Re: comments on Digest V1 #142

[Olga Betts <sae@arts.ubc.ca>]

>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:53:56 -0500
>From: "James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>
>Subject: Olga's on topic.....<g>
>
>Yes, Olga,  you not only get points for remaining on topic, but EXTRA points
>for making some very good suggestions <g>.

Well thank you.

>On the Privacy issue, don't you think that we should make the effort to
>forward an official "Thank You" and include any Judges Comments privately to
>EVERYONE who makes the effort to send in a submission? Rather than JUST the
>winners? 

No... not necessarily. This is the Web don't forget. I think we sometimes
do forget just how many people are out there. Maybe we will get 10
entries... but... it's not impossible that we get 10,000. Are you going to
write the letters? Heck, when you apply for a job they usually only contact
those they want to interview. But.. if someone wants to take that on I have
no objection. 

>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:56:37 -0500
>From: "James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>
>Subject: Olga's Photo
>
>Off topic or not, that is one of the NICEST aquariums I have EVER seen. I'm
>actually thinking of flying Olga to Toronto to redecorate MY big tank <g>.

Well.. thank you again. I will be in Barrie in October and can drop by. Do
you want to put in a plant order now? <g>

>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:03:19 -0400
>From: "Ken Guin" <kenguin@homemail.com>
>Subject: RE: Olga's K and L discussion

>Ken writes: I would prefer that we juggle the numbers so the maximum would
>be 100 points.

Okay. My points were completely arbitray... just put there to show I'd like
a point system.

>Ken writes: Although I agree that the appropriateness of fish may be
>important to an aquascape, there will be some who will be using available
>light and very slow shutter speeds for their photographs. Since that
>technique could reduce fish to blurs, it may not appropriate to award points
>for fish. Just a thought.

Good point and something I thought of but didn't express. Taking good
photos of fish is indeed more of a photographic skill (or luck) and that's
one reason why animals should not be ranked highly (if at all).

>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:45:59 -0400
>From: krandall@world.std.com
>Subject: Re: K and L discussion

>Unless we receive very few entries, we will _not_ be able to publish the
>whole contest in TAG.  For that matter, if the winning tank is not
>represented by a good quality photo, it may not make sense to even print
>that.  I don't think there would be any problem publishing the list of
>winners, but we won't be able to run all the photos.  Color printing is
>_very_ expensive.

I was thinking of results with points and comments on the winners without
photos. Depending upon how many categories.. maybe TAG could handle a few
photos... the winner of each category?? 

>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:48:49 -0500
>From: "James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>
>Subject: Judging Guidelines....

>Most of what I see tends to concern itself with "points" and how many points
>each different quality should have.
>
>We are NOT judging turnips at a county fair.

James... James... your beer (or whatever you drank) seems to have got you
all "arty" again. Just a few posts ago you liked my judging suggestions.

>Both my own discussion of Craft and Roger's on Art seemed to make some
>people nervous, but in my opinion, THESE are the issues we should be
>addressing here, at least initially. Moving immediately to how the scoring
>is "weighted" seems to me to be premature. How can you say how MUCH emphasis
>to place on something until you have decided upon WHAT criteria you are
>going to consider?

Art does not make me nervous. We *are* deciding the criteria we are going
to consider. It's all very well to talk about Art and Craft and want
etherial kind of Amano judging but the judges will just be people and "Art"
can be garbage to one person and glorious to the next. I firmly believe
that we are going to have to have a scoring method in place with clear and
obvious points to judge.

 Do you really think it appropriate to "rate" an aquascape (I hesitate
>to use the term "work of art") using the same procedures as you would a
>turnip or a dahlia or a rabbit?

Yes I do think it is appropriate. If we are judging aquascaping it has to
be "rated". If one judged turnips for beauty of appearance ... then yes...
just like a turnip. As for dogs and cats and horses, if one could get a
scorecard back for the way the judges viewed your animals... well, that
would be very interesting and much more fair. Those guys don't have to
account for their judging at all. [Cats are best because at least the judge
holds up the animals and tells an audience why he/she picked that cat.] 

>Please read the material from Amano which Justin forwarded for our
>consideration. It might help us break with old molds and discover new paths
>more approriate to current conditions.

There you go with the "old" molds again. Amano's ideas are very "Zen". His
tanks are very.. how could one say... "molded". I don't think one's average
aquascaped tank is going to fit his kind of criteria very well. Anyway,
those categories of his are not that far off the one's I suggested. We
can't get too "touchy-feely" here with the judging... in my opinion.

>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:11:04 -0700
>From: "Mortimer Snerd" <n9720235@cc.wwu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Judgeing Guidelines
>> his judging of his emloyee's tanks.  There are 5 categories, each worth 20
>> points, for a total of 100 points.  They are:
>>
>> 1. Composition
>> 2. Balance
>> 3. Space useage
>> 4. Concept
>> 5. Condition of aquatic plants

>> 1. Composition: How well is the tank laid out overall?  Is it visually
>> pleasing?  

In other words. Overall impression.

>> 2. Balance: Not sure how to define this one.  I'm thinking it looks at
>where
>> the optical center lie in the tank, and whether it fits with the goals of
>> the tank.

Already a term fraught with danger... the judge and compeditor should
understand easily the judging criteria without a zen handbook.

>> 3. Space useage: Just that.  How well is space used in the tank?  Are
>there
>> open spaces where there need to be ones, or do they feel like holes in the
>> aquascape?

Yup. In other words: my "ratio" or Karen's "balance" .

>> 4. Concept: Is there a theme to the tank?  Are all the parts of the tank
>> integrated into a greater whole, or do the plants look like they were
>thrown
>> in willy-nilly and the aquascaping done by accident?

Very difficult to define for the average person. Obviously a willy-nilly
aquascape will look untidy and unarranged.. however, is it a "concept"?
Perhaps the owner thinks he/she has a theme of untamed wilderness. Is a
bare gravel tank with two anubias on the edge a "concept" of a desert? How
do you judge that concept against the wilderness concept?? Which one is a
better "concept"??

>> 5. Condition of aquatic plants:  How do the plants look?  Are there signs
>of
>> deficiencies or stunted growth?

Definitely can't give a fifth of the whole points to this section... not
using photos. In fact I have thought of a good reason not to include it at
all. IF some joker does put together a wonderful aquascape of artificial
plants (and Justin they do not look ugly -- I had to look twice in the
store the other day to see if one was real or not) everyone concerned with
the contest is going to look a right glorious idiot if those plants are
judged in beautiful "health". Probably best to leave the plant condition
part out.

And Amano's list says nothing of colour. I see colour as important. It can
make a huge difference. How does everyone else feel about colour [with or
without the "u".]

Olga
in Vancouver



  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest