# Critique my rock layout please :)



## boosted16v (Feb 2, 2014)

Those rocks look awesome! Needs to be a heavy carpeted layout going up the sides of them...great start to a tank.


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

Thanks! I'm not done adding the substrate yet. I have ammonia powder to finish off the substrate before I get more critiques


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

Looks great! Nice stones


----------



## jmrmotorhead (Sep 27, 2011)

AWESOME! Really looks amazing! Cannot wait to see this tank!
Matt


----------



## DanielAG (Apr 30, 2013)

I really like this setup! If I had any critiques, I would say to move the left rock closer to the glass (just a bit) and move the rock on the right behind it slightly. I think this would help give a sense of depth in such a small tank!

Simple and elegant!


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Is this supposed to be a classical iwagumi layout or something else like a mountain scape?


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

I guess a little of both lol I like the iwagumi style where it's simple and the rocks is the "bones" of the tank. I'm not exactly what defines as a iwagumi tank but Iv seen it like a mountain scape as well. 

There's 6 styles of iwagumi. I guess my tank would be the 4th style?
http://www.aquajournal.ro/static/www.aquajournal.net/na/iwagumi/styles.html

Tank cleared up after couple hours. i tried moving the rock on the right and all the substrate from the back dumped on the baby tears lol


----------



## pirayaman (Mar 30, 2008)

Its great but you knew that

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## pirayaman (Mar 30, 2008)

Would be cool if there was a couple more inches left and right you could make a vicious threw way in the middle path between mountians. Love seriyu

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

Thanks! there is a middle path but its small and narrow lol i think once the dwarf baby tears carpet it will show better


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

I'd give it a 5/10. The biggest problem is that the focal point of the entire work is the tip of that rock. Everything is pointing toward it.


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

Thanks for your feedback! Tip of the rock as a focal point is what i was aiming for. I saw a few examples at last years AGA competition. Here's a few example.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Those aren't good examples of good art. You should imitate something much better. Otherwise, you'll follow in their wrong footsteps.

Follow your eyes. Where does it look? Does it focus extensively on one area? Does a certain feature pull your eyes toward it even though you want to look at other features? If it does, then that's a problem.

Ideally, the eye should be allowed to wander and casually wander back to the focal point. None of the examples do that. They all force the eyes to look at one spot. The last example is better than the others, but suffers the same problem.


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

I wasn't imitating those tanks. It just happened that why when I started stacking the rocks together lol. That last one actually got 1st place. And the several top 10 tanks also had that focal point problem. Can you show me an example? Im not sure what you mean.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

They had to award 1st to someone. 

Anyway, I'm a classical artist so I can see problems very quickly while it takes others weeks to months to notice. You'll know if it's wrong/problematic if you suddenly feel compelled to tear the tank down and do another scape. An excellent arrangement will last years, kind of like Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, though this one has lasted centuries.


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

I accidentally poured 500x of hydrogen peroxide that I was suppose to and ended up killing most of my tank which was why I started a new tank. Also aquascaping is a hobby. I only have 1 tank to with work with so I don't plan on buying a new set up just to keep a tank with excellent arrangement for years. The nutrients in the soil itself doesn't even last a year. I would still like to see a picture of what you're trying to tell me about focal points. I want to know what a classical artist see that others like me can't see.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Try not to be too defensive about my criticisms. I'm just trying to help. Take your time and follow along carefully as I'm going to start someplace unexpected.

*I*









Here's an example of a painting that has a single focal point that is very welcoming to the eye. There's no need to tell you what it is - your eye is immediately drawn to it. Then notice that your eye follows her suggestion to gaze down. You probably overshot the second overt subject but quickly corrected it. Why did you overshoot it? There's nothing there really, and yet there is. It's a subtle suggestion of the overall theme of this work which has a liberating undertone, especially considering the time and place it was created, 19th century France. But the second prominent subject, the dove, corrects your gaze so that you aren't caught looking at what you'd like to look at. This is masterful misdirection. But notice that your eye still returns to her unmet gaze.

This composition is a complex play of focal points. There are three of them and they form a triangle:
1. her face
2. the dove
3. her voluptuous, almost bare, breast

Notice that this triangle is very acute. It strongly points back to her face and your eye obeys. But, you feel compelled to follow her direction to look back down again. And yet, you are let down. Again. Your only consolation is the dove that is baring its breast, with wings spread open, embraced close to her chest. It's a very sexual work. You wish you were that bird.

But back to aquascaping...

*What do good aquascapes have in common with classical paintings?*
1. central focal point - her face
2. secondary focal point - the dove
3. supporting focal point(s) - her voluptuous, almost bare, breast

*II*









In this aquascape, there are:
1. central focal point - the left side trees
2. secondary focal point - the right side trees
3. supporting focal points - the path and the flying fish

Notice that the forest on the left of the bank is massive while on the right, it is slightly smaller so that it does not directly compete for attention. The path, while situated in the center, does not attract as much attention but is an important element that provides support for the two sides.
(That reflection of the tree on the water surface is obtrusive, don't you think?)

*III*
Here's another aquascape with similar elements. Is it as successful? Take your time to really look at it before reading on.









What makes this one less successful? It's the shape of the path, isn't it?
Why do you keep looking at the path? Because it's almost a straight line with a bulge that leads nowhere. The path is supposed to be a supporting element but due to its shape, it draws excessive attention to itself. Here's an example of what that path is doing:

*The PhotoBomb*









When you see it, it's hard to look at anything else. He's clearly not the main subject and yet you can't help but not look at him no matter how much you want to. This is sort of what that path is doing, drawing unnecessary and distracting attention.


*IV*









What are the focal points?
1. central (edit: I mean primary): the _tip_ of that rock, but not the rock itself
2. secondary: ???
3. supporting: ???

It's difficult to answer these questions. You can answer it using rationality, but that doesn't follow the eye. If you see what I mean, then what can you do to remedy these problems?


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

I'm not being defensive about your criticism, I just wasn't sure what you mean earlier. The example you gave me were good and I understand what you're trying to point out. But in a iwagumi layout, the plants and rocks isn't as complex as the pictures you showed. Iwagumi is simple with just rocks with different sizes and a few types of plants that carpet the ground. What I attempted to do was pictures 2&3 in your example but in a much smaller tank (5.5g).
Back to my tank, The biggest rock on the right and the smaller rock on the left created a "V" shape which I think could be the focal point since my eye is drawn to there because of the empty space. The rocks could be the secondary since the points of the rocks takes your eye away from the midpoint. While the supporting focal point could be the path that leads up to the empty space where the "V" is created. What I think I could improve on is creating more sense of depth in my tank but in such a small tank it's really hard to do. I think once the plants grow in and with fish swimming in the empty space it could work.

Also thanks for taking your time posting that, seemed like a lot of work. Im still learning about iwagumi/aquascaping and have been looking at tons of pictures and reading anything about iwagumi. I actually read someone critique the tank you showed in example 3 here
http://fish-etc.com/aquascaping-main/aquascaping-a-planted-aquarium

I forgot to add this but I was using this as a guideline to carefully place my rocks


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Even though the elements of an iwagumi are not complex, the _arrangement_ is just as complex. The most difficult thing to do is to arrange it just right.



> ... created a "V" shape which I think could be the focal point...


The V is negative space. As a rule, negative space is never a focal point since by definition, there is no subject in negative spaces.



> The rocks could be the secondary...


The midpoint is a geographical location. It is not a focal point. A focal point is something that draws your eye, and is not necessarily the subject, such as in the photobomb picture.



> I think once the plants grow in...


Imagine the substrate that will be covered in HC. What complex shape will it produce? Does this complex shape look good?



> I actually read someone critique the tank you showed in example 3 here
> http://fish-etc.com/aquascaping-main...anted-aquarium


The aquascape was used as an example of how depth was created.

Also, the biggest problem of the entire page was the use and explanation of the "Rule of Thirds". Rule of Thirds is NOT an artistic principle but a geometric one. Aquascapes that place focal points according to R3 are poorly balanced and lopsided. All the examples it used were lopsided because it slavishly adhered to R3. A good eye would have rectified the poor balance. When you place subjects, never place according to R3.

Rant...
Allow me to go ballistic on this point because too many people, including well-known aquascapers and aquascape judges, use and abuse certain principles without knowing why they were created/occurred. Then they talk/write about it as if it's dogma but they make themselves look like fools. I won't name these people, but they really need to educate themselves as artists before they promote their ignorance to the masses.

Here's an example of the Rule of Thirds being called the Golden Ratio, which is something else entirely. You'll notice that the main rock is placed according to R3. Doesn't it look a little lopsided? Because it slavishly followed R3.
http://www.thegreenmachineonline.co...position-the-golden-ratio-creating-perspectiv

Edit: I see you got that photo from the GM website. So now you know what I'm talking about.
Edit 2: The arrangement of the rocks in that drawing is terrible.
Edit 3: If you read the entire GM article, and know what I mean about rationalizing anything, you'll understand why I say not to use rationality to justify art. The entire article is bull[censored][censored][censored][censored].


----------



## beedee (Jul 1, 2010)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Even though the elements of an iwagumi are not complex, the _arrangement_ is just as complex. The most difficult thing to do is to arrange it just right.
> 
> 
> The V is negative space. As a rule, negative space is never a focal point since by definition, there is no subject in negative spaces.
> ...


Sounds like you are describing yourself. 

To the OP, if you are cool with your scape, that is all that matters.


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

beedee said:


> sounds like you are describing yourself.
> 
> To the op, if you are cool with your scape, that is all that matters.


++++++++1!


----------



## Cardinal's Keeper (May 19, 2012)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Even though the elements of an iwagumi are not complex, the _arrangement_ is just as complex. The most difficult thing to do is to arrange it just right.
> 
> 
> The V is negative space. As a rule, negative space is never a focal point since by definition, there is no subject in negative spaces.
> ...


Dude, you stumbled into a Bar and are asking for champagne but also trying to convince everyone inside that they should be too. Step back bud, you are not helping critique his scape. You are lecturing. 

OP, I like your arrangement as it implies greater scale than reality and direction. It would have been nice to have a higher background elevation, but I know that is tricky. Focal points be damned...


----------



## Philosoraptor (Dec 26, 2013)

I've always been of the opinion that an artist should be like a dictator. You're not there to please anyone except yourself. OP if you like the tank, it's good. 

Personally I like the tank. :3


----------



## JwDiedrich16 (Feb 8, 2014)

cool love what you doing looks great!!


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Philosoraptor said:


> I've always been of the opinion that an artist should be like a dictator. You're not there to please anyone except yourself. OP if you like the tank, it's good.


I agree with this statement up until this point: Keep it to yourself and don't show it to anyone else. Why do you think aquascaping competitions have judges?

And obviously, the owner of this car thought this was too beautiful to keep to himself.


----------



## beedee (Jul 1, 2010)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Try not to be too defensive about my criticisms. I'm just trying to help. Take your time and follow along carefully as *I'm going to start someplace unexpected....*
> 
> *The PhotoBomb*


Nothing gets the point across about focal points than a group photo of underage girls in bikini's at the beach.


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

beedee said:


> Nothing gets the point across about focal points than a group photo of underage girls in bikini's at the beach.


I'm cracking up here dude


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

Thanks everybody! I was just asking for critics on my rock arrangement and I got more than I asked for and the discussion got a little more heat than I thought it would lol. I'm still going with what I got and can't wait to see how the tank would grow. To me it looks great was just seeking some tips from people


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

beedee said:


> Nothing gets the point across about focal points than a group photo of underage girls in bikini's at the beach.


What girls, all the see is the guy waving in the back. :icon_mrgr

Focal points and underage girls in bikinis in the same sentence. This thread will be closed in a few minutes.


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

:hihi::hihi:


houseofcards said:


> What girls, all the see is the guy waving in the back. :icon_mrgr
> 
> Focal points and underage girls in bikinis in the same sentence. This thread will be closed in a few minutes.


 My eye was drawn from the focal point, left to right to those beautiful.....Yachts


----------



## rdmustang1 (Oct 20, 2013)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The V is negative space. As a rule, negative space is never a focal point since by definition, there is no subject in negative spaces.


Rules are meant to be broken. Art is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Seriously, I think the negative space is an excellent focal point and think OPs layout is very nice. Of course, I must have horrible art skills because I tend to disagree with most "art experts" and like my own thing. I understand there are guidelines but I wouldn't agree with calling them rules.


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

rdmustang1 said:


> Rules are meant to be broken. Art is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Seriously, I think the negative space is an excellent focal point and think OPs layout is very nice. Of course, I must have horrible art skills because I tend to disagree with most "art experts" and like my own thing. I understand there are guidelines but I wouldn't agree with calling them rules.


Agreed. I've been cracking up about this thread since this morning. OP asked for a simple critique of his stone placement and somehow it's become a thread about how to split the atom. I like your stone placement Charlie, should make for a nice mountain scape  As for the elephant in the room...this isn't the Louvre for gods sake. I highly doubt the op is trying to enter an international competition with this tank. Neither am I or 95% of the other people on this forum. I personally do this for FUN and because quite simply, I just enjoy it. I didn't start keeping planted aquariums to follow the rule of thirds, what is and isn't a good focal point or any of that other noise. Just a guy trying to grow some plants, breed some shrimp and feed some fish. Just sayin.... It's not that complicated


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

The Trigger said:


> Agreed. I've been cracking up about this thread since this morning. OP asked for a simple critique of his stone placement and somehow it's become a thread about how to split the atom. I like your stone placement Charlie, should make for a nice mountain scape  As for the elephant in the room...this isn't the Louvre for gods sake. I highly doubt the op is trying to enter an international competition with this tank. Neither am I or 95% of the other people on this forum. I personally do this for FUN and because quite simply, I just enjoy it. I didn't start keeping planted aquariums to follow the rule of thirds, what is and isn't a good focal point or any of that other noise. Just a guy trying to grow some plants, breed some shrimp and feed some fish. Just sayin.... It's not that complicated


I agree that if it makes you happy to look at then go with it. After all you will be the one looking at it every day. 

@ Solcielo You have a way of coming into threads and posting your opinion like its the one and only way. I have seen this over and over again happening in several threads and between different forums. It's great if you want to give your opinion but at the same time remember it's still just your opinion. Art is completely subjective and being the artist that you say you are I would think that you know this. I have seen many works or art that I think look like crap and look like they were done by a 5 year old but that doesn't mean that others may not enjoy or feel a connection to that piece of art. I imagine that most artist perform their art as a form of therapy for themselves first and foremost and if people are drawn to it then that is a bonus. I don't think any artist does anything looking for the approval of others but as a mean to express themselves. While your critiquing everyone else's (tank, regulator, reactor) I would love to see some of your handy work whether that be your tank or even some of your art. I will give you my honest critique and maybe gain some knowledge from someone that speaks as if their an expert on every subject.


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

ua hua said:


> I agree that if it makes you happy to look at then go with it. After all you will be the one looking at it every day.
> 
> @ Solcielo You have a way of coming into threads and posting your opinion like its the one and only way. I have seen this over and over again happening in several threads and between different forums. It's great if you want to give your opinion but at the same time remember it's still just your opinion. Art is completely subjective and being the artist that you say you are I would think that you know this. I have seen many works or art that I think look like crap and look like they were done by a 5 year old but that doesn't mean that others may not enjoy or feel a connection to that piece of art. I imagine that most artist perform their art as a form of therapy for themselves first and foremost and if people are drawn to it then that is a bonus. I don't think any artist does anything looking for the approval of others but as a mean to express themselves. While your critiquing everyone else's (tank, regulator, reactor) I would love to see some of your handy work whether that be your tank or even some of your art. I will give you my honest critique and maybe gain some knowledge from someone that speaks as if their an expert on every subject.


Hahaha. Good point. I was actually thinking of this earlier. I'd also love to see some of solcielos work.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I hereby declare any aquascape that doesn't adhere to the '251 Rules of Art Composition and Design' illegal. These 'illegal works' can cause serious eye and brain issues as the eye goes in the opposite direction of the brain due to poor composition.


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

houseofcards said:


> I hereby declare any aquascape that doesn't adhere to the '251 Rules of Art Composition and Design' illegal. These 'illegal works' can cause serious eye and brain issues as the eye goes in the opposite direction of the brain due to poor composition.


I actually just got back from the hospital due to a partial brain aneurysm. Doctors believed it was caused by staring at pictures of scantily clad teenage girls on a beach with a guy waving in the background.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

The Trigger said:


> I actually just got back from the hospital due to a partial brain aneurysm. Doctors believed it was caused by staring at pictures of scantily clad teenage girls on a beach with a guy waving in the background.


That sounds serious, sorry to hear that. I'm pretty sure the cure is not to look at any photo bombs or aquascapes since most are indistinguishable.


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

houseofcards said:


> That sounds serious, sorry to hear that. I'm pretty sure the cure is not to look at any photo bombs or aquascapes since most are indistinguishable.


Yeah the prognosis isn't good. They say they used the rule of thirds to determine there was a poor focal point of negative space in one of my arteries that leads to the brain. This in turn, triggered the artery to rupture in this negative space. Apparently I have 3 weeks to stop gazing at doves or death is imminent. Better start saying my goodbyes...............man this thread is getting shut down soon. Been waiting for Darkblade since yesterday lol


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

The Trigger said:


> Been waiting for Darkblade since yesterday lol


There is no need to shut the op's thread down as long as it can be kept civil. I would still love to see some of Solcielo's work (tanks, regulators or art). It's only fair to be able to critique the one always doing the critiquing.


----------



## Cardinal's Keeper (May 19, 2012)

ua hua said:


> I would still love to see some of Solcielo's work (tanks, regulators or art). It's only fair to be able to critique the one always doing the critiquing.



Same here, but...

Those that can't do , teach. Those that can't teach, preach..


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

ua hua said:


> There is no need to shut the op's thread down as long as it can be kept civil. I would still love to see some of Solcielo's work (tanks, regulators or art). It's only fair to be able to critique the one always doing the critiquing.


Agree completely.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Not all judges of 'art' are artists themselves. Ever hear Simon Cowell sing? LOL. Also I believe there are some judges in the aquascaping contests that aren't actually accomplished aquascapers themselves.


----------



## BeastMaster (Dec 17, 2012)

*Redirect*

Back on point, I really like the look. Gives the impression of a mountain pass. Saw this scape in your tank journal thread and it's progressing nicely. Good luck & keep updating. :bounce:


----------



## Charlieeex3 (Aug 18, 2013)

Thanks beastmaster  I surely will keep on updating. I usually post a picture when it's been a month, or when I add something new to the tank! I'm really excited to see what it looks like in a couple months


----------



## tomfromstlouis (Apr 2, 2012)

I actually sort of enjoyed the lecture, however much deserved. Nothing wrong with knowing the principles of classical composition (which evolved over a very long time), but I see no reason why these principles must be followed in designing for an enjoyable tank layout. His point that such a design might endure longer probably has weight, but that completely ignores the enjoyment many of us get by fiddling around over time.

The OP has some awesome rocks to work with.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

tomfromstlouis said:


> I actually sort of enjoyed the lecture, however much deserved. Nothing wrong with knowing the principles of classical composition (which evolved over a very long time), but I see no reason why these principles must be followed in designing for an enjoyable tank layout. His point that such a design might endure longer probably has weight, but that completely ignores the enjoyment many of us get by fiddling around over time.
> 
> The OP has some awesome rocks to work with.


Why do you fiddle around with it? If I'm ever fiddling around with a drawing, painting, or stone arrangement, it's because it's not "perfect" yet. The elements of color, space, arrangement, framing, etc. isn't correct so fiddling is an attempt to balance it.

Here's an example of why balance is so essential: 








If you attempt to remove any element in this mobile, no matter how small, even the last piece, the entire thing would collapse.

In terms of stone arrangement, if you were to attach the rocks to a mobile, would it be balanced or would it collapse? If it's perfectly balanced, you wouldn't want to fiddle with it. This is the key to successful stone arrangement.


----------



## The Trigger (May 9, 2012)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Why do you fiddle around with it? If I'm ever fiddling around with a drawing, painting, or stone arrangement, it's because it's not "perfect" yet. The elements of color, space, arrangement, framing, etc. isn't correct so fiddling is an attempt to balance it.
> 
> Here's an example of why balance is so essential:
> 
> ...


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

The Trigger said:


>


It's amazing the lengths some people will go to malign knowledge and promote ignorance.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Although I agree there are some basic artistic principals that make viewing an aquascape a more pleasing experience for the viewer, your taking it too far. Firstly, most don't view planted tanks this way. At best, yes it's art, but for most it's a hybrid-type hobby between placing hardscape, growing plants and yes fiddling around with it. You really can't compare a living scape to a painting or that mobile you used as an example. The aquascape will change over time and things need to be adjusted not only for an artistic reason, but sometimes for the plant to live, etc. It's not static, it will change sometimes very quickly. You come across as preaching, but your choir is somewhere else.


----------



## tomfromstlouis (Apr 2, 2012)

Plants grow, and in my tanks 90% of the composition is green. So it is always changing, so I fiddle. For a mountain scape with minimal greenery like the OP is attempting I think the balance of the hardscape becomes more important and prominent.

My aquariums are more like cottage gardens that have a hardscape that pokes through various places at various times and less like japanese gardens with formal structure that need to follow these formal principles more closely to be successful. So perhaps we can agree that these "rules" need not always apply in aquascaping. Heck, what with Rothko and Newman and bazillions of other more modern artists perhaps we can agree that the "rules" need not always apply to painting.

I love Calder's work, always and everywhere.


----------



## chocological (Nov 13, 2012)

I rather enjoyed the lecture, Solcielo -- though it may not been the appropriate place to debate and discuss art principles.

Solcielo does bring up interesting points about the classical art and I enjoyed his analysis of the woman and the dove.

To the OP: that all said, if it looks good to you, then it's art to somebody. Also, Rome wasn't built in a day.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> It's amazing the lengths some people will go to malign knowledge and promote ignorance.


I do agree with you on this point but real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance. 

Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance....Plato

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge....Stephen W. Hawking

I have no problem with trying to teach people of the rules and regulations of artist styles but the way you come across is more preaching than teaching. Please do share some of your work and I promise I won't be as harsh as you with my critique. I might have a different thought process when it comes to these rules you speak of so I leave you with this thought....


----------



## tomfromstlouis (Apr 2, 2012)

ua hua said:


> ...real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance...


"It does not matter how large your circle of competence is. It only matters that you know where the perimeter is." - Warren Buffett


----------

