




Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:35:17 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mark Morden <marmonk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: origami equal to performing music

This is an excellent topic Pat has begun and one I have thought about quite
a bit.  I am glad someone has been able to put this into words.
>
>-- Like the music performer, the folder is often creating works created by
>others; although, he invariably adds his own personal style...by his choice
>of paper, angles, and the crispness of his folds.

To me this is similar to the arrangement of a piece of music.  The type,
color, texture of paper one uses might be similar to the instrumentation or
timbre one would use to perform a song.  The size of model is also part of
the arrangement and might be comparable to the tempo of the music.  (a very
tiny model = a very fast, peppy tempo??)  Since I don't create many models,
part of what I bring to a fold is the choice of paper and presentation.

>
>-- Different composers/creators have unique and recognizable styles.
>
Different types of origami might be like different music styles.  I don't
know that you can make direct parallels but there are traditional, modular,
compound, money, and complex type folds compared with classical, popular,
blues, and modern music styles.  If talking with other folders you would
probably find they tend to favor one or two styles the way musicians may
favor one or two types of genre.

>-- The joy of music and origami is often in the actual performance. The
>finished product, the model or the recording, is sometimes not as rewarding
>to the performer/folder as the actual activity was.
>
Personally, I don't consider folding a performance.  In fact I prefer to
fold alone or with other folders and not in front of an audience.  However,
I do enjoy presenting the finished piece to an audience in hopes that they
will admire it.

>
>-- Both music and origami are often transient (...especially with small
>children in the house :->).
>
The difference between origami and music is one of space and time.  While a
parallel can be drawn between the time sequence of folding and playing a
piece of music, the folding leads to a final object, where the playing of
the music is the object.  When it is all done, you have an origami object
that occupies space and a musical piece that occupied time.  Being an
Architect, I am drawn to spacial objects when I want to create something.  I
greatly enjoy listening to music but don't "understand" music as well as I
understand spacial creations.

My one frustration with origami is also an advantage with music.  If you are
learning a piece of music and want to work on a difficult passage, you can
turn to that section of the piece and practice from that point on.  In
origami, if you want to work on that "double-reverse sink and wrap" in step
63, you have to fold steps 1-62 first before trying step 63. Then you only
get one "fresh" shot at the step before starting over. Yes, you could fold
and unfold and repeat until the sequence is understood, but you can't just
start from the step to be worked on.

To wrap up my two cents, I remember a short speech Joni Mitchell included in
her "Miles of Aisles" live album, which came out mid-70s.  Speaking from a
musicians point of view, she compared being a musician with being a painter,
which she also was.  What she enjoyed more about being a musician was that
she could create a work of art and then enjoy recreating it over and over
each time she played it.  She compared this with painting which was done
once and then it was there to look at, but the creating of that painting was
not reexperienced.  She illustrated this point with the statement that
nobody ever said to Van Gogh, "Paint Starry Night again, man."  I agree with
here point about music and spatial arts, but I enjoy folding something and
then being able to hold and view the model and enjoy its form and shape
sometimes as much or more than the folding of the model.

Mark

Mark Morden == marmonk@mail.eskimo.com
--------------------------------------------------------
I believe in Christianity as I belive in the rising sun;
not because I see it but by it I see all else.
                                           C.S. Lewis





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:26:46 -0300 (ADT)
From: Rjlang@aol.com
Subject: Re: useless books...

>>>>
Robert and John already have the diagrams to their models in digital form.
They could receive funds from a customer via snail mail or credit card or
whatever.  And then email the customer the diagrams or give them a secure
password to a site where the diagrams can be downloaded.
<<<<

How about an unlockable CD-ROM, they way Adobe sells fonts? You get a CD with
images of all the finished models and you call me with your credit card
number to "unlock" instructions for the models you want to fold. I envision
two levels of instructions for each model: the "short version," for experts,
at about $5 a pop; then the "long version," with hints and tips for when you
get into trouble, for about $50 each. Hmmm...this could be a real racket! <g>

Robert





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:36:41 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@ENH.NIST.GOV>
Subject: Re: The Bee diagram. - GIF format

I just uploaded Bee* diagrams in GIF format to ftp.rug.nl. Look at:
ftp://ftp.rug.nl/origami/.incoming
Make sure using binary format to transfer.

I did the converting all by PC MS-Win using Ghostscript (ps to bmp) and
LView Pro (bmp to gif).

Don't be stung! :-)

|-------------------------------------------------------\
|  _  Sy Chen <chens@iia.org or sychen@enh.nist.gov>    |\
| |_| Folding Page http://www.iia.org/~chens/pprfld.htm --\





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 12:39:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: useless books...

Robert Lang writes:
>How about an unlockable CD-ROM, they way Adobe sells fonts? You get a CD with
>images of all the finished models and you call me with your credit card
>number to "unlock" instructions for the models you want to fold.

Nice idea for those who have a large body of published
work, but removes most of the advantages of selling them
on-line by forcing the transfer of a physical product,
and requiring a phone call, and then still providing
very little protection against piracy of the work once
it has been decoded with the password.

Why not instead sell them on-line in some portable format
like Acrobat, and steganographically encode a serial
number and the credit-card information into each
document sold, automatically, at the time of purchase?
The formula for the encoding of the latter information
could be made public (in Acrobat it could simply be one
of those little pop-up notes, so it does not appear on
hardcopy), while that of the former would be secret.

That way, anyone who violates the copyright agreement by,
say, posting them to UseNet will be (a) easily tracable,
and (b) providing their credit-card information to
millions of potential thieves around the world.  And
those who try to cheat by eliminating (b) will not know
how to eliminate (a), which could be made very hard to
do and even harder to automate...

   -- Steve Arlow

--
 "Your dog stuffs his tongue up your nose.   |  Steve Arlow, Yorick Software
  It's a good omen.  You press on."          |  39336 Polo Club Dr. #103,
     -- Bernie E. Mireault, in _The JAM..._  |  Farmington Hills, MI  48335
            (.sig contest has been won)      |  http://www.msen.com/~yorick





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 12:53:06 -0300 (ADT)
From: A004773%LBVM1.profs@lbgwy.mdc.com
Subject: WEB Pages

 Perhaps someone could set aside a WEB page for people looking for books
 and for people who found books. The page should permit interactive
 updating and searching.

 John Andrisan, departing soon...
 IBMMAIL: USMCDQND   Internet: a004773%lbvm1.profs@lbgwy.mdc.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:03:15 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Shareware Origami

>Robert Lang writes:
>>How about an unlockable CD-ROM, they way Adobe sells fonts? You get a CD with
>>images of all the finished models and you call me with your credit card
>>number to "unlock" instructions for the models you want to fold.

        A shareware version of this might be when a creator releases some
diagrams and pictures of a model, but leaves out key steps that would be
difficult even for an experienced folder to figure out.  The creator could
then ask a small shareware fee for the missing diagrams.  I've noticed a
lot of shareware games do this sort of thing:  you only get to play the
first few levels until you pay the fee.

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  (214) 768-2701
Southern Methodist University         jdharris@post.smu.edu
Box 750395                            (CompuServe:  73132,3372)
Dallas  TX  75275-0395

      \\             _^
      \\\         __/   >     "...having...seen those Grounds, out
       \ \\     _/       >    of which are digg'd up _shells_, and
   /    \ \\  _/         >    such like other things cast out by the
 _//_----\ \-/          >     Sea, and that everywhere we might es-
/   ( )    o           >      timate the number of times...the Sea
v--_                 >        had troubled here and there..."
    )     \ \   \_ >
^--/       \\  /                         - Nicolaus Steno, 1671





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:09:46 -0300 (ADT)
From: Bimal Desai <bd1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Subject: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 Rjlang@aol.com wrote:
>
> How about an unlockable CD-ROM, they way Adobe sells fonts? You get a CD with
> images of all the finished models and you call me with your credit card
> number to "unlock" instructions for the models you want to fold. I envision
> two levels of instructions for each model: the "short version," for experts,
> at about $5 a pop; then the "long version," with hints and tips for when you
> get into trouble, for about $50 each. Hmmm...this could be a real racket! <g>
>
> Robert
>
That's not a bad idea.  I usually buy origami books simply for the
diagrams of those few REALLY cool models.  To be honest, that's my
objection to buying the OUSA Annual collections...too many models that I
won't ever fold, and the price doesn't seem to justify the six models or
so that I do end up folding.  While we're on the subject, what if OUSA
divided their annual collection into smaller booklets by level of
difficulty?  They could save themselves the cost of the plastic binding,
and also save postage since the orders would tend to be less bulky.  Just
a thought.

About the origami CD's, Mac formats would be fairly easy, right?  Each
page of diagrams could be stored in Acrobat/PDF format, and each CD could
include a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.  The occasional Quick-Time movie
thrown in to help explain those "everything but the kitchen" (un)sink
folds, and the CD would be a big hit!  You could fit entire collections
of books on one CD (and the cost of pressing the CD's would remain the
same).  I see it know: _The Complete Works of Robert Lang, CD ROM Version_.
A simple algorithm would ensure that each model on the CD would have a
unique "unlocking" code based on the serial number of the disc.  Isn't
that how Adobe does it?  The possibilities are endless...

Whaddya say, Robert?  Tempting idea, eh? ;)

-Bimal





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:32:36 -0300 (ADT)
From: bob@maggie.pentek.com (Bob)
Subject: Origami on TV

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone caught a show called Craft & Co. (I think?) this
weekend.  This was on cable in the NYC area.   Robert Neale was showing a few
simple models to the shows host. I only caught a minute of it but it looked
interesting.

Robert
bob@pentek.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:45:19 -0300 (ADT)
From: Eric Andersen <Eric_Andersen@brown.edu>
Subject: Re: WEB Pages

At 12:53 PM 4/22/96 -0300, you wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps someone could set aside a WEB page for people looking for books
> and for people who found books. The page should permit interactive
> updating and searching.
>

John, look no further than http://www.fascinating-folds.com/paper/class.html

(courtesy of Bren Riesinger at Fascinating Folds)

As for updating, Bren updates it quite frequently, and as for searching,
well, it's not that big yet.

-Eric  :-P

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
         A                   A
        /|\            \    /|\
       / | \            \\ / | \ /7\            \./
      /__|__\            \/__|__\/            a miniature
      \  |  /             \_/ \_/               Lang butterfly
       \ | /             Flapping
        \|/                bird
         V                       Eric Andersen   origami@brown.edu
     Bird Base      http://techhouse.brown.edu/~tech/eric/origami.html
         Robert Lang models online! Coming soon: the VRML version :-)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:02:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

        Ok, I'll play the Luddite here :-)  While I certainly wouldn't
        mind making origami collections also available on various
        electronic formats, I'd be most annoyed if the only way to get
        certain models was by CD ROM.

        One reason for this is the continuous evolution of computers.
        I have origami books from 30 years ago, but Amiga software my
        husband purchased in 1992 is now useless and unaccessable (he
        switched to a Mac :-).  I'd hate to have to "upgrade" my
        origami collection every few years.

        A less practical and more personal objection is that I stare
        at a CRT all day at work.  When I relax at home, I don't want
        to be squinting at those silly pixels again.

        Finally, many have mentioned folding in different venues (on
        planes, in lines, etc.).  While it's easy to carry a book, or
        a few diagrams, lugging around a PC is not a very good option :-)

        Just MHO...
Regards,

  Sheila Davis        Hewlett-Packard IC Business Division
 sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com          Fort Collins, Colorado





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:15:36 -0300 (ADT)
From: slider@ims.mariposa.ca.us (Pat Slider)
Subject: Re: origami equal to performing music

>>-- The joy of music and origami is often in the actual performance. The
>>finished product, the model or the recording, is sometimes not as rewarding
>>to the performer/folder as the actual activity was.
>>
>Personally, I don't consider folding a performance.  In fact I prefer to
>fold alone or with other folders and not in front of an audience.  However,
>I do enjoy presenting the finished piece to an audience in hopes that they
>will admire it.
>

I too am a shy folder...in fact, I like the space to enter that sort of
zen, meditative space while folding. A state, by the way, similar to the
state I find myself when listening to music sometimes. Hard to do with
people around. I definitely agree though, that it can be quite enjoyable to
give models to friends...especially if it seems to cheer them up. Giving
origami often seems to me like giving flowers somehow, but I can't exactly
say why.

Anyway, my main thought here was how you can have a lot of fun folding a
model that in itself does not look very wowable or interesting, a simple
box or something, but that in the folding had a lot of entertaining and fun
steps.  (An example of a model that is more fun to fold than look at is the
recently mentioned "unfoldable" box, and some of Eric Kenneway's models
methinks.)

>To wrap up my two cents, I remember a short speech Joni Mitchell included in
>her "Miles of Aisles" live album, which came out mid-70s.  Speaking from a
>musicians point of view, she compared being a musician with being a painter,
>which she also was.  What she enjoyed more about being a musician was that
>she could create a work of art and then enjoy recreating it over and over
>each time she played it.  She compared this with painting which was done
>once and then it was there to look at, but the creating of that painting was
>not reexperienced.  She illustrated this point with the statement that
>nobody ever said to Van Gogh, "Paint Starry Night again, man."  I agree with
>here point about music and spatial arts, but I enjoy folding something and
>then being able to hold and view the model and enjoy its form and shape
>sometimes as much or more than the folding of the model.

But you can do the same origami model multiple times! And play with
variations just as in music. (I really like the Joni Mitchell
quote...pretty funny.)

pat slider





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:28:13 -0300 (ADT)
From: Brett <BrettAndJill@oia.net>
Subject: Re: useless books...

>That way, anyone who violates the copyright agreement by,
>say, posting them to UseNet will be (a) easily tracable,
>and (b) providing their credit-card information to
>millions of potential thieves around the world.  And
>those who try to cheat by eliminating (b) will not know
>how to eliminate (a), which could be made very hard to
>do and even harder to automate...

Ouch that is hard.

But, almost a necessity these days.

Some people however, don't mind making a phone call.  Total online
dependance is not always good.

Brett
BrettAndJill@OIA.Net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:29:27 -0300 (ADT)
From: Brett <BrettAndJill@oia.net>
Subject: Re: useless books...

At 09:42 AM 4/22/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>How about an unlockable CD-ROM, they way Adobe sells fonts? You get a CD with
>images of all the finished models and you call me with your credit card
>number to "unlock" instructions for the models you want to fold. I envision
>two levels of instructions for each model: the "short version," for experts,
>at about $5 a pop; then the "long version," with hints and tips for when you
>get into trouble, for about $50 each. Hmmm...this could be a real racket! <g>
>
>Robert

"No Talk ... DO !"

I'm Sold, at the right price of course ;)

Brett
BrettAndJill@OIA.Net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:11:52 -0300 (ADT)
From: Peggy Van Norman <ECZ5PEG@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

Sheila Davis <sew@HPFISEW.FC.HP.COM> wrote:

>  Ok, I'll play the Luddite here :-)  While I certainly wouldn't
>  mind making origami collections also available on various
>  electronic formats, I'd be most annoyed if the only way to get
>  certain models was by CD ROM.
>
>  One reason for this is the continuous evolution of computers.
>  I have origami books from 30 years ago, but Amiga software my
>  husband purchased in 1992 is now useless and unaccessable (he
>  switched to a Mac :-).  I'd hate to have to "upgrade" my
>  origami collection every few years.

I agree!  Plus, even though I work at a major University, I see
so many people here who lack computer skills, access, and/or
equipment....I'd hate to see origami become a high-tech,
expensive, elitist concept that the average person feels is
beyond their reach.  How would your average child ever get
interested in origami, or your average starving student, or
anyone who's watching their budget these days?  Most of the
people that I know have access to computers exclusively via
their workplace, either because work is the basis and the extent
of their computer exposure, or because they can't afford a
computer/modem/printer/access at home.

>  A less practical and more personal objection is that I stare
>  at a CRT all day at work.  When I relax at home, I don't want
>  to be squinting at those silly pixels again.

This is one of the major reasons why I can't imagine liking,
much less preferring, all books to be published online.  Not to
mention the fact that I'd miss the tactile experience of books....

>  Finally, many have mentioned folding in different venues (on
>  planes, in lines, etc.).  While it's easy to carry a book, or
>  a few diagrams, lugging around a PC is not a very good option :-)

I would imagine that people would still print copies of the
diagrams, to make folding easier, but I think this would
encourage the uncontrolled distribution of copyrighted material.
It bothers me when people don't think about the author's rights
(especially with copying software - my husband is a
programmer/systems analyst - but also with printed materials),
but it also bothers me that people don't think about how they
are damaging their own interests...every time you copy something
rather than buy a copy, that's one less reason for anyone to
create or publish more of the same.

>  Just MHO...
> Regards,
>
>   Sheila Davis        Hewlett-Packard IC Business Division
>  sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com          Fort Collins, Colorado

Peggy Van Norman
pvn@library.ucla.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:25:59 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

<< stare at PC all day, don't want to at home>>
<< can't lug a PC everywhere>>

Hear, Hear!
I feel the same way. And under the best of circumstances
in front of my PC is not the most convenient place to
fold. And I can't write annotations and alternate diagrams
on a CDROM. I like BOOKS!

I have the same feeling about videos of origami; I keep
meaning to buy one of the LaFosse videos, but I really wish
they were available as books too. I don't mean videos don't
have a place, e.g. showing an artist's folding and teaching
style, but to me they're a supplement to, not a replacement
for a well-diagrammed book.

You can't tuck a package of paper inbetween the pages of a
video or CDROM to work on during the morning commute...
(..bus & train, in case you're wondering)

--valerie
Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com
http://users.aol.com/valerivann/index.html  [Modular Origami Page]





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:35:40 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sandra Wambold <wambold@rocza.kei.com>
Subject: Re: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

> I have the same feeling about videos of origami; I keep
> meaning to buy one of the LaFosse videos, but I really wish
> they were available as books too. I don't mean videos don't
> have a place, e.g. showing an artist's folding and teaching
> style, but to me they're a supplement to, not a replacement
> for a well-diagrammed book.

I had the good luck to attend a LaFosse class this weekend.  He said
that he will be diagramming the models in the videos.  He's also
working on a couple of books (but I don't recall what the subjects of
the books were).

-sew





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:07:58 -0300 (ADT)
From: Cara Beth Stevenson <llcbs@utxdp.dp.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

>  A less practical and more personal objection is that I stare
>  at a CRT all day at work.  When I relax at home, I don't want
>  to be squinting at those silly pixels again.

This calls to mind the Berk Breathed (sp?) cartoon in which Opus
wants to borrow a book from his friend the computer nerd (rats, I've
forgotten his name, now).  The "punch line" is the last frame of the
cartoon:  Opus is curled up in an easy chair staring dolefully at a
little silver disk...

C.B. Stevenson
llcbs@utxdp.dp.utexas.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:24:57 -0300 (ADT)
From: BLUEEYS@delphi.com
Subject: joining cranes to decorate present

Laurie_Reynolds@smec.sel.sony.com wrote:
  I used Tom Hull's suggestion for joining cranes to
  decorate a present this weekend.

  Yesterday I gave a gift to a co-worker and used Tom
  Hull's idea for attaching cranes instead of a "bow".  I
  have found myself doing that more and more.

  Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me how
this is done? It sounds wonderful but I can't fully
visualize it. Thankyou so much.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:20:06 -0300 (ADT)
From: JovianSoft@aol.com
Subject: Re: useless books...

Jeez,

All this negative press about Origami CD-ROM's is certainly making me nervous
about MY CD-ROM!

=:-O





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:45:51 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

First, a general point:  Everyone seems to be forgetting that
you could print hardcopy of the models.  If you are buying
them on a per-model basis, why not print the ones you want
hardcopy of on a per-model basis.  We are only talking about
a few pages here, and everyone has a laser printer or at least
a bubble-jet printer these days, right?

Peggy Van Norman <pvn@library.ucla.edu> writes:
>Sheila Davis <sew@HPFISEW.FC.HP.COM> wrote:
>
>>  Ok, I'll play the Luddite here :-)  While I certainly wouldn't
>>  mind making origami collections also available on various
>>  electronic formats, I'd be most annoyed if the only way to get
>>  certain models was by CD ROM.
>>
>>  One reason for this is the continuous evolution of computers.
>>  I have origami books from 30 years ago, but Amiga software my
>>  husband purchased in 1992 is now useless and unaccessable (he
>>  switched to a Mac :-).  I'd hate to have to "upgrade" my
>>  origami collection every few years.

That is another reason not to use CD-ROM, but electronic
delivery instead.  Even if the hardware becomes obsolete,
the format is not likely to.  Postscript has been around
for well over a decade now, for example: can you think of
any word processor or operating system introduced recently
that did not include postscript support?  Adobe does seem
to stand by thier products.

And even if the format "becomes obsolete", they can be
reissued by the e-publisher in whatever the newer format
is, without incurring any additional costs.  The publisher
has to keep records of all transactions anyway, for the
serial numbers.  And when the publisher has gone out of
business and the author is long dead, the copyright will
have expired, allowing you to strip out the credit-card
numbers and distribute as you please.  At that point, no-
one is going to use that stego-embedded serial number to
track you down...

>I agree!  Plus, even though I work at a major University, I see
>so many people here who lack computer skills, access, and/or
>equipment....I'd hate to see origami become a high-tech,
>expensive, elitist concept that the average person feels is
>beyond their reach.  How would your average child ever get
>interested in origami, or your average starving student, or
>[...snip!...]

Guffaw!

You do a much better job of "playing the Luddite" than
Sheila Davis does!  ;)  Since when is origami just books?
What about the meetings I attend every month (well, when
my schedule permits), the little workshops I sometimes
teach at science-fiction conventions, the passing on of
models, then interest, then folds to friends, relatives,
etc.?  The books are just one vector by which we learn new
models, and anyway, no one is proposing we eliminate them
entirely!

>I would imagine that people would still print copies of the
>diagrams, to make folding easier, but I think this would
>encourage the uncontrolled distribution of copyrighted material.

I don't think that hardcopy piracy would be any more of a
problem for electronic books than the photocopier is for a
printed book.  The only real danger in electronic
format is that it could be copied and distributed to
thousands of people at once, eliminating its value
altogether.  *That's* what the stego-serialization is
needed to prevent -- to prevent someone from sending all
of the models to ORIGAMI-L, for example.

A photocopy is cheaper than making more printout,
and unlike with a normal printed book, the hardcopy, too,
can contain the steganography, making even second- or
third-generation photocopy piracy traceable (if it ever
becomes a problem, which it won't -- anymore than it is
now with normal books).

  -- Steve Arlow

--
 "Your dog stuffs his tongue up your nose.   |  Steve Arlow, Yorick Software
  It's a good omen.  You press on."          |  39336 Polo Club Dr. #103,
     -- Bernie E. Mireault, in _The JAM..._  |  Farmington Hills, MI  48335
            (.sig contest has been won)      |  http://www.msen.com/~yorick





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:49:19 -0300 (ADT)
From: Ellen Do Yi-Luen <ellendo@spot.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: 65 invented origami hats

just to share with you all

two weeks ago i taught 65 college environmental design students=20
(architecture and planning or design studies majors) simple origami=
=20
models such as cup, piano/purse, double boat/sail boat/pin wheel, swa=
n,=20
penguin, helmet/hat, jumping frog, crane/flapping bird....
2 class session, 1.25 hour each session

it is a Design Method and Theories class taught by another professor,=
 he=20
invited me as guest speaker for the week, usually he introduced diffe=
rent=20
topics each week such as pattern language, shape grammar, Issue Based=
=20
Information System and participatory design

the weekly assignment is to design/invent an origami hat
they need to turn in a sheet of folding instructions (text + diagram)=
 and=20
the hat

now we have a whole drawer of hats
we need to figure out a way to give them scores

anyone has any insights to share? (on how to grade them?)

many of them will be simply add 1/2 folds to the cup, purse, helmet h=
at,=20
some decided bird base can be opened up as a hat!
how do i score them?

i am going to use paper to follow each instruction sheet and see if t=
he=20
design is reproducable=20

but i can't say any easier to make one are better, or should i say ni=
cer=20
looking ones are better?!!!#%^

how do you grade an origami invention?!
any insights will be appreciated

ellen

----
here is the assignment sheet i gave them

---
ENVD 3002- Design Method and Theory =09
Week of April 9/ 11
hand in Monday April 15

Design an Origami Hat
--------------------

Design a hat using a piece of rectangular shape (square or rectangle)=
=20
paper, (wrapping paper, newspaper, or paper of any kind).  Document t=
he=20
instructions (words, illustrations) of how to make your product.

Hand in the hat folding instructions on regular Letter size 8 1/2 * 1=
1=20
Xerox paper.

Design assignment: =09Design a hat folded from ONE piece of =20
=09  =09=09RECTANGULAR paper
=09=09=09
Requirement:=09=09wearable on somebody=D5s head
=09=09=09no cutting of the paper (rule of origami)
=09=09=09no extra parts attached to the hat
=09=09=09will hold itself together without falling apart =20
=09=09=09
Documentation:=09=09Document the folding procedure using any medium=
=20
=09=09=09(words, diagrams, etc.) as long as it can fit on=20
=09=09=09the Xerox paper.
=09=09=09If symbols and terms are used, make sure they are=20
=09=09=09explained or examples of legends are shown in the=20
=09=09=09document as well.
=09=09=09If you adopt any particular diagram style in your=20
=09=09=09instructions write down the source reference at the=20
=09=09=09end of your instructions.

Reference:=09=09any origami books and web sites!

=09=09=09





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:05:13 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: useless books...

"breaking back of book"

Shudder. Yes, even tho I'm
a book nut, I do this occasionally. One thing to be
said for Dover, they've got good bindings for paper
bound books.

There are some gizmos that help with
this problem. The best are designed just to keep
books open: they're a long leather/suede gizmo, long
enough to span the average book, with weights sewn
into the ends. I haven't seen one for sale in awhile.
Being a draftsman by profession (amoung other things),
I tend to use drafting "shotbags", round leather bean
bags sort of things filled with lead shot in the old
days, some kind of coarse heavy sand now.

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:05:38 -0300 (ADT)
From: "NIGEL POTTLE, TEACHER-LIBRARIAN, WOODLANDS ELEM. SCHOOL"@Owl.nstn.ca
Subject: Re: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

As Valerie Vann says, "you can't tuck a package of paper in between the pages
of a video or CD-ROM."

And you can't leave an unfolded model between the pages, hoping as I do, that
close proximity of the paper will somehow, absorb the instructions so that
when I find the book and the unfinished model, it just magically folds itself
(or at least the problem fold is done, after which there's fold number
79! - back to the book with you, damn fold".

:)

Nigel Pottle
npottle@cbe.ab.ca





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:09:02 -0300 (ADT)
From: marckrsh@pipeline.com (Marc Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: origami equal to performing music

On Apr 22, 1996 10:35:17, 'Mark Morden <marmonk@eskimo.com>' wrote:

>>
>>-- Different composers/creators have unique and recognizable styles.
>>
>Different types of origami might be like different music styles.  I don't
>know that you can make direct parallels but there are traditional,
modular,
>compound, money, and complex type folds compared with classical, popular,
>blues, and modern music styles.  If talking with other folders you would
>probably find they tend to favor one or two styles the way musicians may
>favor one or two types of genre.

I would compare really complex models to classical, for it's reliance on
having to follow heavily and intricately landmarked procedures. Conversely,
jazz would be simmilar in style to simpler models, for ther depandance on
folder improvisation. I always thought geometric models would be akin to
techo or dance music, with it's strong repetitive rhythms. To be specific,
folding a modular would be like having to listen to Phillip Glass. Avant
gard might be simmilar to some of Paul Jackson's one-fold excrusions.
Jeremy Shafer's bizzare work might be well compared to the eqally bizzare
compositions of Frank Zappa. As for myself, I would like to think my
creattions are the origami equivalent of an Alan Holdsworth composition (I
won't get into what my actual musical excursions emulate).

Thinking of these is kind of fun; here are a few more: Edwin Corrie's work
remings me of Japanese clasical; complex and elegant with few notes/folds.
John Montroll' work is perhaps simmarar to a more modern Japanese
contemporatry music, as his works are a bit more complex than Edwind's, but
like edwin, John seems to like to rely on as few types of folds as
possible. Some of Robert Lang's recent works have reminded me of what
musical composers have done with 12 tone rows; they make cohesive
compositions with a whole new vocabulary of nore compositions.

I am sorry if I might have sounded a bit too esoteric with some of the
musical references. I would be happy to explain any of them in a private
emailing. It is getting late over here on the east coast, and I am afraid
of comming up with more comparisons.

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:15:35 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: useless books...

<<CDROM negative press>>

There have also been comments from the other side, in
support of CD's and videos. It's just that some of us
like origami because it is low tech, extremely portable,
and can be practiced with minimal equipment and materials.
(I'm always trying out ideas on the bus with pieces torn
off the bus schedules, or paper I carry in my pockets,
often grabbed from the recycle bin at work...)

Also, I personally find the art of diagramming intimately
connected with the design process of refining the design
and creating variations. And there's a certain artistic
"rightness" to me that one paper art is principally propagated
by means of other paper-associated arts (drawing, book design).

But then, computers are a large part of what I do for a living
(I'm my company's "computer support dept."), and though I love
the beasties, often I don't even turn on my home computers
except to pick up the email, even though they're as good or better
equipped with all the techie toys as the ones I use at work.

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 01:27:01 -0300 (ADT)
From: slider@ims.mariposa.ca.us (Pat Slider)
Subject: Re: bookweights and bookstands

>"breaking back of book"
>
>Shudder. Yes, even tho I'm
>a book nut, I do this occasionally. One thing to be
>said for Dover, they've got good bindings for paper
>bound books.
>
>There are some gizmos that help with
>this problem. The best are designed just to keep
>books open: they're a long leather/suede gizmo, long
>enough to span the average book, with weights sewn
>into the ends. I haven't seen one for sale in awhile.

They sell these bookweights in the Levenger catalog (along with a lot of
other pricy book-related items) for $20, plus 3.95 if you want it
monogrammed :->.
 Their phone number is 1-800-544-0880 if you are interested. These are the
folks that advertise those "reading" tables in the back of "Harper's"
magazine. They also carry bookstands sometimes....Right now they have a
wire version that looks nice and even folds up, but I'm not sure it would
hold open one of those thinner Dover books.

I myself have been meaning to try one of those lexan cookbook stands for my
origami books....You know the kind that prop your book up and hold it open
at the same time, shielding it from those unsightly kitchen splashes. I
keep thinking that one of these would work really well, and they don't cost
very much.

pat slider





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 03:53:58 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Sergei - where are you?

> My current email address is: sergei@origami.nit.spb.su

Thanks! What is your current "real" mail address?

> This June I am going to visit Berlin and to see how german people fold
> paper.

I hope to go also, if money allows.....

> Could I include a model of you in our magazine?

I don't know if anyone has created a model of me, but it would probably not
be from a square & would need wet-folding. I can let you have some models
not of me though ;)

Sorry to take the piss, it is bad manners.....

cheers,

Nick Robinson

nick@homelink.demon.co.uk
http://alf2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk:1500/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 05:19:31 -0300 (ADT)
From: anneakin@reach.com (Anne Eakin -- Third Millennium - New York)
Subject: Re: origami equal to

Although I'm an amateur at both origami and the flute, I do tend
to think of them in the same way- as an outlet.

One could also put together a "concert" of origami.  Just as a
conductor selects an appropriate series of pieces to set the mood
or theme for a concert, one might selectsa set of models for a
display, mobile, etc. by the way in which they set each other off
or complement each other or show off the different talents of a
folder/orchestra.

Maybe you could think of movements of a symphony as parts in an
interlocking two/three-piece model?  All the parts are needed to
make a whole work of art.

Neat.
Anne

*======== Regarding ========*

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 10:50:48 EDT

This is an excellent topic Pat has begun and one I have thought about quite
a bit.  I am glad someone has been able to put this into words.
>
>-- Like the music performer, the folder is often creating works created by
>others; although, he invariably adds his own personal style...by his choice





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 05:38:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: Stephen Blackman <s.blackman@cranfield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: useless books

I understand the copyright difficulties in publishing diagrams online
instead of by conventional methods. However, what about just publishing
online diagrams for bases together with some text descriping the
advantages/disadvantages of the base and a list of models that could be
made from each base. These are public domain but (as an enthusiastic
beginner)I find it difficult to find good diagrams of the complex bases
used for creative origami. Of course I know the simple fish and frog
base but an earlier message talked about swapping a blintzed frog base
for a blintzed bird base. It would be good if I could go to a web page
and get GIF diagrams for each so I could possibly learn something from
this message thread.

Regards

Stephen





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:35:32 -0300 (ADT)
From: mym@fuwutai.att.com
Subject: Re: useless books...

side comment about the cd-roms with models including your credit card number.
you would have to lock the figures or anything associated with the figures up.
Could you imagine someone stealing your pc and distributing models or files out
on the internet?!

Mark





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:55:54 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.UK>
Subject: CD ROM

In article: <960422102303_196102569@emout09.mail.aol.com> Rjlang@aol.com
writes:

> Hmmm...this could be a real racket!

You could call it Credit - Read After Paying

cheers,

Nick Robinson

nick@homelink.demon.co.uk
http://alf2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk:1500/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:05:01 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.UK>
Subject: Re: Shareware Origami

In article: <v01510102ada11ac3322a@[129.119.224.83]>
jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu writes:

>   A shareware version of this might be when a creator releases some
> diagrams and pictures of a model, but leaves out key steps that would be
> difficult even for an experienced folder to figure out.

Not keen on this Jerry - there are enough diagrams that seem to fit this
category already! We need to encourage the spread, not restrict it for
profit?

cheers,

Nick Robinson

nick@homelink.demon.co.uk
http://alf2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk:1500/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:41:43 -0300 (ADT)
From: megazine@usa.NET
Subject: "Christmas Ornament Workshop" Review

The latest issue of miniatura (4\2\96) is now available from
P.publishing.  This journal is a Portable Document Format (PDF)
file.

Highlights from this issue include:

  *  Review of the "Christmas Ornament Workshop" program from
   KittyHawk Software, Inc.
  *  A plan of a Gift Box.
  *  Web site listings related to miniatures.

Look for miniatura dated 19 Apr 96 <http://www.p-pub.com>

Kathy Prochnow
Senior Editor
miniatura
MsKathy@p-pub.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:41:16 -0300 (ADT)
From: Yusri Johan <gs01yyj@panther.Gsu.EDU>
Subject: Michael LaFosse's Videos (was Re: Origami CD-ROMs...)

Sandra Wambold wrote in her e-mail:
>
> I had the good luck to attend a LaFosse class this weekend.  He said
> that he will be diagramming the models in the videos.  He's also

I talked to Michael yesterday and he mentioned about his plan of
diagramming the models in the videos starting with Happy Good Luck Bat
and Horshoe Crab video.  He also said that this will not be carried out
until after the OUSA Origami Convention '96.  When the diagrams are
done, they will accompany the videos.

Cheers
--
Yusri Johan (gs01yyj@panther.gsu.edu)
http://www2.gsu.edu/~gs01yyj/origami/origami.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:57:00 -0300 (ADT)
From: Peggy Van Norman <ECZ5PEG@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Re: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

Steve Arlow <yorick@CONCH.AA.MSEN.COM> wrote:

> You do a much better job of "playing the Luddite" than

Gee, thanks.

> Sheila Davis does!  ;)  Since when is origami just books?
> What about the meetings I attend every month (well, when
> my schedule permits), the little workshops I sometimes
> teach at science-fiction conventions, the passing on of
> models, then interest, then folds to friends, relatives,
> etc.?  The books are just one vector by which we learn new
> models, and anyway, no one is proposing we eliminate them
> entirely!

I did not propose ignoring other methods of publishing, and I'm
not afraid of technology - I only suggested that people think
about ease of access.  I was drawn to origami as a shy child,
through a pair of books which were given to me, and I would
never have gotten involved through the other methods you
describe.  I know it's only one person's experience, but it
makes me think about each person's situation and whatever
limitations they might be experiencing.  I think every idea with
great potential also has its downside, usually equally great,
and it's important to look out for what might be lost in the shuffle.

Peggy Van Norman





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:15:55 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Origami CD-ROMs, OUSA collections

>
> First, a general point:  Everyone seems to be forgetting that
> you could print hardcopy of the models.  If you are buying
> them on a per-model basis, why not print the ones you want
> hardcopy of on a per-model basis.  We are only talking about
> a few pages here, and everyone has a laser printer or at least
> a bubble-jet printer these days, right?
>
        True.  But doesn't it seem a bit round about to put the diagrams
        on an electronic medium only to obtain a hard copy, when
        one could start with a hard copy (book) in the first place?
>
> That is another reason not to use CD-ROM, but electronic
> delivery instead.  Even if the hardware becomes obsolete,
> the format is not likely to.

        It would be nice to believe this, but I'm skeptical.
        How many readers/printers now fully support troff or
        nroff, the "standard" from a decade ago?  Working in
        the computer industry, I see cutting edge products
        become utterly unusuable in the space of 20 years.  This
        is a *long* time for computers.  It's silly to compare
        this to the longevity of books.

        But this is getting rather off topic.

> The books are just one vector by which we learn new
> models, and anyway, no one is proposing we eliminate them
> entirely!
>
        Which is the point.

        I don't begrudge those who like their electronic toys having
        books *also* available on CD-ROM.  I'm just bucking the trend
        to that advocates electronic publishing as the "most desirable" or
        as the "wave of the future".

Regards,

  Sheila Davis        Hewlett-Packard IC Business Division
 sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com          Fort Collins, Colorado





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:15:11 -0300 (ADT)
From: bob@maggie.pentek.com (Bob)
Subject: Fuse modular

Hi Mark,

Did I mention that the Fuse modular was REALLY COOL.  Have you made it yet?
Isn't it cool! ... oh, I'm sorry I forgot the fax wasn`t clear enough to read.
Was I going to send a copy of it by mail?  Now where's that book?  What was
you address again?

- Just kidding,  I'm in a particularly cruel mood.  I mailed it this morning.

Talk to you soon,
Bob





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:15:31 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: assessing hats

> now we have a whole drawer of hats
> we need to figure out a way to give them scores
> anyone has any insights to share? (on how to grade them?)

1) Practicality
does it fall off when you move? does it fit a variety of head shapes? ;)

2) Economy
does it make effective use of the paper without being over complex? Does it
create a reasonable sized hat for a given size of paper?

3) Elegance
Does it *look* good??

I wouldn't assess the diagrams or the method, since these are skills they
won't have!

cheers,

Nick Robinson

nick@homelink.demon.co.uk
http://alf2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk:1500/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:58:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: John Smith <jon.pure@paston.co.uk>
Subject: Re: origami equal to performing music

How refreshing to talk about the aesthetic side of paper-folding.
In 1963 Sam Randlett in his 'Best of Origami' referred to origami as the
only branch of sculpture that is, like music a performance art, an origami
figure exists, he claimed, in diagrams, as a string quartet exists in a
musical score.

I have just received my copy of 'The Paper' and am delighted to find an
article on the views and ideas of my good friend Paul Jackson who has done
more than anyone else to awaken folders to the sheer beauty of folds in paper.

Asked about technical folding (=complex) paul says;-

"It's awesome stuff, some of it, but it's not for me. It's so
uncreative--you take a base or principle and milk it for all it's worth.
It's folding by numbers. It's model making, not paper folding, and it's
rather banal. It's very clever, but if you accept it as a substitute for
something beautiful, i find that unacceptable....."

I personally long for the day when we admire the sheer beauty of a great
model, which has been folded superbly in an elegant sequence of moves. We
are in danger of saying how incredible, this model has got 89 points from a
square and looks like a stag or beetle, therefore it is something praisworthy.

The pursuit of points as a sort of token realism seems to me absurd. Is
anyone else interested in Paper Folding as an art in it's own right?. A
total art of elegant performance and a satisfying aesthetic outcome.
Perhaps we could exchange views and seek ways of encouraging the beautiful
in Paper folding.

John.
John Smith
Norwich
England
e-mail  jon.pure@paston.co.uk





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:14:56 -0300 (ADT)
From: Brett <BrettAndJill@oia.net>
Subject: Re: useless books

At 03:54 AM 4/23/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I understand the copyright difficulties in publishing diagrams online
>instead of by conventional methods. However, what about just publishing
>online diagrams for bases together with some text descriping the
>advantages/disadvantages of the base and a list of models that could be
>made from each base. These are public domain but (as an enthusiastic
>beginner)I find it difficult to find good diagrams of the complex bases
>used for creative origami. Of course I know the simple fish and frog
>base but an earlier message talked about swapping a blintzed frog base
>for a blintzed bird base. It would be good if I could go to a web page
>and get GIF diagrams for each so I could possibly learn something from
>this message thread.
>
>Regards
>
>Stephen

To learn a base or to learn a term you need only ask ;)

The term "Blintzing" refers to folding all four corners to the center of the
paper.

1. Fold paper in half on both Diagonals. Unfold.

2. Fold paper in half vertically and horizontally. Unfold.

3. Fold all four corners to the convergence of the previous folds. The
center of the paper.

After the paper is blintzed, you end up with a square.  This square is then
folded into a any popular base.  Diagrams for the preliminary base can be
found at ftp://rugcis.rug.nl/origami/.  There may be other bases there.

Stephens idea of posting more bases is a good one.

Brett
BrettAndJill@OIA.Net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:18:23 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: origami equal to performing music

>I personally long for the day when we admire the sheer beauty of a great
>model, which has been folded superbly in an elegant sequence of moves. We
>are in danger of saying how incredible, this model has got 89 points from a
>square and looks like a stag or beetle, therefore it is something praisworthy.
>
>The pursuit of points as a sort of token realism seems to me absurd. Is
>anyone else interested in Paper Folding as an art in it's own right?

        Origami, like any other art, has various branches, just like
painting does.  Thus, just like painting, there is minimalist origami as
well as technical origami; neo-modern origami and, I suppose, even
"baroque" origami (or some such term...)  Certainly one is entitled to have
a favorite or preferred style; Jackson apparently is more minimalist than,
say, Robert Lang in his creative oeuvre.  Neither one is inherently
superior to the other, since "superiority" is a completely subjective term!
8-)  They're simply...different.   Art museums put minimalist works right
in there with expansive and detailed murals so that the best of all the
worlds is there for everyone to see.  Even an individual artist almost
certainly moves across styles in a lifetime:  how many creators have
striven (strived?) to create simple and yet aesthetically pleasing models
as well as the highly complex, technically accurate models?  I personally
find both methods, and results, to be impressive, albeit on different
levels.  When I fold for a challenge, I enjoy the complex models.
Sometimes I look for whimsy or understatement in a model; usually, the
simpler ones work best here.  I like having complex models around as
stand-alone artworks; I find that simpler models can enhance a simple
nature scene much more beautifully than a complex one can.  Both have
merit, and, as with painting, the subject and style are left to the artist
to create what he/she will.

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  (214) 768-2701
Southern Methodist University         jdharris@post.smu.edu
Box 750395                            (CompuServe:  73132,3372)
Dallas  TX  75275-0395

      \\             _^
      \\\         __/   >     "...having...seen those Grounds, out
       \ \\     _/       >    of which are digg'd up _shells_, and
   /    \ \\  _/         >    such like other things cast out by the
 _//_----\ \-/          >     Sea, and that everywhere we might es-
/   ( )    o           >      timate the number of times...the Sea
v--_                 >        had troubled here and there..."
    )     \ \   \_ >
^--/       \\  /                         - Nicolaus Steno, 1671





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:55:02 -0300 (ADT)
From: jmarcoli@stratacom.com (John Marcolina)
Subject: Re: Re: origami equal to performing music

John Smith writes:
(snip)
I personally long for the day when we admire the sheer beauty of a great
model, which has been folded superbly in an elegant sequence of moves. We
are in danger of saying how incredible, this model has got 89 points from a
square and looks like a stag or beetle, therefore it is something
praisworthy.
(snip)
----------------------------
I feel compelled to write after these and Paul Jackson's similar comments. I
feel this slamming of "technical folding" is unjust and a generalization. I
enjoy *all* styles of folding: minimal, stylized, realistic, and I don't
dismiss any particular style because it's not my own.

I'm not saying that a model is great just because it has a lot of points, and
I don't think anyone else is saying that either. But if a model *does* happen
to have a lot of points, is it less artistic? How could it be!?

And to say that "technical folding" is mechanical, and "not paper folding" is
totally uncalled-for. Anyone who has seen a Robert Lang model *folded by
Robert Lang* and can't see its beauty is clearly missing the point (or
points, all 89 of them).

I agree that it's very easy to produce bad origami with many points, but that
doesn't mean it can't be done well also.

I hope this doesn't sound angry; this wasn't intended to be a flame.

John Marcolina
jmarcolina@strata.com (soon to be cisco.com)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:53:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: bob@maggie.pentek.com (Bob)
Subject: Fuse modular

Hi,

Sorry, the previous message wasn't meant for the list, just a friend I was
trying to torture.  But while I'm on the subject ... Does anyone have
the new book "Boxes Within Boxes".  Are these new models?

Thanks,
Robert





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:49:31 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <jwu@cs.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: origami equal to performing music

On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, John Smith wrote:

> Asked about technical folding (=complex) paul says;-
>
> "It's awesome stuff, some of it, but it's not for me. It's so
> uncreative--you take a base or principle and milk it for all it's worth.
> It's folding by numbers. It's model making, not paper folding, and it's
> rather banal. It's very clever, but if you accept it as a substitute for
> something beautiful, i find that unacceptable....."
>
> I personally long for the day when we admire the sheer beauty of a great
> model, which has been folded superbly in an elegant sequence of moves. We
> are in danger of saying how incredible, this model has got 89 points from a
> square and looks like a stag or beetle, therefore it is something praisworthy.
>
> The pursuit of points as a sort of token realism seems to me absurd. Is
> anyone else interested in Paper Folding as an art in it's own right?. A
> total art of elegant performance and a satisfying aesthetic outcome.
> Perhaps we could exchange views and seek ways of encouraging the beautiful
> in Paper folding.

Ah, John (and Paul), you have gone too far to the other end. Claiming that
complexity is less desirable simply because it is complex is the same sort
of blindness as saying that something is praisworthy if it is complex.
There is beauty in all types of paperfolding, and it is where we choose to
find it.

Joseph Wu  <jwu@cs.ubc.ca>  <http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/jwu/origami.html>
Approach life like a voyage on a schooner. Enjoy the view. Explore the vessel.
Make friends with the Captain. Fish a little. And then get off when you get
Home.                                                     --Max Lucado
