrifice to the wellbeing of the plants, the fish, or both. I would lean more towards sacrificing the health of plants over the health of fish, simply because by observing social fish behavior, we can infer that the fish have feelings of some sort, at least they are concious of their life. If a plant dies, it doesn't know it nor do its "friends". Plants don't feel pain in a long slow death, but a fish does. If fish are looked at as just another medium, I would compare them to tattoos. A temporary tattoo looks bad from start to finish and wears off quickly but a real tattoo will stay forever and is much more beautiful IMO. Maybe it isn't the best analogy but it's all I've got. So, in short I guess I will say, if it knows it is alive, it should take priority over something that doesn't.

Kelley

All forms of art have constraint. Painters accept the limits of two dimensions, the limits of the canvas and the media. Professional artists of all must accept the limitations imposed by the client's wishes, their chosen theme and what the market will accept. This last one is difficult. I've watched my husband progress from rebellion to acceptance to thriving under this last constraint over the last twelve years as a professional artist.

I believe that the health and wellfare of fish is a constraint of the media of aquascaping. I am disgusted by the very notion of "fish as paintstrokes". I strongly believe that if you take a living creature into your life, you accept the obligation to keep it to the best of your ability for the duration of its life. If this does not agree with the design of one's aquascape, then compromise needs to be reached. In addition, I don't think that anyone's art is worth the extinction of a species in the wild, as is happening to Galaxy rasboras right now.

Though it perhaps is not a perfect analogy, I would hope that an architect or interior designer building a home for me would not suggest I get rid of my dog to suit their design aesthetic. Compromise must be reached.

hoppycalif

I am not an artist. I probably don't have the talent to be one. I spent my working career as an engineer, which is almost the opposite of an artist. But, I really enjoy growing plants, whether outdoors in a garden or indoors in tank of water. I like to arrange my growing plants so I enjoy watching them grow, and I like having fish and shrimp in the same tank to add some motion to make the scene more enjoyable to watch.

I grew up with fish being something you go catch to eat. In fact most animals were viewed by me as a food source - dogs and cats excepted. So, I don't view my fish as pets or pals. I do hate to see a fish suffering in my tank, and will try to stop the suffering if I see it.

Some farm children raise their own food animal as a pet - a lamb, pig, cow, etc., but they are not excessively bothered by knowing those animals will someday become meat for someones meal. I kinda fit that category.