View Single Post
Old 02-19-2007, 05:52 PM   #7 (permalink)
Steven_Chong
Senior Member
 
Steven_Chong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hawaii, but California for school
Posts: 1,044
iTrader Ratings: 8
iTrader Positive Rating: 100%
Steven_Chong is a regular member
Plant Points: 54780
Default

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.
Steven_Chong is offline   Reply With Quote