[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Aquascaping with rock
- To: Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
- Subject: Re: Aquascaping with rock
- From: Roger Miller <roger at spinn_net>
- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:19:07 -0600
- In-reply-to: <200209291948.g8TJm1c15988 at acme_actwin.com>
- References: <200209291948.g8TJm1c15988 at acme_actwin.com>
On Sunday 29 September 2002 13:48, Daniel Larsson wrote:
> But this time it's the other way around. Aquascaping, art direction,
> cityscaping, architecture, magazine design isn't done by people that
> can afford to take the pragmatic way of doing things that "feels good"
> to them. They certainly do magic and wonderful things, but in almost every
> case all "magic" is done with very precise tools and science and knowledge
> of how and why things are considered beautiful and wonderful.
> To really understand why the angle of the stone should be 20-45
> degrees - that's the cool part. I want to understand why of why it also
> looks so incredible good when the main stone is placed
> 0,618 * aquarium length from the left or right and also creates a line
> of sight that ends in the exact middle of the aquarium.
> I think it would be easier to create a really bad ass Aquascape
> if one could go out and look for "nice" scenes and also try to
> understand and analyze why I think the scene is "nice", and also
> have an idea if other people would consider this scene to be "nice".
Daniel, I question the precision with which professionals design successful
architectural spaces. Rather, I think they know the basic rules of design,
they listen to what their clients say about their needs, they combine that
with their experience and training and they produce a result that they hope
the client will think is "nice." With some luck the client will agree with
them, hire their firm and a wonderful chemistry between the need and the
inspiration will arise. Sometimes the result is a brilliant combination of
the pragmatic and the wonderous.
Far more often the result is merely mundane.
The example that you linked to in your original letter -- the garden at the
Ryoan-ji monastery -- is something different. The garden has been dissected,
analysed and discussed for centuries. When one looks at the garden (I say
this from the point of view of someone who has only seen photographs of the
garden) one sees inspiration, not rules. The garden bridges time to convey a
sense of the men -- or perhaps just one man -- who many centuries ago
distilled their meditations into a simple arrangement of stones.
Precision and rules be hanged. The "why" can't be packaged and conveniently
reproduced. It is inspiration. Search for it in your heart, your mind, your