




Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:01:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com
Subject: Re: Joseph Wu folds

In my usual mode of doing many things at once, I was reading e-mail
out of the corner of my eye. I misread Oded's comment about:

" The 3D Chimera with 3 heads is *GREAT!*"

as "The 3D _Chairman_ with 3 heads. . ."

Which made me think -- can the three headed trick be applied
to other creatures???

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:33:44 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Escher

M. C. ESCHER.

There certainly is an interest in the work of the Dutch graphic artist M.C.
Escher among paperfolders. There is a recognisable sort of person who is
interested in such things as Origami, knots, recreational mathematics,
conjuring, cat's cradles, mechanical puzzles, fractals and not least,
computers. Such people are usually fascinated by M.C.Escher.

To a person of this mind, it comes as a surprise that other people are not
remotely interested in such subject. Some paperfolders, even, are primarily
interested in its art and not in its geometry. Maybe that includes some of my
readers!

I can pinpoint the date, when some of us, members of the BOS discovered
Escher. It was on 5th April 1975 and we were holding our spring convention at
the Kenilworth Hotel, not far from the British Museum, in London. Robert
Harbin attended the convention and was in a lively mood. Sadly, it was the
last we were to see of him. Another interesting visitor was Cy Enfield, the
American film producer, who had come to live in England. It was he, who,  by
an amazing fluke, had put Robert Harbin and Gershon Legman in touch with each
other.

 As usual, I had made use of my visit to London to visit the bookshops and in
Foyles I had stumbled on "The Graphic Works of M.C.Escher". Being one of the
before-mentioned persons, I just had to buy it.

On returning to the Kenilworth I showed the book to other BOS members and
they were all immediately hooked. In particular the book made a tremendous
impression on Mick Guy, the young secretary of the BOS. He became fascinated
by Escher's complicated tessellations and he decided to reproduce them in
origami, devising ways to reproduce all their unusual angles. Soon after a
whole stream of Escher-like tessellation's began to flow from Mick. He had
some of them framed and hung them in his living-room.

But, to be honest, I do not believe that the link between Escher and
paperfolding can be pushed very far. Tessellations are only one part of
Escher's  many-sided applications of mathematics to art. Much of it seeks to
explore multi-dimensions and ambiguous viewpoints.

In his younger days, Escher visited the Moorish palace of the Alhambra at
Granada in southern Spain. He was fascinated by the abstract Islamic patterns
and made  coloured sketches of them. In particular, he copied designs made up
of tessellations, and it appears that this was the origin of this aspect of
his work. However, Islamic pattern is much more varied than tessellations. It
has an amazing complexity. By chance there was an exhibition of Islamic art
in London, the following year, 1976, and I was able to study the subject in
some detail. Several books on the subject were published. Islamic art is,
however mere pattern. Esher's work is much more.

The key question is whether Spanish paperfolding originated with the Moors
when they invaded Spain and dominated the peninsula for so many centuries.
They certainly introduced the art of papermaking into Spain and it could be
that simple folding had travelled  from the east with papermaking.
Unfortunately this is all conjecture, and attractive though the theory is,
there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate it. Vicente Palacios of Spain
emphatically rejects the idea.

It is possible (and I would not put it any higher than that) that Islamic
patterns are related to the fold patterns in paperfolding. Superficially, at
any rate, some paperfolding patterns resemble some (but only some) Islamic
patterns.

Curiously enough the Islamic connection later caused Mick Guy to abandon
folding tessellations. He joined a lively, but strict church and obeyed their
ruling that anything tainted with Islam was inconsistent with the faith of
the Church. Those of us with less sensitive scruples can, however,  continue
to appreciate the wonderful tessellations created by Mick, just as we can
enjoy the strange and other-worldly creations of M.C Escher's art.

David Lister





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:37:08 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Wrinkly folding

Chris Miller (4th May) raises some interesting points. His informant, who
told him that repeated crumpling of paper made it feel like toilet paper, was
obviously too polite to tell the whole story. But since we have descended to
the earthy bottom line, I will not shirk my duty to throw light on a hidden
subject so relevant to our art.

I (and ,no doubt, a few other older subscribers to Origami-L) am old enough
to have been young before the introduction of modern soft tissue toilet
papers. The better-off used  what purported to be suitable paper, but which
was, in fact hard, harsh and unyielding. Over here the commonest brand was
"Izal". Poorer people used newspaper  threaded on a string, (Perhaps they
still do), or a magazine or an old mail-order catalogue. These latter had the
additional use of providing reading matter. Perhaps not many people seized
the opportunity to practise their paperfolding, but magazine folding is an
off-beat branch of origami that does offer immense and novel possibilities.

>From an early age I was taught to crumple the paper several times before
using it. I always did, and in an emergency, when the tissue runs out, I
still do. It makes hard paper much softer and kinder.

So much for that topic. My excuse is that it makes an introduction to what
follows.

By repeated crumpling of a currency note (Pound Note or Dollar Bill or
whatever), it is possible to make it shrink to a half of its true size. Al
O'Hagen includes the trick in his short, duplicated routine called "Bill
Folds", dating from 1945. The following is what he writes:

SMALL  BILL

1.  Take a New bill and starting at one corner, crumple the bill a little at
a time until the bill is gathered in a small ball.
2.  Open bill up but do not stretch it out, as doing so will remove the
creases in the bill.
3.  Repeat this process several times.
4.  The bill will now be full of thousands of tiny creases which will make it
appear to be much smaller than a regular sized bill.
5.  Place the bill between the pages of a book to press it flat without
removing any of the creases. A bill treated this way can be shrunk to almost
half its original size.

Martin Gardner also includes the trick in his "Encyclopedia of Impromptu
Magic" (1978), page 16, where he writes:

A Bill can be made to shrink a surprising amount by crumpling it into a ball
and rolling it several times between the palms. If you can procure an old
type large bill, finish trick by switching shrunken bill for it and
pretending to stretch it to a size larger than ordinary.

I doubt if there are many  old type large bills about nowadays, but  it's a
nice idea.

Would that amplification of money really was so easy! Minimalisation comes
all too easily!

David Lister





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:54:04 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Yoshizawa and Randlett

Yoshizawa and Randlett.

In my previous note on the Origin of Origami Terms and Symbols, I overlooked
Brett's question whether Akira Yoshizawa and Sam Randlett ever met, or
co-operated in devising the so-called Yoshizawa-Randlett system, of origami
terms and symbols.

As  I hope I have shown in my previous note, there was no link between
Yoshizawa and Randlett over the symbols, except, of course, that Randlett was
fully aware of Yoshizawa's own system of dotted lines and arrows. The
co-operation was between Randlett and Harbin. Yoshizawa still does not use
the western terminology,

Did Yoshizawa and Sam  Randlett co-operate or meet?  Yoshizawa's first visit
abroad  was to Australia, New Zealand and The Phillipines in 1966. Thereafter
he was sent on regular visits to other countries as an origami ambassador for
his country. He did not, however, visit the United States until he came to
give a series of lessons in origami only a few years ago. (I'm sorry, I can't
lay my hands on the year at this moment.)

 As far as I know, Sam has never visited Japan. I'm sure we would have heard
about it if he had been to Japan during the years when Sam was active in
paperfolding, but I have not seen any account of such a visit. That doesn't
mean to say he hasn't been there in more recent years. If so, it was long
after his two books were published.

Any new information will be most welcome.

David Lister, Grimsby, England





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:07:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: Brett <BrettAndJill@OIA.Net>
Subject: Re: Jackson's Encyclopedia

At 10:06 PM 5/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Speaking of Paul Jackons and his _Encyclopedia of Origami & Papercraft
>Techiniques_ (1991 Quarto Publishing ISBN:1-56138-063-6), anybody have any
>suggestions on where to find diagrams for the Philip Shen dish featured on
>page 25? There is some explanation given, but not enough for me to figure
>it out..
>
The one with the cushy bottom ?  I belive that there is one fully diagrammed
in on of the jackson books, I only have photocopies of certain things so I
don't have the title or isbn of the book.

Nice model though,

Speaking of Phillip Shen, I saw a video clip of him on the
discovery/learning channel demonstrating origami principals to compactly
store LARGE objects within spacecraft.  For example, a very large solar
panel array to generate energy to power a sattellite.

In the video clip he folded a model from a very large piece of paper, into a
very small square.  Anyone know if this model has ever been diagrammed ?

The model reminded me of Jeremy Shafer's flasher.

Brett
BrettAndJill@OIA.Net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:14:08 -0300 (ADT)
From: hazay@ibm.net (Alon Hazay)
Subject: Model For Sell

Origami is regarded as an art. Art is being sold all over the world.
I wonder if someone ever sold his origami models or know someone who did it?
Why not making money out of this wonderful art?

Alon Hazay
Israel
Email: hazay@ibm.net

*** THE SKY IS THE LIMIT ***





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:55:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: Brett <BrettAndJill@OIA.Net>
Subject: Re: Paper and Religion in Japan.

At 01:42 PM 5/6/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>        While I like the association, I don't think there is a relation.
>>        Japanese has few sounds in the language, so there are thousands
>>        of homophones.  "Kami" also means "hair" in Japanese.  I'm afraid
>>        to imagine what sort of association that would have ;-)
>
>        Does this mean that when a Japanese person says that they do
>chiyogami that they like to cut paper or that they're a barber/hairstylist?

I always thought chiyogami meant literally "beautiful paper", or if kami can
be hair then maybe "beautiful hair" ?

Brett
BrettAndJill@OIA.Net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 20:27:19 -0300 (ADT)
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

>>>>> "AH" == Alon Hazay <hazay@ibm.net> writes:

AH> Origami is regarded as an art. Art is being sold all over the world.  I
AH> wonder if someone ever sold his origami models or know someone who did
AH> it?

I donated three Fuse boxes (triangular out of foil, square out of washi,
and hexagon out of blue and green marble-patterned wrapping paper) to a
local charity auction.  They sold for $25 total.

I don't think I could profit from something I didn't design myself.
--
      Jason L. Tibbitts III - tibbs@uh.edu - 713/743-8684 - 221SR1
System Manager:  University of Houston High Performance Computing Center
                1994 PC800 "Kuroneko"      DoD# 1723





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 20:47:04 -0300 (ADT)
From: slider@ims.mariposa.ca.us (Pat Slider)
Subject: Re: Paper and Religion in Japan.

Just noticed this title at amazon.com....but I don't know anything about
it. Perhaps it might have something pertinent to the original posting
(religion one, not hair)? But then maybe it is just about work/study
programs or something....

 Haiku, Origami, and More : Worship and Study Resources from Japan

by Judith May Newton , Mayumi Tabuchi

Paperback
List: $5.95-- Amazon.com Price: $5.95 + $1.85 special surcharge
Published by Friendship Pr
Publication date: June 1991
ISBN: 0377002178





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 23:07:03 -0300 (ADT)
From: James_Sakoda@brown.edu (James M. Sakoda)
Subject: Re: Paper and Religion in Japan.

>>        Does this mean that when a Japanese person says that they do
>>chiyogami that they like to cut paper or that they're a barber/hairstylist?
>
>I always thought chiyogami meant literally "beautiful paper", or if kami can
>be hair then maybe "beautiful hair" ?
>
>Brett
>BrettAndJill@OIA.Net
According to a Japanese dictionary that I own chiyogami refers to paper
with  designs which are used for craft, such as making boxes.  One
therefore does not "do chiyogami" but rather use it.  "chi" is the
character for thousand and "yo" could mean generations (dai).  James M.
Sakoda





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 01:41:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: chall@scsn.net (Carol Hall)
Subject: Re: Paper and Religion in Japan.

> Haiku, Origami, and More : Worship and Study Resources from Japan
>
>by Judith May Newton , Mayumi Tabuchi
>
>Paperback
>List: $5.95-- Amazon.com Price: $5.95 + $1.85 special surcharge
>Published by Friendship Pr
>Publication date: June 1991
>ISBN: 0377002178

I was given this book after I taught a church group a workshop on making
origami flowers (they were going to use them to decorate the tables for some
church function).  From the Preface:
"In the pages of this brief book you will find samples of these [origami,
ikebana, sumi-e, haiku] and other arts of Japan, as well as stories, songs,
games.  You will meet some people in Japan, many from the small community of
Christians there, here what inspires them, what concerns them, what they
think and talk and sing and pray about."

This is a very brief introduction to Japan through a Christian lens,
intended for American church members.

Carol Hall
chall@scsn.net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 02:29:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Ashley G. Perrien" <perr2232@kutztown.edu>
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

> Origami is regarded as an art. Art is being sold all over the world.
> I wonder if someone ever sold his origami models or know someone who did it?
> Why not making money out of this wonderful art?
>
I have also wondered this. I usually fold stuff while I'm working in the
computer lab (I'm a monitor) and the models end up in an office of an
admirer (of the origami, not me). So many people have asked about it that
I made a passing joke I should start selling it, it stuck. Tommorrow I
have to make an eagle, centaur, ducks and some swans for people in the
dept where I work. I'm still clueless as to what to charge though. I was
thinking about setting up a table in the student union with several
models and charging maybe $5-$10 and seeing how it goes. If demand's high
enough I may get out there regularly.

If any of you sell your stuff, how much do you charge?

AshleyP





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:51:47 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Maxfields??

Bob <bob@maggie.pentek.com> offered the following pearls of wisdom....

>Seriously, the color selection is a little bizarre

Someone once offered a South African Maxfields - with all the black
sheets removed ;)
cheers,

Nick Robinson

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

Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:11:09 -0300 (ADT)
From: kevin !! <prank@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

Ashley,
        If the models are all original designs, maybe I could understand
wanting a fee, but unless you _really_ need the money I still suggest
giving the models for free.  Or just have them give you paper.  Especially
people you know or have to work with.
        If you really think your time is worth too much to do it for free,
tell the admirers "notime,eatingnow" and leave it at that.

--Kevin
P.S.  How are your graphics capabilities and refresh rate?  =)

On Tue, 7 May 1996, Ashley G. Perrien wrote:
> > Why not making money out of this wonderful art?
> >
> I have also wondered this. I usually fold stuff while I'm working in the
> computer lab (I'm a monitor) and the models end up in an office of an
> admirer (of the origami, not me). So many people have asked about it that
> I made a passing joke I should start selling it, it stuck. Tommorrow I
> have to make an eagle, centaur, ducks and some swans for people in the
> dept where I work. I'm still clueless as to what to charge though. I was
> thinking about setting up a table in the student union with several
> models and charging maybe $5-$10 and seeing how it goes. If demand's high
> enough I may get out there regularly.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:16:35 -0300 (ADT)
From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@panther.middlebury.edu>
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

On Tue, 7 May 1996, Ashley G. Perrien wrote:

> I have also wondered this. I usually fold stuff while I'm working in the
> computer lab (I'm a monitor)
Gee, doesn't it get annoying when people stare at you all the time? are
you a macintosh monitor or an ibm monitor? or maybe one of those
third-party setups? -- sorry, couldn't resist ;)

> If any of you sell your stuff, how much do you charge?
Yes, I frequently sell my models at craft shows and such. I can't afford
to moralize about selling models I didn't create, since I am only a
student with limited cash flow, and any source of income is welcome.
Here's a price list for models that typically sell well:
1-piece models (10" paper) - $1.00
Boxes (typically Fuse, with lids):
3-sided - $3.00
4-sided - $4.00
6-sided - $6.00
8-sided - $8.00
8-sided with 8-flap twist on top (my most popular box) - $12.00

That's as far as I can go. Any other models I'll judge prices on the
spot, depending on how sentimental I am about the model, how long it took
me to make it, what condition it's in, how much money i think the buyer
probably has (;>), etc. Since this isn't my main job and I don't intend
to make a business out of it, I don't need to be as structured as, say,
Mark Kennedy with his jewelry.  As a folder, also, I have much more
variation in what I make than a potter does; a potter can price each type
of pot, bowl, plate, etc. and each of that type will be priced the same.
In origami we have thousands of different types and not enough time to
price them all.
One origami-selling anecdote:
Some years back I had folded that odd cube-structure (the red, black and
white one on the cover of Multidimensional Transformations) out of colors
so that each single-colored cube touched its two adjacent colors on the
color wheel. It was a beautiful piece and I had it on display at a
demonstration for one of the craft centers in my state. A man in a
business suit came up and asked how much I'd sell it for. I wasn't sure,
since I hadn't been expecting anyone to want to buy it, so I conferred
with my fellow folders and finally decided that it was worth about $50.
The man in the business suit was obviously relieved; he had expected it
to be more like $100. He left and picked up the money at the bank where
he worked, paid me, and left with the model. I don't know how it's
holding up in his home now, but I'm now in the process of attempting to
fold another one (not a problem, just time-consuming).
anyway, that's my $0.02
-Alasdair
acpquinn@midd-unix.middlebury.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:29:48 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

>       If the models are all original designs, maybe I could understand
> wanting a fee, but unless you _really_ need the money I still suggest
> giving the models for free.  Or just have them give you paper.  Especially
> people you know or have to work with.
>       If you really think your time is worth too much to do it for free,
> tell the admirers "notime,eatingnow" and leave it at that.
>
        I disagree.  There is nothing wrong for charging for your
        work, and it need not be your own design (though ethically,
        you should ask for the designer's permission before selling).

        If you want to give away your models that's fine (that's what
        I mostly do).  If you want some recompense for your time, that's
        fine too.
Regards,

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





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:30:02 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: three heads good...

Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com offered the following pearls of wisdom....

>Which made me think -- can the three headed trick be applied
>to other creatures???

I would have thought a "three headed giraffe (kneeling down, with long
tail)" would be possible from a bird base.....

cheers,   ;)

Nick Robinson

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

Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 15:38:40 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Selling models; [Q] for pros...

Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com> writes:
>
>        [...]        There is nothing wrong for charging for your
>        work, and it need not be your own design (though ethically,
>        you should ask for the designer's permission before selling).

Hmm.  I have sold models before, at $2 a pop for simple ones,
or more for intricate or wet-folded designs, and it has never
occurred to me that I should be asking the designer for
permission.  I always credit the designer of the model, verbally,
but what I am selling is the fruits of my labor, not the design.
(And for better models, the good imported or hand-marbled paper
can cost as much as $15/sheet, and each sheet might yield only
one modular design or two to six single-square models, so the
cost of the paper is also a factor.)

I never saw an ethical problem in charging without explicit
permission, though if anyone would like to explain the ethics as
they see them, I would be interested to read it.  (For example,
John Montroll -- your foxes are one of the most popular models I
fold -- should I have asked you before accepting $2 for them?)

One thing that I have been considering, is actually putting a
few large, intricate, wet-folded models up for auction at a
(non-origami) convention art show.  I would of course credit
the designer of the model, or of whatever model(s) my piece was
based upon, but never even considered that I might need
permission from, or owe royalties to, the designer(s).  I would
not be selling copies of the plans, after all.

I also reason that the published model design, which is widely
available, and which the designer *is* receiving royalties on,
provides only the general shape and such.  But *I* am making
the choice of paper, the folding technique, deciding on the
details of finishing and adjustment and positioning of all of the
smaller features, etc., and that this is sufficient artistry in
and of itself to warrant selling the finished model for my own
profit, as "my" work, provided that I credit the basic model's
designer.  (Also, it is not as though I would be selling
hundreds of models this way -- I am talking about three or four
in a year.)

Would the professionals on this list (Montroll, Lang, et alia)
disagree?  Would you require permission for, or expect to receive
royalties from, such a sale?

  -- 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: Tue, 7 May 1996 15:45:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: Kristine Tomlinson <ktomlinson@platinum.com>
Subject: Re: Folding Hierarchy, Symbols, Paperfolding and Religion

    Hi all,

    [Hierarchy]

    I'd like to thank John Smith and especially David Lister for your
    continued interest and contributions to the many topics listed in the
    subject line!  The historical correspondences David quotes are
    particularly interesting -- nothing like original sources to answer
    questions!  :-)

    One qusetion that came to mind, however, is how did people like Robert
    Harbin and others first come across folding? Did they invent their own,
    and/or adapt from earlier models (Japanese, Spanish, etc.).  The reason
    I ask is that if they used translated sources, it is possible that a
    translator decided that words like "fold behind" had more meaning to
    English-speaking people than say, "mountain" fold?  Just a thought ...

    [ASCII text?]

    David, your subject heading of 5/5/96 was tantalizing: "Paperfolding
    and Religion and Folding in Japan".  Will you be converting that Word
    document to text as well?  (If you already have, and I've missed it in
    the digests, would you mind e-mailing it to me directly? Thanks!)

    [What's in a name?]

    Regarding the kami-kami "coincidence", I'm reading up on haiku and seem
    to recall that the sound of the language has special importance and is
    used to advantage.  Yes, it's true the characters are different, but
    why not place some importance on identical pronunciation? I believe
    this is also true with Chinese but don't quote me!

    [Festivals and paper]

    While reviewing my own list of ceremonial uses of paper and paper
    folding, I was struck by the fact that most all the festivals still
    celebrated today using paper or paper folding are Chinese in origin.
    There's that co-mingling of religious traditions again (the Chinese
    religion in question here is traditional, not Buddhist).  However, most
    of the Chinese paper references are for entirely different festivals
    and uses of paper/folding. If people are interested, I can post more
    info.

    [To further "Confuse"]

    Looking further at the religion and folding connection ... the
    "Chushingura Orikata" was published in 1797 by a priest at Rokoan
    temple.  If this is the same "Kanadehon Chushingura" play written in
    1748 by Izumo Takeda, the theme loyalty to master is actually
    Confucian.  BTW, do any readers in Japan know if Rokoan temple is
    Shinto or Buddhist?  I can't identify it.

    [Good history]

    Finally, one apparently reliable source for paper history is books
    published or supported by paper companies.  Some of them have paper
    museums and archivists, so the quality of research is high.  A nice
    book that relied on a paper company's resources is Thelma R. Newman et
    al., "Paper as Art and Craft ...", 1973.

    Kristine
    ktomlinson@trinzic.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:23:21 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: Folding Hierarchy, Symbols, Paperfolding and Religion

>    One qusetion that came to mind, however, is how did people like Robert
>    Harbin and others first come across folding? Did they invent their own,
>    and/or adapt from earlier models (Japanese, Spanish, etc.).

        I've always been curious about this, too.  In particular, my dad
learned origami when he was under 10, which places things temporally in the
late 1930's of the USA.  This predates the Origami Center of America and
even all the Harbin orgami books by a good decade-and-a-half.  I don't know
what kind of literature exchange existed between immediate-pre-WWII Japan
and the US (I would guess not much), and so I doubt that his exposure was a
Japanese book.  I have seen obscure references to very rare origami primers
from around the turn of the century as "fold-out 'books'" that were in
existence; perhaps my dad was introduced to origami by an old copy of one
of those...?  And perhaps something similar happened to Harbin.  Does
anyone know how other "classic" folders, such as Lillian Oppenheimer, Alice
Gray, Gershon Legman, etc. first discovered origami?

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, 7 May 1996 16:37:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

Steve Arlow wrote:
> But *I* am making
> the choice of paper, the folding technique, deciding on the
> details of finishing and adjustment and positioning of all of the
> smaller features, etc., and that this is sufficient artistry in
> and of itself to warrant selling the finished model for my own
> profit, as "my" work, provided that I credit the basic model's
> designer.

        I agree, which is why I think it is quite legitimate to sell
        one's work.  As for asking for permission, this comes from
        the OUSA recommendations.

        I will again quote here a message I posted a couple of years
        ago:

>>>     Some time ago I posted a question about the legality and ethics
        of selling models.  Someone mentioned the FOCA policy in the back
        of the convention programs (thanks to whomever that was).  I
        recently received my copy of the 1993 collection and the policy
        mentioned is quite clear.  I thought I'd repeat it here for
        everyone's benefit.  Note that the legal issues refer only to
        US copyright law, but the ethics should apply to everyone on
        the list.

        A number of issues are covered including charitable work and
        exhibitions, but regarding the original question, under the
        heading "May I fold some else's model?" and the subtitle
        "For commercial use", the entry reads:

        "by law yes, as long as you don't use the creator's name for
        commercial purposes, but The Friends recommends that you obtain
        written permission for the creator."

        So it seems it's entirely legal to sell a model you folded
        yourself with or without permission, but ethically, you
        should obtain the creator's permission first.  And it is
        illegal to try to sell something as, for example, "Montroll's
        Dragonfly" without John Montroll's permission.

Regards,

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





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:43:42 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Folding Hierarchy, Symbols, Paperfolding and Religion

Kristine (ktomlinson@trinzic.com) wrote:
>
>     Regarding the kami-kami "coincidence", I'm reading up on haiku and seem
>     to recall that the sound of the language has special importance and is
>     used to advantage.  Yes, it's true the characters are different, but
>     why not place some importance on identical pronunciation? I believe
>     this is also true with Chinese but don't quote me!
>
        We do the same thing in English.  It's called a pun.  ;-)
        Seriously, Japanese is a very "punny" language, and they most
        definitely do take advantage of similar sounding words for
        marketing, literature and interesting word play.

        But as I stated before, I doubt there is any fundamental
        connection between paper and god in the language, even though
        the words sounds similar.

>     Looking further at the religion and folding connection ... the
>     "Chushingura Orikata" was published in 1797 by a priest at Rokoan
>     temple.  If this is the same "Kanadehon Chushingura" play written in
>     1748 by Izumo Takeda, the theme loyalty to master is actually
>     Confucian.  BTW, do any readers in Japan know if Rokoan temple is
>     Shinto or Buddhist?  I can't identify it.
>
        I'm not familiar with Rokoan, but typically a "temple" refers
        to a Buddhist site, while a "shrine" refers to a Shinto site.
        This may not be universally true, and Rokoan may not properly
        be a temple, but if I were to guess, I would guess Buddhist.
Regards,

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





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:50:28 -0300 (ADT)
From: Namir Gharaibeh <U50879@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Model For Sale

On Tue, 7 May 1996 14:29:55 -0300 (ADT) Sheila Davis said:
>
>        If you want to give away your models that's fine (that's what
>        I mostly do).  If you want some recompense for your time, that's
>        fine too.
>Regards,
>  Sheila Davis        Hewlett-Packard IC Business Division

   Maybe charge by the hour/minute for the finger crunching models ;)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Me and the world, see, we got  :            Namir Gharaibeh           |
|     this understanding.        :     a.k.a.  U50879@uicvm.uic.edu     |
|                                :   University of Illinois at Chicago  |





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:27:44 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

Alon Hazay <hazay@ibm.net> offered the following pearls of wisdom....

>Why not making money out of this wonderful art?

Why not indeed & some people do it, but let's not forget the ultimate
ethic of sharing and respect the copyright of other peoples work....

cheers,

Nick Robinson

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

Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:info@turnpike.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:49:49 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com> writes:
>Steve Arlow <yorick@msen.com> writes:
>> But *I* am making
>> the choice of paper, the folding technique, deciding on the
>> details of finishing and adjustment and positioning of all of the
>> smaller features, etc., and that this is sufficient artistry in
>> and of itself to warrant selling the finished model for my own
>> profit, as "my" work, provided that I credit the basic model's
>> designer.
>
>        I agree, which is why I think it is quite legitimate to sell
>        one's work.  As for asking for permission, this comes from
>        the OUSA recommendations.
>
>        [...]
>|       A number of issues are covered including charitable work and
>|       exhibitions, but regarding the original question, under the
>|       heading "May I fold some else's model?" and the subtitle
>|       "For commercial use", the entry reads:
>|
>|       "by law yes, as long as you don't use the creator's name for
>|       commercial purposes, but The Friends recommends that you obtain
>|       written permission for the creator."
>|
>|       So it seems it's entirely legal to sell a model you folded
>|       yourself with or without permission, but ethically, you
>|       should obtain the creator's permission first.  And it is
>|       illegal to try to sell something as, for example, "Montroll's
>|       Dragonfly" without John Montroll's permission.

Interesting.  So this is exactly backwards from what I would
have done.  I would have felt obligated to give credit to the
designer -- "North American striped skunk, cinnamon variety,
folded by Steve Arlow.  Basic design from John Montroll's 1993
skunk", but that could be actionable as using Montroll's name
for personal profit.  Yet it would be entirely safe (legally)
variety) folded by Steve Arlow (from someone else's basic
design)".

So to recap what I have understood:  According to OUSA standards
of ethics, I should request formal permission before selling a
model I folded from someone else's design.  I percieve a risk in
the asking, however, because of the second stipulation:

When it comes to giving credit to the designer, the ethics of
OUSA and the law are in direct opposition to one another!
Ethically, if I do sell a model wihtout explicit permission, I
should give credit to the designer, but legally, I open myself
up to civil liability if I *do* give credit in such a
situation, and therefore I should *not* do so -- or do so only
at my own risk.

Now for the interesting question: derivative works.  Folding
a two-headed version of the Neale dragon from Montroll's
five-sided bird base, I should (ethically) credit both of
them, since it is a straightforward combination of two other
folder's models.  If I want to sell it, do I seek permission
from both of them?

Now what about the three-headed version I described earlier on
this list, which takes the extra paper at one corner of
Montroll's five-sided bird-base, and uses it to form a third
head of equal proportion, and also elongates the neck
somewhat before the split.  This is a case where I have
combined two other folders' designs, and added substantial,
non-trivial modifications, resulting in a new model.  The new
model, however, is clearly recognizable as a Montroll fold at one
point in its construction, and at least the rear half is clearly
recognizable as a version of the Neale dragon in its finished
state.  How would this be credited?  Whose permission is required
if I sold this model?  If I published the diagrams for this
model?  If a fourth party then folds the model from published
diagrams and sells it?

(While I have no plans to diagram that model, I *am* looking at
devising a very different hexapodal model based on folds found in
Lang's three-headed version of Montroll's dog base -- as opposed
to Montroll's own three-headed version.  If I succeed, I may want
to diagram and publish it.  What then?)

Now how about (just to stay with the Neale dragon for a couple
more examples) the five-headed version of the Neale dragon?  I
have no idea who first devised the blintzed-bird-base method
of folding the five-headed Neale dragon.  Who would I ask for
permission?  Or is this just a straightforward combination with
a traditional fold, and Neale would be the only one to ask?

And finally, what about the version I just devised, a blintzed-
frog-base method of folding the five-headed Neale Dragon, which
includes a few new modifications: a quadruple octagonal open-sink,
new flaps to be folded down on the correct side, etc.?

Opinions on all of these scenarios, from anyone on the list,
would be appreciated.

  -- 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: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:16:31 -0300 (ADT)
From: kkinney@med.unc.edu (Kevin Kinney)
Subject: Re: Selling models;

>         heading "May I fold some else's model?" and the subtitle
>         "For commercial use", the entry reads:
>
>         "by law yes, as long as you don't use the creator's name for
>         commercial purposes, but The Friends recommends that you obtain
>         written permission for the creator."
>
>         So it seems it's entirely legal to sell a model you folded
>         yourself with or without permission, but ethically, you
>         should obtain the creator's permission first.  And it is
>         illegal to try to sell something as, for example, "Montroll's
>         Dragonfly" without John Montroll's permission.
>
> Regards,
>
>   Sheila Davis        Hewlett-Packard IC Business Division
>  sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com          Fort Collins, Colorado

I remember reading this myself, and thinking then (and continuing to think
so now) that this seems backwards.  I scientific research and publication,
not crediting the originator of a technique/etc. is a major no-no.  It
seems to me that my making a dragonfly of J. Montroll's design without
crediting him for his hours of labor designing the blasted thing would
cause people not in the know to assume the design was mine, and that
smacks of intellectual dishonesty, if not "theft of intellectual property"
or plagiarism.  On the other hand, indicating "design by J. Montroll,
hours of fingerpopping folding by K. Kinney" makes clear who did what.

Does anyone out there understand why in this area only (as far as I can
tell), crediting the designer is actually *discouraged*, rather than
encouraged?  I certainly don't have to get the good Dr. Holtfreter's
permission every time I publish a paper where the research employed
Holtfreter's solution, but by Golly, I'd better mention that he came up
with it!

Additonal comment:

> Maybe charge by the hour/minute for the finger crunching models ;)
>>
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Me and the world, see, we got  :            Namir Gharaibeh           |
>|     this understanding.        :     a.k.a.  U50879@uicvm.uic.edu     |
>|                                :   University of Illinois at Chicago  |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Had a friend who tried this years ago.  Didn't work.  It seems that, even
when he cut his hourly rate in half (he had one for computing the cost of
graphic arts jobs), people wouldn't buy.  They'd look at the beautiful
lobster and say "that much for *that*?  It's *just* paper!"

Same old problem, I suppose.

Kevin Kinney
kkinney@med.unc.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:23:56 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

>
> When it comes to giving credit to the designer, the ethics of
> OUSA and the law are in direct opposition to one another!
> Ethically, if I do sell a model wihtout explicit permission, I
> should give credit to the designer, but legally, I open myself
> up to civil liability if I *do* give credit in such a
> situation, and therefore I should *not* do so -- or do so only
> at my own risk.
>
        Almost.  According to OUSA, ethically you shouldn't sell
        a figure at all without getting permission.  If you ignore
        this though, then legally, if you don't get permission, you
        shouldn't use the designer's name.  I think the issue here,
        though, is using the designer's name for profit--similar to
        "these are Calvin Klein jeans" vs. "these are jeans".  The
        former is more valuable because of the designer's name.  Now,
        realistically I think you'd be hard pressed to find a
        buyer at a craft show or such who will scoop up a "Fuse
        model" over another just because of the name.  But legally,
        that's the issue.

        Personally, I would suspect most origami designers would
        be quite happy with your solution--charge for your artistry,
        but give the original designer credit.  The guidelines
        are just the picky details.

        [Lots 'n lots of imaginative variations deleted :-]

> Opinions on all of these scenarios, from anyone on the list,
> would be appreciated.
>
        I would say that as soon as you make a major variation on
        a model, it becomes your design.  Other designers serve
        as inspiration, but you are building on their work, not
        using it whole.  Of course, this begs the question as to
        what is a "major variation".

        My opinion?  Changing the angles of the folds or smoothing
        the steps to get to a result is not major.  Adding any new
        features (more heads, wings, whatever) is.
Regards,

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





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:50:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: "It's *just* paper".

Reminds me of the joke about the maintenance engineer who submitted a bill for
$10k for fixing a boiler-thingy.  The client freaked:  "You only came in and
whacked it with a hammer.  We want an itemized bill."  The engineer submitted
the following:
        Whacking with hammer:  $    0.05
        Knowing where to whack: $ 9999.95
        Total                   $10000.00

        Folding the paper:      $ reasonable hourly rate.
        Knowing where to fold: $ ah, now there's the rub!

-Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:16:52 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: "It's *just* paper".

>Reminds me of the joke about the maintenance engineer who submitted a bill for
>$10k for fixing a boiler-thingy.  The client freaked:  "You only came in and
>whacked it with a hammer.  We want an itemized bill."  The engineer submitted
>the following:
>       Whacking with hammer: $    0.05
>       Knowing where to whack: $ 9999.95
>       Total                   $10000.00

ROTFL!  I love it.  As a consultant, I'm going to have to
remember this story.

>       Folding the paper:      $ reasonable hourly rate.
>       Knowing where to fold:        $ ah, now there's the rub!

"But you just read it out of a book!"  ;)

Another possibility would be to have them pay you in raw
materials: say, you give them a wet-folded peacock made
from hand-marbled paper, and they pay you with two full
sheets of said hand-marbled paper.  That will wake them
up, I'll bet!

  -- 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: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:29:38 -0300 (ADT)
From: marckrsh@nyc.pipeline.com (Marc Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Selling models;

On May 07, 1996 17:49:49, 'Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>' wrote:

It is interesting timing that this subject should be brought up at this
point. It so happens that Origami USA is in the midst of claarifying it's
intent in regards to copyright law, so as to be able to persue the selling
of origami models, either directly, or providing the means for others to
sell (i.e, at Convention). This has turned out to be an extremly
controversial subject, and as of last night, we are not even close to a
decission on if we would want to get involved in the issues of selling
origami models.

Fortunatlety, on an individual level, the issues are much simpler. If you
both folded and designed your model, you can just sell it, and all would be
legal and moraly kosher. As an aside, some of the prices people were
quoting sounded awfuly cheap. I usually give my stuff away, but  on the
occasions that I have sold my works, I have charged between $100-$200
dollars (and the recepients thought they were getting a steal). I based the
prices on cost of paper and time involved in preparing the paper and
folding the model. I understand that not all venues attract high paying
customers, but I do think we should place a higher value on this highly
specialized art we call origami.

The issues for selling seem to arise when the creator and the folder are
different people. Unfortunatly, in a strict legal sence, the creator does
not have many rights, but Origami USA, for instance, respects the efforts
of the creator, and requests that the folder contacts the creator before
engaging in any monetary exchanges with that creator's work. This does not
mean that the creator will necessarily want payment, but the creator should
be given the form of attribution desired (if any). I feel that to produce a
finished origami model, it takes the combined efforts of both the creator
and the folder, so they should both be accounted for.

>Now for the interesting question: derivative works.  Folding
>a two-headed version of the Neale dragon from Montroll's
>five-sided bird base, I should (ethically) credit both of
>them, since it is a straightforward combination of two other
>folder's models.  If I want to sell it, do I seek permission
>from both of them?
>

Sheila Davis seemed to answer this question effectivly. I do not think
there is a clear line a slight modification, and a subtantiall modifacation
to warrant origanality. I usually cite major influences in the name of the
model, or on the diagrams. If your combination of models is in fact
straightfoward, I would contact both creators.

>Now what about the three-headed version I described earlier on
>this list, which takes the extra paper at one corner of
>Montroll's five-sided bird-base, and uses it to form a third
>head of equal proportion, and also elongates the neck
>somewhat before the split.  This is a case where I have
>combined two other folders' designs, and added substantial,
>non-trivial modifications, resulting in a new model.  The new
>model, however, is clearly recognizable as a Montroll fold at one
>point in its construction, and at least the rear half is clearly
>recognizable as a version of the Neale dragon in its finished
>state.  How would this be credited?  Whose permission is required
>if I sold this model?  If I published the diagrams for this
>model?  If a fourth party then folds the model from published
>diagrams and sells it?
>

This (to me anyway), sounds very original. It might be a nice touch, if you
do diagram it to cite your derivations. Hopefully Origami USA's new notes
on the right of creators (when published), will make this all much clearer.

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 20:54:13 -0300 (ADT)
From: Hamilton Edmund Link <hamlink@cs.uoregon.edu>
Subject: origami math

My name is Hamilton Link.  I am a CIS major/Math minor at the university
of Oregon.  I have been folding since I was about eight years old, and so
I thought it would be interesting to analize some of the mathematics of
folding the sqare and possibly do a small application based on my
findings.

I have a couple of ideas, but I would appreciate it if any of you could
refer me to any good books on origami that dealt with the mathemactics of
it.  (any favorite books on origami would also be nice -- i'm always
looking to expand my personal library!)  Also if you have seen any
articles (I have a couple from mathematical journals) that would be
appreciated.

Thanks,
hamilton





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 21:04:04 -0300 (ADT)
From: Hamilton Edmund Link <hamlink@cs.uoregon.edu>
Subject: rare origami book

If you or anyone you know has a copy of this book, I would like to know.
I would like a xerox copy (if it's not too long), or i would like to
borrow or even purchase it if you would be willing to sell it.

"An Invitation to Creative Playing with Origami"
by Shuzo Fujimoto, 1982
published by the Ashai Culture Center
no ISBN, out of print

Thanks,
hamilton





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 22:15:15 -0300 (ADT)
From: Herb Coleman <dolphn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...

I agree that it is ok in America to sell the models that you fol; even if
you are not the original designer.  In this country, millions of people
make a living out of doin things for people that they could very well do
themselves.  I feel that I have paid Montrol, Lang , et al by buying
thier books (or geting my library to do so). The thing about an origami
design,is that once the instructions are out then the models become
public domain, much like cakes made from recipies.  Now if you publish a
book about how to make the models, then you owe the original author.

Just my .02..or is it?

herb coleman
hcoleman@austin.cc.tx.us





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 22:20:25 -0300 (ADT)
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: "It's *just* paper".

+>      Folding the paper:      $ reasonable hourly rate.
+>      Knowing where to fold:       $ ah, now there's the rub!
+
+"But you just read it out of a book!"  ;)

So?  Many models have diagrams that involve judgement folds.  You often have
to make several models before you can decide where you want those folds to
lie.  Yoshizawa's models, for example, are like that.  When I took Michael
LaFosse's intro wet folding class at last year's convention, Michael claimed
that the lack of landmark's was Yoshizawa's genius, forcing each folder to
discover and create their own versions of the models...  Interjecting the
folder's creativity and personality.  I think it was Montroll (hope I am
right about this!) who has said that his final diagram is but the starting
point for a model.  There are lots of "minor" things you can, and should, do
to the model after that.  Perhaps even major things.  Some books show
pictures of the models which are not just the result of the last diagram,
but that show such "finishing" touches.  These can be frustrating if you are
browsing the book and expect to find diagrams the correspond to the pictures
you see.  Yoshizawa's books come to mind again on this.  His pictures are of
models taken further than what has been diagrammed.  I have gone back and
forth on whether I like this or not.  I am currently leaning towards the
LaFosse interpretation.  But i can understand the other side's objections.

So "You just read it out of a book" is no better (in the best case) than "it's
just made out of paper". ;-)

+Another possibility would be to have them pay you in raw
+materials: say, you give them a wet-folded peacock made
+from hand-marbled paper, and they pay you with two full
+sheets of said hand-marbled paper.  That will wake them
+up, I'll bet!

It might be a start at least.  Depending on what you wish to receive in
exchange for your effort as well as material outlay.

-Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 22:29:57 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

Marc K. writes:
>On May 07, 1996 17:49:49, 'Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>' wrote:
>
>It is interesting timing that this subject should be brought up at this
>point. It so happens that Origami USA is in the midst of claarifying it's
>intent in regards to copyright law, so as to be able to persue the selling
>of origami models, either directly, or providing the means for others to
>sell (i.e, at Convention). This has turned out to be an extremly
>controversial subject, and as of last night, we are not even close to a
>decission on if we would want to get involved in the issues of selling
>origami models.

Well, feel free to use any of the five RL examples from my
last posting in your discussions on the matter.

And thanks for the advice.

>       [...]             As an aside, some of the prices people were
>quoting sounded awfuly cheap. I usually give my stuff away, but  on the
>occasions that I have sold my works, I have charged between $100-$200
>dollars (and the recepients thought they were getting a steal). I based the
>prices on cost of paper and time involved in preparing the paper and
>folding the model. I understand that not all venues attract high paying
>customers, but I do think we should place a higher value on this highly
>specialized art we call origami.

Well, typically I either teach or trade.  I can't draw, though I
often hang out with people who can, so I trade origami for drawings
and sketches and such.  Once, though, when I was at an SF convention,
I got an "oooh! I have to have that, how much do you want for
it?", I charged $2 for (IIRC) a Montroll fox made out of cheap 5"
gold foil.  Soon enough I was surrounded by a small crowd, and I
sold several other models...

This is why I want to put a few better pieces up for auction,
that will tell me what the *real* market value is.

Now, here is a good one for you:  What do I do when the model
comes from a book with only japanese text, and I have no idea
who the creator is?  I suppose I can simply ask here, and
hope that someone will know.  But what if no-one here knows,
or if I can't adequately explain, say, just which peacock I
am referring to, or whatever.  How do I seek permission then?

  -- 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
