Taking this step-by-step...
tsunami said:
Questions an ADA judge would ask (taken from contest booklet...they judge on creativity, composition, fish choice, creation of natural atmosphere, aquarium condition, and viability):
1) Does the aquascape make an original creative impression to the viewers?
No. I've seen fundamentally similar aquascapes over and over for years. This aquascape may have appeared original and/or creative a few years ago but I can't say that now.
In fact, the aquascape doesn't even make a *good* impression on me. In a contest (other than ADA, perhaps) this entry may not even make it to a point where creativity or originality are important considerations. The plants don't appear to be in good health. The "come to the light" blinding background has never appealed to me. In this case the light shining through the background plants makes the bare stems obvious. What's more, the tank contains a variety of green plants that for some reason all have a very homogeneous light green color. This seems to be a common feature in many of Amano's tanks. Sometimes the colors are homogeneous because there are only a couple green plant varieties in the tank. That isn't true in this case. I expect healthy plants to show richer color and more variability in their color. In this case a little more variability in the color would look both more natural and healthier.
2) Is the aquascape composed well (is there compositional balance within the aquascape)?
I don't feel a balance in this aquascape. The background on the left is too thin to counter the dense planting and wood on the right.
3) Are the aquatic plants appropriately positioned within the aquascape? Does the balance exist in the colors and shapes of the plants used?
The plant positioning is painfully predictable, which probably makes them "appropriately positioned." The color of the small off-green bunch on the right (L arcuata, Carlos?) is poorly developed and does not serve to counterbalance the "feather duster" bunch of orange-ish plants (R. wallichii?) on the left. The two groups of off-green plants are positioned in each of the two possible "optical centers" of the layout; that makes them symmetrically positioned so that if the two groups did actually balance each other in size and color then the aquascape might look contrived.
I do like the intergrowth of plants in the foreground and the mounding effect they create in the front dead-center. The back right shows a similar intergrown group of plants, but there the effect is not as good.
4) Do you feel harmony between the fish and the aquarium layout?
The fish appear to be well selected; their color and I'm sure their activity is appropriate to this tank. Their position in the photograph is fortuitous. The fish move all the time, so their position in this photo is not a feature of the aquascape. In my own tanks I find that tetra's -- with the possible exception of rummy nose -- don't school as tightly as they are in this photograph unless they are disturbed. So this is to me not a picture of harmony. It is a picture of mildly stressed fish.
5) Is the aquascape laid out well making a natural looking atmosphere?
I don't like the layout, but the effect is fairly natural-looking -- at least if you use the paradgm that Amano has established. It must look natural because it is a nature aquarium. Personally I've never seen anything in nature that looked much like this aquasape.
Some questions of my own:
1) What compositional rules does this layout follow? Which compositional rules does it break?
The use of the golden section is fairly obvious. I feel like the large feather duster on the left might contribute more to the aquascape if it were positioned more foreward. I don't think it's a very good idea to put off-green plant groups in both of the possible optical centers.
2) What are the main elements in this layout? How do they work together harmoniously (or unharmoniously)?
The photograph emphasizes the orange plant group on the left. That emphasis is created partly by the ripples that originate over the group; those ripplies are a feature of the photograph but I wouldn't consider them part of the aquascape unless he kept the hair drier running there all the time.
I think the more natural main features of the tank are the wood arrangement and foreground growth. Part of my problem with the aquascape may be that he has chosen to emphasize elements that don't seem to me to be either important or well-done.
3) What type of atmosphere/impression does this layout seem to create for the viewer?
None other than discomfort. I want to look away from the blinding background. More generally I find that the "poetic names" assigned to aquascapes do more to create an atmosphere then does the layout itself. In this case there is no poetic name and no particular atmosphere.
It may seem presumptuous of me to be so critical of a master's work, but all in all, I don't think this is one of Amano's better creations.
Roger Miller
