A Gaggle of Guideline Suggestions

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

It might be helpful, at this point in time, to look at the "criteria
suggestions" which have been put forward - to determine just what
differences, if any, exist between them. I had also asked if anyone was
familiar with criteria used in other venues - Ken Guin (thank's Ken) found a
set of judging criteria for flower arranging and forwarded them to me. I
present those here, along with the earlier two. Please note that I have
removed ALL "weighting" or "scoring" references and the numbering of the
various points is not indicative of relative importance. For right now, just
focusing on the "criteria" themselves should be sufficient. Once we can
agree on the criteria to use, we can then decide on relative weight.

Olga's suggestion:

1. Overall impression
2. Condition  - [appearance of water, health of living things etc.]
3. Ratios - [balance of clear space to occupied space]
4. Colour balance - [not too much red.. green... black etc.]
5. Decorations - [wood, rock, plants etc.]
6. Animals - [attractiveness and appropriatness of fish]

Amano's guidelines:

1. Composition
2. Balance
3. Space useage
4. Concept
5. Condition of aquatic plants

Judging Guidelines used to evaluate dried floral arrangements:

1. Conformance (to schedule requirements)
2. Design (elements & principles)
3. Artistic Concept (selection/organization)
4. Expression (interpretation of class)
5. Distinction (marked superiority in all respects)

Please notice that while the actual words used, while sometimes different,
describe remarkably similar concepts.

One of the biggest differences between Olga's suggestion and Amano's list is
the inclusion of "Animals" in Olga's. It has been noted that while how the
fish and aquascaping "fit together" is important for the overall visual
effect of an aquarium, it is going to be very difficult, in photographs, to
judge this, as fish tend to "disappear" in time exposure images, which a lot
of what we receive might be. This is NOT a photo contest, so I suggest this
criteria, if used at all, ultimately be weighted in such a manner as to be
relatively insignifigant.

Karen had said: "The one guideline that I'd like to see personally, is that
as far as can be determined via this media, the aquascape is one that, with
proper maintenance shows promise as being able to stand the test of time.
(in other words, a garden rather than a flower arrangement)." We can see if
this can be "written into" one of the "Concept Words" or added as a further
point. I totally agree with her point about long term viability of the
aquascape but I don't know if I want the term "garden" to appear in the
judging guidelines as that would tend to totally exclude non planted tanks
from serious consideration.

The words used by Amano don't seem too "Zen" to me, but each would probaly
need a descriptive sentence or two to ensure that the judges understood
exactly what was encompassed by the word (what WE want encompassed by the
word, not necessarily what Amano would consider). Amano's chosen words are
also general enough to encompass a wide range of approaches to aquascaping.
Olg's chosen words are more specific, but might be more limiting because of
that specificity.

It should also be possible to meld Amano's words used for criteria with
Olga's descriptions - start with the general and move to the specific. It
works well in other situations, and I think that it might work well here as
well.

>From my reading of the three sets of criteria, it appears that there are
many more similarities than there are differences.

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