Guidelines... more...

["James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>]

Olga wrote:

>I firmly believe that we are going to have to have a scoring method
>in place with clear and obvious points to judge.

I concur 100%. But whatever method we choose to ultimately use MUST take
into consideration the full RANGE of different approaches people might take
when designing and implementing an aquascape. I'm just uncomfortable that
some of what has been suggested to date might _tend_ to favour one stylistic
"school" over another.

For example, if I was presented with three photographs of three aquascapes,
one of yours, one of of Karen's and one of George's, I seriously doubt that
I could say who had set up which one. I also might have great difficulty
deciding which one, if any, was better than the other two. The three of you
share far more than you might individually care to admit regarding how an
aquascape "ought" to be set up.

(I recognize here that we are not trying to identify the person who did the
aquascape - I'm merely indicating that there are "schools of thought"
involved in this.)

Now, place a photograph of an "Amano" style tank in the mix. Especially one
which uses a "minimalist approach" (very Zen, I know...). Knowing the
"styles" the three three of you obviously like, at least from seeing
photographs of your aquascaping efforts, even I could tell that it would be
unlikely that this fourth tank was aquascaped by any of you.

But can you guarantee me, 100%, that the guidelines each of you follow to
set up (and judge) _your_ style of tank is appropriate, or even valid, for
the set up and judging of the _other_ style of tank?

To play the complete devil's advocate here..... throw in a Rift Lake Cichlid
rockscape, or a beginner's early attempt at this. Merely saying that they
will be placed in different categories for judging is not sufficient. The
basic judging guidelines must be the same for ALL entries. They must be
inclusive of all approaches and not give unfair advantage or disadvantage to
one "style" or another.

In response to one of my comments, Olga wrote:

>>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"....

Of course we have to "rate" them. But the system we should use to do that
rating, if it is to be fair and even handed, should have more in common with
a set of guidelines used to judge, say for example, a flower arrangement
than it would with a set of guidelines which rates cats or dogs.

One is created by a hobbyist..... intended to last for however long (we can
worry about that a little later). In a cat show, all of the cats are pretty
much alike: four legs, fur, a tail, pointy ears. You can rate them on
physical deportment and confirmation, adherence to breed standards, physical
condition, etc. But you wouldn't compare them, say, to a Dwarf rabbit.

My point is that we may get aquascapes which while all being arrangements of
objects underwater, have very different thoughts behind them. And we have to
be sure that our guidelines are FAIR to ALL of them.

Certainly, Judges preferences and prejudices are going to come into it.
That's a point in favour of having as wide a range of Judges as possible.
But surely we can find some middle ground here on a set of fair,
comprehensive guidelines to hand those Judges.

Does ANYONE know the kinds of guidelines which are used for judging things
like flower arrangements? Could _any_ of those guidelines be adapted for our
use here?

James Purchase
Toronto

  ------------------
  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