I don't think we're disagreeing much actually. If you're saying "equally viable" than we're really not.
I never said scaping underwater places's beauty is inferior. It's just 1-to-1 representation, where as I also like scapes that do 1-to-100+ representation, and I like using metaphors-- which you don't get if much doing 1-to-1.
I agree that showing people a beauty they've never seen before has great value, but for my work-- if I don't use metaphor, I do not feel like I'm on a "creative path." To me it'd feel like I was doing the same as a public aquarium. It seems more educative than artistic IMO.
I personally find that aquascaping has a great value in describing terrestrial existances because it is alive and moving unlike painting/photography.
If I wanted to shake people, there are more provacative art forms . . . Inspire awe? sure. Display beauty? definitely. Capture the living spirit of a place? Easily done. Provoke people? Er . . . it's not so good at that.
Also, I don't believe a "summit" exists.
