Re: [AGA Contest] Re: biotope suggestions link

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

First, let me say this is an excellent document in it's own
right, apart from it's obvious relevance to the particular
contest.

A general comment: It's nice to see representationalism
given a voice in a contest that focuses generally on the
more abstract aesthetic values. I know 'Nature Aquariums'
are supposed to be evocative of natural scenes but they
(often) aren't representational in any strict sense. Dutch
and American styles, they seem more like Roethke than
Manet. ;-) That's cool, but it's nice to see
representatinalism in the mix.

RE the document: Both Erik's and Roger's last comment seem
to be getting close to home.

While the document is a very good one; I think it's too
much for this contest, bringing a level of technical
qualification that seems as likely to scare some folks off
as to bring other folks to the contest. 

I think the 4 subclassifications are too many, cutting to
finely -- would we judge a Theme separately from a "True"
or just expect any "True" to knock out a "Theme" on
technical points alone?  Would it be worth bothering to
enter a "Theme?"

Ode to William Saffire: I'm not entirely comfortable with
the term "True Biotope" and then calling the other
subclassifications different kinds of biotopes -- If they
are *false* biotopes, let's not call them "biotopes". If we
will reckon them as biotopes, let's not call the first
"true". Maybe something like "ideal" would be a better
adjective?

I am still partial to two subtypes, biotope and regional.
The first comprising the so-called "True" and "Habitat" and
the second comprising "regional" and theme. How big an area
is a region? I can't see, for the purposes of the contest,
trying to draw a distinction between region and something
bigger yet geographically thematic. The whole thing is a
bit more of a continuum than separate, hard and fast
distinctions. At least, I think it will play out that way
in contest. I can certainly envision a contest that draws
the  distinctions hard and fast, and grades accordingly,
maybe with even more sub types. But our contest is not
close to that sort of thing -- not yet anyway. 

I might be misunderstanding Erik's comments, but if not,
then I agree that the doc, somewhat altered, simplified,
can be good as background and *guidelines* for judges and
entrants alike. I would rather see it referenced (and
posted on the web) as info that potential entrants in the
Biotope/Regional category might find useful for improving
their chances of submitting a meritorious (ugh, that's not
quite the right word) entry. Of course, if presented that
way, it would need to be reworded somewhat.

Maybe it's the coffee but I don't understand having a
contest-prohibition on certain plants. Are we trying to
discourage "bad" plants? What's that purpose to do with
aquascaping?

For the scoring suggestions, I would add
maintanability/sustainability as worth some points. I
believe that some judges count this in their evaluations
and it seems a reasonable thing to include -- not as a
criterion that determines an entry's mere acceptability but
at least worthy of some points.

For scoring, I would presume that the documentation is
accurate. Why would we countenance less than accurate
documentation? I'm not saying documentation must be
perfect; just that that accuracy of documentation should go
without saying.

For scoring, I would add something(s) more explicitly about
the beauty of the design -- I would like to see beauty as
much a piece of this category as the technical aspects.

Re inappropriate entries, they are infinite in number,
perhaps a Cantorian infinity! But a few examples of crappy
entries could be useful. This is not to be confused with an
entry with "crap" in it not being beautiful. An ideal
biotope might use a beer can to good effect. ;-)

Please don't mistake my comments for a lack of appreciation
of the work that went into the document or it's quality. 
My comments are aimed only at suiting it to the contest in
2004.

sh
--- Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Roger Miller wrote:
> 
> > Steve's suggestions actually would remove the category,
> but it would do so in 
> > a different way.  The guidelines effectively turn the
> biotope/nature aquarium 
> > category into a separate contest; it would have
> different entrance 
> > requirements and a different scoring system.  The
> overall emphasis is so 
> > different that it should probably even have different
> judges.
> > 
> > I could come up with some specific comments, but I
> think it's more important 
> > to first ask; do we want to go that far?
> 
> I wrote an extensive reply to Steve's original document a
> few months ago.
> My feeling was, no, I don't think we have the interest at
> this point to
> run the biotope category this strictly.  We don't even
> run the aquatic
> garden category this strictly.  It would require the
> preparation of an
> entirely different contest, as you say, Roger.  This
> would be good if we
> had the demand, but I don't think there's enough interest
> at this point.
> 
> BUT...I also do not believe the biotope category is a
> useless part of the
> contest.  Certainly not the way the "pond" and
> "illustration" category
> were, just grafted on because it's a "contest".  The
> intention was to have
> designs shown off in this category just as in the others,
> just different
> types of designs.  We would still have the artificial
> category, save for
> the fact that people who enter are too saavy to aquascape
> with plastic
> plants and there's been zero interest in the last 2
> years.
> 
> What I really would like to see is some of the good
> concepts from Steve's
> document evolve into a "guidelines for entering a biotope
> aquarium." ...
> something that would inspire someone to get "the right
> idea" or try just a
> little harder.  Likewise, the same guidelines could be
> given to the judges
> for the same purpose.
> 
> For instance:  The biggest gap (to me) between Steve's
> document and the
> realities of our contest is the section on "Biotope
> Classification". We
> just don't have the interest to split the category into
> the four
> classifications.  But the classifications themselves are
> very helpful to
> explain to prospective entrants who might thin, for
> instance, that the
> best one can do with a biotope emulation is to use all
> plants from Asia.  
> It made things much clearer to ME, and I've been looking
> at them for five
> years.  So in a guidelines doc, it could be explained and
> noted that as
> one travels further down the list of categories, one gets
> further away
> from a true biotope and would most likely be given a
> lower weighting in
> the eyes of the judges.  "Theme Tank" is of course what
> 70% of the
> entrants are actually entering, so it can't be knocked
> off the list. :)
> 
> What didn't I see in the document is anything on REALLY
> inappropriate
> entries in the category.  Maybe we could mock some up so
> as not to
> embarrass or tick off a former entrant, but I would
> really like to get
> across the most common problems: 1) arbitrarily-chosen
> fish and plants 
> from different waters (or even continents!), 2) aquariums
> that have 
> absolutely no sense of design entered merely because they
> aren't "good 
> enough" for the aquatic garden category.  


=====
-  -   -   -   -   -   -   -
Erik Olson annouces AGA 2004 Annual Aquascaping Awards
at the annual Convention Nov 12, 13 & 14; 
Details & Registration at www.aquatic-gardeners.org  & www.gwapa.org


        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  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
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-contest", and password "second".