




Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 22:05:19 -0400 (AST)
From: Jean Villemaire <boyer@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Access to the Origami USA web page?

Bernie Cosell wrote:
>
> Has anyone had trouble accessing the OUSA web page.  I have it bookmarked
> at http://www2.gsu.edu/~gs01yyj/ousa/ousa.html and when I try to access it
> I get:
>
>       Forbidden
>
> Your client is not allowed to access the requested object.
>
> ???

I got the same message.  Would there be a relation with the withdrawl Yoshi
Joran's page?  Wasn't it him who also kept OUSA page going?

Jean Villemaire, Montreal, Quebec
mailto: boyer@videotron.ca





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 22:27:37 -0400 (AST)
From: cathypl@generation.net (Cathy Palmer-Lister)
Subject: Re: Another Origami Sighting!

>        OH, and BTW -- note the invisible sig line...  ;-)
>
>                                                -- Jerry
>
Gee...I sortta miss it....

                                                                        Cathy





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 22:23:09 -0400 (AST)
From: Jean Villemaire <boyer@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Please Forgive My Unexcusable Behavior

Milton W. Sorensen wrote:
>
> Ms. Mosely ---
>
> Please forgive my inexcusable behavior.  I did in fact save the
> instructions for removing my name from the list server, and I have carried
> them out on several occasions, but to no avail.  In a fit of temper, I
> said some things that I now sincerely regret.  It's too late to take those
> things back, but I am very sorry nonetheless.
>
> I apologize for insulting you and your craft.  Origami isn't something
> that I find particulary interesting, but that gives me no right to
> disparage it or anyone who is interested in it.  I want to remove my name
> from this list server, but I realize that the server exists for a reason,
> namely that there are so many people like you who do have an interest in
> it.
>
> Once again, please accept my heartfelt apologies for my uncouth behavior.
> It was certainly uncalled for.
>
> Milton

Well now, he's a nice butterfly...

Jean





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:14:43 -0400 (AST)
From: slider@ims.mariposa.ca.us (Pat Slider)
Subject: Re: Folding Papyrus

>I don't think the Romans had paper, but we should bear in mind that paper is
>only a particular kind of felted material and it is conceivable that in Roman
>times there was some such material that history has not recorded and that has
>perished before the archaeologists could get their hands on it.

The Romans originally wrote on palm leaves and the inner bark of trees
(called "liber", which later became their word for book). But by Caesar's
time a well-educated and wealthy Patrician had a treasured collection of
papyri scrolls. (Such a library has been found at Herculaneum!) A long
piece of papyrus would be stretched between two sticks, one for storing the
text and the other for taking up the paper as you read.

I don't think the Romans ever manufactured papyrus themselves, but they at
least imported it from Egypt.

pat slider
slider@yosemite.net

A room without books is like a body without a soul." --Cicero





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 22:32:08 -0400 (AST)
From: Martha Mitchen <afolder@avana.net>
Subject: Re: Folding Papyrus & Oridoughy

Joseph Wu wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Jack & Emma Craib wrote:
>
> =I just remembered!! I've got a sheet of new papyrus at work...I'll try
> =to fold something Monday if I can dig it out of my unfiles.  It's
> =killing me that this idea came up today, Friday.  Does anyone do filo
> =dough edible origami or something like that?  oridoughy?  TGIF...Emma
>
> Oripastry, perhaps? Yamaguchi has done some dough folding. He folded
> vegetables out of coloured dough, and boiled them. There was an article
> about it in one of the issues of Oru magazine.
> Hi all,

I've been lurking for about three weeks now.  Thought I'd finally chime in.
Several years ago, Joanne Ortman
brought to what was then an FOCA convention, some egg roll wrappers which
she had folded into cranes and then
deep fried.  I imagine they were edible, but I'm not sure anyone ate them.

Martha Mitchen





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:36:39 -0400 (AST)
From: Jack & Emma Craib <gearhead@snet.net>
Subject: Re: Folding Papyrus & Oridoughy

I just remembered!! I've got a sheet of new papyrus at work...I'll try
to fold something Monday if I can dig it out of my unfiles.  It's
killing me that this idea came up today, Friday.  Does anyone do filo
dough edible origami or something like that?  oridoughy?  TGIF...Emma





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 12:37:47 -0400 (AST)
From: "Bernie Cosell" <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Subject: Access to the Origami USA web page?

Has anyone had trouble accessing the OUSA web page.  I have it bookmarked
at http://www2.gsu.edu/~gs01yyj/ousa/ousa.html and when I try to access it
I get:

      Forbidden

Your client is not allowed to access the requested object.

???
  /Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com            Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:48:26 -0400 (AST)
From: Jeannine Mosely <j9@concentra.com>
Subject: Re: Menger's Sponge web page

Maarten,

Your cardhouse is cool.  But you should be standing inside it!  It
certainly looks like you'll fit.

I don't think I mention this is my web page, but when the sponge is
finished, its central interior column will large enough for an average
sized person to stand inside.  I intend to build a special table to
hold the sponge that will have a square hole in the middle, so that
you can crawl under it and stand up inside.  This may actually be
necessary for the final assembly.

        -- Jeannine





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 22:21:23 -0400 (AST)
From: Jean Villemaire <boyer@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: adios for a time amigos

Milton W. Sorensen wrote:
>
> TAKE ME THE HELL OFF OF YOUR STUPID ORIGAMI LIST.  I COULDN'T GIVE A RAT'S
> ASS ABOUT ORIGAMI.  I THINK YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF LOSERS WHO ARE IN
> SERIOUS NEED OF A CLUE.  YOU GUYS ARE DRIVING ME NUTS.  I COULDN'T REALLY
> CARE LESS ABOUT ANY OF YOUR ORIGAMI BULLSHIT.  SO TAKE ME OFF YOUR STUPID
> LIST.

Hey, guys,

Let him collapse under our origami bullshit: he will get flat and we will
then be able to fold him into a cute butterfly... :-)

Jean Villemaire,
Montreal, Quebec





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 00:42:28 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Eric Joisel's faces

I've put a single photo up on my origami page (front page) of two of M.
Joisel's faces. More will follow as time (and a finicky scanner here at
work) allows. I wanted to make sure that at least one was up since so many
people have heard about the faces here, but few have actually seen them.

          Joseph Wu           Faith: When you have come to the end of all the
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   light that you know and need to step into the
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  darkness of the unknown, Faith is knowing that
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami one of two things will happen: either there will
 Webmaster, DATT Japan Inc.   be something solid to stand on or you will be
    http://www.datt.co.jp     taught how to fly.                --Anonymous





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:52:51 -0400 (AST)
From: Contractors Exchange <contract@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Access to the Origami USA web page?

At 12:37 PM 11/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Has anyone had trouble accessing the OUSA web page.  I have it bookmarked
>at http://www2.gsu.edu/~gs01yyj/ousa/ousa.html and when I try to access it
>I get:
>
>      Forbidden
>
>Your client is not allowed to access the requested object.

You are accessing a subdirectory of Yusri's old web page, which is now
defunct (I do not have his new address). That was a temporary page for
Origami USA anyway; a more robust page is being developed currently.

Marc





Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:41:40 -0400 (AST)
From: John Smith <jon.pure@paston.co.uk>
Subject: Paper Music.( A bit long)

Paul Jackson has let me have the following account of his Paper Music.

Paper Music

The Paper Music "Cabaret" seen/heard in Charlotte was an extract from a 40
minute piece commissioned by The Maltings Arts centre, St. Albans, England
in 1991. The origins of Paper Music (P.M.), go back to 1978 when as a
student of Fine Art, my moving sculptures began to make sounds, then the
sounds were extracted from the sculpture to be performed as music by musicians.

The original P.M. "movement" was The "Bangers", performed at many
Performance and sound-sculpture events 1978-81, then retired. It led to my
participation in a lot of experimental music and sound theatre events,
1979-1985, an interest which lapsed due to my increasing professional
involvement with origami.

The full 40 minute piece is in a series of movements, improvised by 4
well-rehearsed musicians:
1) "Clicks" - made from the 1-crease business card snapping jaws, at various
sizes, plus my "Pecking Woodpecker" model. The effect is very percussive.

2) "Whirl"- paper/card, whirled around on the ends of long threads. The
effect is like wind through trees, or across a moor.

3) "Buzz"- paper buzzers of various lengths (from 5 cms. to 2 m), pitches
and timbres.

4) "Screech" - loud, comic screeching noises using paper or waxed card as
vibrating reeds.

5) "Cage" - 2 piano pieces by John Cage, played with some of the string
sounds changed by putting paper/card into the piano.

6) "Fluxus" - a composition by the 60's art group Fluxus using the sounds
made by tearing, crumpling, rattling, and banging paper up against a mic.

7) "Wobble" - played at Charlotte. Gentle sounds made by vibrating card,
cardboard and paper.

8) "Bangers" - also played at Charlotte. Paper "Bangers" from 10 cms. to 3
m. fired off as a kind of conversation.

A dreadful sound recording exists of the full piece, featuring a talkative 3
year old sat next to a mic. ! The piece requires a large space to be
performed and what begins as a neat arrangement of instruments ends in a
total chaos of mounds of torn paper.

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





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:18:14 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: address to send the paper cranes (fwd) [Taiwan Make-A-Wish]

Here's the latest installment in the Taiwan Make-A-Wish paper cranes
event.

          Joseph Wu           Faith: When you have come to the end of all the
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   light that you know and need to step into the
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  darkness of the unknown, Faith is knowing that
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami one of two things will happen: either there will
 Webmaster, DATT Japan Inc.   be something solid to stand on or you will be
    http://www.datt.co.jp     taught how to fly.                --Anonymous

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Just finished the meeting with the sponsor of the coming paper cranes event
on behalf of Make-A-Wish Taipei.  For future counting purpose, please put
the paper cranes in any bag and specify the number of cranes in each bag.
The sponsor of the event, 7-11 stores of Taiwan, agree with Make-A-Wish
Taipei that some of the paper cranes collected will be shipped to the
Hiroshima Memorial Park and the Seattle Peace Park after the event is over.
We hope that this message, through your kind help, will reach all those
interested to get involved from all corners of the globe.  The address:
        Make-A-Wish Taipei
        #283, Sung Chiang Road, 4th Fl.
        Taipei, Taiwan.





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:22:55 -0400 (AST)
From: Laurie Bisman <lbisman@sirranet.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Folding Papyrus & Oridoughy

When I fold it's called Lorigami. We all know who folds Dorigami too!

Laurie Bisman
lbisman@sirranet.co.nz





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:27:25 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Paper Music.

I mentioned to Paul Jackson that he should do a piece featuring those
bangers and also some crackling noises made by crumpling paper. The
suggested title was "Bangers and Mash".

[Yes, Paul tried to hit me when I said that, and I don't blame him! Bad
joke, but I couldn't resist! For those who don't get it, "bangers and
mash" is the name of a simple English dish consisting of sausages
(bangers) and mash (mashed potatoes).]

8)

          Joseph Wu           Faith: When you have come to the end of all the
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   light that you know and need to step into the
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  darkness of the unknown, Faith is knowing that
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami one of two things will happen: either there will
 Webmaster, DATT Japan Inc.   be something solid to stand on or you will be
    http://www.datt.co.jp     taught how to fly.                --Anonymous





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:31:47 -0400 (AST)
From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@empnet.com>
Subject: To Digest or Not Digest

I recently changed my e-mail from the origami list to digest format.  For
those of you who are annoyed by receiving multitudinous mail postings I can
heartily recommend the digest.

For me however, I find that I prefer the former method; I like to be able to
delete the specific mail items I am not interested in (or lately those that
are in a language in which I am not conversant).  So...

How do I switch back...?

"Origami: Welcome to the Fold!"

Steve Woodmansee,
stevew@empnet.com





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:59:36 -0400 (AST)
From: Marcia Mau <marcia.mau@pressroom.com>
Subject: Origami books and jewelry

The Japanese American National Museum, Los Angeles, California catalog
arrived this week.  Origami related merchandise includes:

14K Gold crane pendants and charms in 4 styles, ranging in price from $60 to
$150

A rubber stamp kit of 7 stamps, one of which is a crane for $30

12 page Origami books with 15 sheets of paper, Vols 1, 2, 3 at $4.95 each

Math in Motion:  Origami in the Classroom by Barbara Pearl at $19.95

Money Folding by Florence Temko and V'Ann Cornelius at $5.95

Orders:  Toll Free 1-800-461-5266 Tuesday thru Sunday 10AM - 5PM Pacific Time
         FAX 213-625-1770 24 hours a day, Visa, MC, Am EX only
         Shipping and handling charges are based on the total $ amount of
the order
Marcia Mau
marcia.mau@pressroom.com





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:52:14 -0400 (AST)
From: zachary brown <zbrown@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
Subject: Philosophy of diagramming

Recently someone said that various origami artists get offended when
asked to diagram their work, because there is no way that diagrams can
capture what was put into the model. These people, I think, tend to be
followers of Yoshizawa, as I am.

I believe that the purpose of diagrams is *not* to capture artistic
beauty in anything but the logic behind the folds. In other words, I'm
sure many people have cried over the photograph of the gorilla in
_Origami_Museum_I:_Animals_. How many of us have cursed our own hands as
we produced failure after failure? And yet the diagrams are simply, a
water-bomb base with the back flaps folded a couple times, and the front
flaps folded a couple times, and the top point bent down and squashed. It
would be rated "simple" at any convention. What Yoshizawa has done is
merely presented us with the *opportunity* to make an artistic effort
ourselves. He does not attempt to diagram a method of achieving the model
in the photograph, because the photograph is only one attempt at folding
it. Another attempt would have a completely different personality, an
entirely different soul behind those eyes.

It is the same with his sitting dog in _Dokuhon_II_ (and most of his other
models, for that matter). He is not attempting to make us make beauty, he
is only giving us the opportunity, by presenting us with a framework.

*That*, is what diagrams are, in my opinion. A framework from which we can
diverge in infinitely different ways. And *that*, is why it is so
important that these same people who are reluctant to diagram, should
overcome their reluctance. Kawahata's _Origami_Fantasy_, Engel's
_Folding_The_Universe_, and so many others, are fine books, but they do
not give the opportunity to create art. If you struggle with that
stegosaurus, fold it very carefully, several times to get good, you will
be able to produce a lifelike stegosaurus, but it will be the *same*
stegosaurus each time. These models are wonderful to see, and they are
excellent practice for keeping up the various skills of folding, but they
have no artistic spirit. Put any of those models next to a Yoshizawa
rabbit (folded by anyone!), and you will see a rabbit playing with a lump
of paper.

Also in _Dokuhon_II_ (one of the great origami books), he gives several
versions of masks. I admit I don't understand why he gives so many (about
five or six), because one of them is so simple and so versatile that it
can be used to great effect, to make portraits of your friends (or
horrible frightening monsters). If you look at the diagrams, Yoshizawa
presents a very conservative model, nothing fancy: hair, eyes, nose,
mouth, ears. There is no life in it except a kind of emptiness. But when
you look at the photograph on the facing page, of about thirty faces all
made from this model, each one an amazing and beautiful achievement, each
one completely different from the others, you look back at the diagrams
and you yell, "YES!!!" And then you lift your head and notice the teacher
and the rest of the class staring at you. -- but that's a different story.

Yoshizawa's models are so powerful they get away from you. The first
several times I tried to fold his giraffe I ended up with a monstrous
thing. He really gives you enough rope to hang yourself. One of his
penguins from another book does not look like anything to scream about.
True, the photograph looks a bit more realistic than some others, but when
you look at the diagrams you just see a modified bird base -- just a few
folds.  Like most of his models, the diagrams fit on a single page. I
passed over that model for years. Then one day I started to fold it, and
after the first initial folds, a strange energy began to build in me, a
strange force as I realized that each fold -- each fold! -- was almost a
miracle.  This was no little penguin to be passed over. I watched as it
came alive in my hands, rounded itself into three dimensions and became
something I couldn't have imagined. It was as if Yoshizawa were speaking
to me directly, to my own creativity, it was as if he knew what I was
capable of, and was pushing me just a little bit farther. I think that
must be a feeling a lot of Yoshizawa followers often have.

But the point is, these models *can* be diagrammed, if you understand what
the purpose of diagrams really is. None of us will ever be able to fold
Michael LaFosse's bat. When I first saw that thing, I thought it was not
only real, it was dangerous. Why was it sitting so still behind that glass
case? I looked into its eyes and saw -- well, the closest approximation
would be, an enemy. And Michael is right to say that he can't diagram such
things. But such things are not meant to be diagrammed. The point is not
to make us able to make a bat that has such life. The point is to make us
able to *make ourselves* make such a bat. The point is to lay down the
framework. A model has a certain number of limbs in certain places. It
draws its details from certain ideas and ways. Just give us that much and
let us do the rest.

I often tell anyone who will listen, that each Yoshizawa diagram is a work
of art. Not the diagrams of a model, taken as a group, but each individual
drawing. It's like reading a poem. As you understand more, details come to
the foreground and open up into worlds of meaning. And yet nothing is
forced on you. The deeper your understanding, the more new understanding
breaks upon you; the more shallow your understanding, the more you are
left to follow what understanding you have.

I get very discouraged when I hear creators of beautiful models being
reluctant to diagram. Of course it's up to them and I'm not saying I'd
like to chain them to a drawing table, but I would like to say that I
think they may have misunderstood what diagrams are all about. They are
not about the finished product. They are not even about the model you have
folded. They are an art unto themselves. They are the art of giving a
boost to others, to let them participate in the art of folding, to let
them take your model away from you and make it their own.

Zack





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:10:21 -0400 (AST)
From: Mark Morden <marmonk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Shared and Artistic Origami (SHORT!)

At 04:08 PM 11/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>      You know, it all really comes down to your own personal
>>definition of what art is.
>
>You mean as in the "eye of the beholder" :->?
>
>I have a very short and broad definition of art. Art is any creation that
>expresses something of the creator.

Frank Zappa expressed this definition of art in a different manner:

        "The most important thing in art is _The Frame_.  For painting:
literally; for other arts: figuratively-- because, without this humble
appliance, you can't know where _The Art_ stops and _The Real World_ begins.
        You have to but a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that
sh*t on the wall?
        If John Cage, for instance, says, 'I'm putting a contact microphone
on my throat, and I'm going to drink carrot jucie, and that's my
composition,' then his gurgling qualifies as his composition because he put
a frame around it and said so. 'Take it or leave it, I now will this to be
music.'  After that it is a matter of taste.  Without the
frame-as-announced, it's a guy swallowing carrot juice.
-----------------------
Applying this view to origami: if someone folds a model (no matter how
complex or simple) and says "This is my Art," then they have created art.
Our liking the model or not liking it does not effect that it is art if the
creator has stated that was the intention.   Something else to keep in mind:
not all art has to or is going to be exquisite.  It is possible to create
bad art; but it can still be art if the creator says that is what it is.

Perhaps this can be boiled down to a definition of art as the "stated
expression of oneself."

Mark

Mark Morden == marmonk@mail.eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~marmonk/
--------------------------------------------------------
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun
has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it
I see everything else.
                       C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 13:50:35 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Diagramming and the Art of Origami.

I should like to say how important I find Zach's contribution on the
Philosophy of Diagramming dated 2nd November .I would quibble with his title
of the "Philosophy of Diagramming". I think "The Philosophy of Origami Art"
would be more appropriate.

This is Yoshizawa's Philosophy of Origami, too. He always insists that
Origami is much more than the diagrams, much more than geomety. It is not
sufficient merely to follow the bald instructions. It is necessary to get
into an animal, to understand its shape, the way it moves, its very nature.
That is why he is so impatient with those folders who are only interested in
the geometry of their models and why he spends so much of his time trying to
impart to his pupils the "Spirit"of Origami.

We all tend to ask for reference points when we are attending a paperfolding
class. But the greatest origami doesn't have reference points. Reference
points scarcely existed for Eric Kenneway, and they don't exist for
Yoshizawa. One of the first Yoshizawa models I tried to fold was his swallow.
It looked so elegant in the drawing and so simple from the diagram. But I
wholy failed to fold it. The reason was, becausei it required Art to fold it
and I had no art in me.

Origami has been described as a performing art. By this, it is usually meant
that much of the enjoyment of paperfolding comes from the actual process of
folding the model rather than from the completed model when it stands beofre
you as a piece of sculpture.

But "Performing Art" means something more. It means the Art of Performing.
The best analogy is music. The notes written on the sheet of music are very
far from the accomplished performance. Even a moderate interpretation
requires the performer to add to the notes his own art. For a really great
performance, the soloist must be as great an artist as the original composer.
Great performers are few and far between. Most perform their own creations,
like Yoshizawa, David brill and Michael LaFosse and a very few others.

This does not mean to say that the study of the geometry of paperfolding is
not important. It is. But it is something very different from art.

By chance, the letter forllowing Zack's was Mark Morden's in response to Pat
Slider. Pat Slider had given her definition of art as "Any creation that
expresses something of the creator". Mark gave another facet of the
definition of art, when he quoted Frank Zappa' definition of art as
"something put within a frame", in other words something intended by the
artist to be art .Linking the two definitions, the key factors in art are the
"Something of the Artist" and the "Intention of the Artist". Without either
of these factors  it is not art.

Notice two things. First, art does depend on beauty. (At least, not beauty in
the conventional sense; but there are many possible definitions of beauty
which extend it beyond the conventional.)  Second, as Mark said, the fact
that something is art does not mean that it is great or even good art. Great
art still needs a Mozart, a Keats, a Monet or a Yoshizawa But, while some of
us may never achieve it,  we can all aspire to good art, provided that we do
not confuse Art with copying or mere execution.

I commend Pat's and Mark's and Zack's contributions, so different from each
other,  for careful comparison and study.

David Lister

Grimsby, England

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 19:53:20 -0400 (AST)
From: LKRIEGS@aol.com
Subject: Re: Marc K's Enterprise

Ditto!  My son's birthday is 7/18 and I'm waiting for the Klingon Bird of
Prey diagram;  it would be great to get the Enterprise also.  In addition to
folding anything he can get his hands on, my son is also an avid
"Trekkie"(sp?). Thanks for any help!

Lisa Krieger





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 22:25:34 -0400 (AST)
From: Steve Nielsen <nielsen@tc1.sims.nrc.ca>
Subject: Origami_Sighting

In the October 19th issue of  The Economist  on page 25,
Northwest/KLM airlines advertise their World Business
Class service between Japan and the U.S.

The route to the U.S. is represented by a line ending
with a red traditional crane.

        Steve Nielsen
        Toronto, Canada





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 22:45:40 -0400 (AST)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Marc K's Enterprise

At 07:53 PM 11/2/96 -0400, LKRIEGS@aol.com wrote:
>Ditto!  My son's birthday is 7/18 and I'm waiting for the Klingon Bird of
>Prey diagram;  it would be great to get the Enterprise also.  In addition to
>folding anything he can get his hands on, my son is also an avid
>"Trekkie"(sp?). Thanks for any help!

I missed the original post on this (I was thrown off the list apparently).
If you were wondering where the diagrams for my *Enterprise* model are, they
can be found at the ftp.rug.nl FTP site, in the /origami/models.bin directory.

Marc





Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:46:36 -0400 (AST)
From: Pat Slider <slider@ims.mariposa.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Art

>Notice two things. First, art does depend on beauty. (At least, not beauty in
>the conventional sense; but there are many possible definitions of beauty
>which extend it beyond the conventional.)

When I read this this morning, I agreed....But later today I started to
think of various works of art that that I myself would not call beautiful
(but maybe someone else would?) even though I appreciate them; i.e.,
Hieronymus Bosch paintings, Picasso's cubist work, Warhol's Campbell soup
cans, and especially gargoyles (the uglier the better!). So, for the most
part, although I would admit that I would prefer something beautiful in my
own house, I do think that "art" can be ugly too. Would you say that
Maekawa's demon was beautiful?

pat slider
slider@yosemite.net





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:36:01 -0400 (AST)
From: chall@scsn.net (Carol Hall)
Subject: "Pretender" paper theme

The TV show "The Pretender" seems to have a continuing paper theme.  This
was the show which had Steve Matheson's origami featured in the first show.
Since then, paper airplanes were a sort of unfeatured theme on one show, and
tonight's episode had paper clocks.

Anyone know the story behind the scene on this?  Steve, can you shed any light?

Carol Hall
chall@scsn.net





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:39:25 -0400 (AST)
From: Steven Casey <scasey@enternet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Diagramming and the Art of Origami. (long)

David Lister wrote:
<snip>
>
>This is Yoshizawa's Philosophy of Origami, too. He always insists that
>Origami is much more than the diagrams, much more than geomety. It is not
>sufficient merely to follow the bald instructions. It is necessary to get
>into an animal, to understand its shape, the way it moves, its very nature.
>That is why he is so impatient with those folders who are only interested in
>the geometry of their models and why he spends so much of his time trying to
>impart to his pupils the "Spirit"of Origami.
>
>We all tend to ask for reference points when we are attending a paperfolding
>class. But the greatest origami doesn't have reference points. Reference
>points scarcely existed for Eric Kenneway, and they don't exist for
>Yoshizawa. One of the first Yoshizawa models I tried to fold was his swallow.
>It looked so elegant in the drawing and so simple from the diagram. But I
>wholy failed to fold it. The reason was, becausei it required Art to fold it
>and I had no art in me.

>Origami has been described as a performing art. By this, it is usually meant
>that much of the enjoyment of paperfolding comes from the actual process of
>folding the model rather than from the completed model when it stands beofre
>you as a piece of sculpture.
>
>But "Performing Art" means something more. It means the Art of Performing.
>The best analogy is music. The notes written on the sheet of music are very
>far from the accomplished performance. Even a moderate interpretation
>requires the performer to add to the notes his own art. For a really great
>performance, the soloist must be as great an artist as the original composer.
>Great performers are few and far between. Most perform their own creations,
>like Yoshizawa, David brill and Michael LaFosse and a very few others.
>
>This does not mean to say that the study of the geometry of paperfolding is
>not important. It is. But it is something very different from art.
>
>By chance, the letter forllowing Zack's was Mark Morden's in response to Pat
>Slider. Pat Slider had given her definition of art as "Any creation that
>expresses something of the creator". Mark gave another facet of the
>definition of art, when he quoted Frank Zappa' definition of art as
>"something put within a frame", in other words something intended by the
>artist to be art .Linking the two definitions, the key factors in art are the
>"Something of the Artist" and the "Intention of the Artist". Without either
>of these factors  it is not art.
>
>Notice two things. First, art does depend on beauty. (At least, not beauty in
>the conventional sense; but there are many possible definitions of beauty
>which extend it beyond the conventional.)  Second, as Mark said, the fact
>that something is art does not mean that it is great or even good art. Great
>art still needs a Mozart, a Keats, a Monet or a Yoshizawa But, while some of
>us may never achieve it,  we can all aspire to good art, provided that we do
>not confuse Art with copying or mere execution.
>
>I commend Pat's and Mark's and Zack's contributions, so different from each
>other,  for careful comparison and study.
>
>David Lister
>
>Grimsby, England
>
>DLister891@AOL.com

Hello David,

I have enjoyed your captivating contributions to Origami-l very much. The
piece on the butterfly ball and Gerson Legman were very enjoyable. Your
comments on Yoshizawa, articulated  what I was trying to say. I would like
to comment on a few points you made about Yoshizawa's artistry and
performance art and art definitions.

Yoshizawa's view that "origami is much more than diagrams or geometry" seems
to reflect on the way origami is presented in a majority of today's origami
books.
Very little hint is given about the subtleties involved in finishing an
origami model or how to allow for fudge factors. And factors like correct
choice of paper are often ignored as are colour, texture and weight. Very
little suggestions are given to foster the creative spark needed to develop
the artists eye. In some books there is barely a hint of a hand. And another
common failing is the omission of the placement and movement of fingers.  I
know of no books that have set out to explain how to fold in the air all the
current techniques.

Good examples do exist however. Examples are books by Gay Merrill Gross,
Paul Jackson, and Steve and Megumi Biddle. In "New Ideas for Paperfolding" ,
folders are encouraged to   "Experiment with models in this book to see what
variations you can discover or just take a piece of paper in your hands and
fold it randomly (a paper doodle) and see what happens".    Recommendations
are given about weight and size for each project. Precise landmarks are not
always given but good verbal instructions complement the drawings. Fingers
are drawn every now and then, and add warmth to the diagrams.

In Paul Jacksons books there is an emphasis on the way basic folds should be
performed, which provides the ground work for tackling more advanced
folding. Some of these ideas have found there way into more technical
origami books. In Robert Langs "Paper Animals" there is the following
suggestion, "It is usually easier to fold a point or edge from the bottom
upward as shown above". Also "you can rotate the paper so that the direction
of the fold is upward". An example of how our perception  of origami and its
procedures is changing with time.

In respect to performance art, if you think about the definition of a
*performance*  being , to carry into effect, to accomplish, execute or
present, then origami certainly fits that description. However few of us
actually *present* origami, we do it for our own enjoyment. But I can think
of a few examples where origami was presented to an audience. Robert Harbin
, Michael Shall, Steven Biddel, Toki Yenn have presented origami in an
entertaining way. Robert Harbin the Showman, Michael Shall the consummate
Professional, Steven Biddle the entertainer, Toki Yenn entertaining and
humorous. Paul Jackson has also used banger to create a performance but this
was more a use for origami, than enjoyment of watching people with skills in
origami.

Now onto art. People will never agree on what art is, just as beauty (which
you state art depends on) is in the eye of the beholder, so to is art. As
defined in some dictionaries, here is a brief summary: " art is *skill*
applied to imitation and design eg: in painting etc., demanding mind and
imagination.".  With this in mind, when I look at Yoshizawa's work  I can
see how outstanding his work is, there is *skill* in what he does. The
quality of his work is *Noticeable*. This also applies equally to the works
of Robert Lang and many others. But not to everyone.

Another folder I can think of who produces diagrams as merely a guide to
what they do is Max Hulme. Of Max Hulme the following was written, "While
folding Max constantly and almost unconsciously adjusts previously made
folds until they please his eye..".

Once again thank you for you thought provoking pieces. I have a question,
sometime back you were participating in supplying material for an updated
version of "Secrets of Origami" to be published, is that still a possibility?.

Steven Casey
Melbourne, Australia
scasey@enternet.com.au

ps: humble apologies to the list about the length of this posting.





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:54:57 -0400 (AST)
From: Richard of Foong <ryf@ecr.mu.oz.au>
Subject: Re: adios for a time amigos

> Milton W. Sorensen wrote:
> >
> > TAKE ME THE HELL OFF OF YOUR STUPID ORIGAMI LIST.  I COULDN'T GIVE A RAT'S
> > ASS ABOUT ORIGAMI.  I THINK YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF LOSERS WHO ARE IN
> > SERIOUS NEED OF A CLUE.  YOU GUYS ARE DRIVING ME NUTS.  I COULDN'T REALLY
> > CARE LESS ABOUT ANY OF YOUR ORIGAMI BULLSHIT.  SO TAKE ME OFF YOUR STUPID
> > LIST.

I can't understand why he wanted to be on this list in the first place...
I think he was trying to make us listen... I guess he did.

Richard Foong
Melb, Australia.





Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 02:10:09 -0500
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Shared and Artistic Origami

At 12:35 AM 11/1/96 -0400, hull@MATH.URI.EDU wrote:
>Joseph Wu wrote (quoting Janet Hamilton),
>
>> =Which leads to a question - did any of the discussion at the SEOF address
>> =modular origami?  IMHO, the models on Valerie Vann's modular pages are
>> =art as mush as LaFosse's Toucan.
>>
>> Nope. We didn't talk specifically about it, but I don't think that was a
>> deliberate slight of modular origami. It's just that the people at the
>> table weren't modular folders, so the topic didn't come up.
>
>	Excuse me, Joseph, but I was there, remember?  No, the specific
>topic of modulars didn't come up, and I didn't bring it up because
>I knew what Jackson would have said: "That's not art."  However,
>the topic of geometric origami did come up, and modular stuff
>can be said to fit into that.  But my impression as to what LaFosse and
>Jackson were saying was that such work is interesting, but easily
>reproducible and thus fits into the "paint by numbers" realm of "art".
>For example, I remember that one of Joseph's models was on the table
>in front of us - a section of his in-progress dragon, which was
>a great dragon head with a wildly scaled neck (done with a clever
>tessellation fold).  At severl points in the conversation I remember
>Paul Jackson picking up the model and commenting that it, for example,
>was a wonderful model, but was more of an excercise, not a finished
>work of art, etc. etc.

I think this is a case of confusing craftmanship with artistry. These two
hard to define words work hand in hand. I have always felt *craftmanship*
is the technical essence of any man-made work. A craftsman will sometime
produce something that might be generally regarded as aesthiticly pleasing
or profound. Such works are often regarded as *art,* but it is not
necessarilly the artist who created it. It is the craftsman who acts as the
executor for the artist. When the craftsman makes the artistic decisions, I
would not hesitate to regard that person as an artist.

When a model displays an advanced display of craftsmanship (as Joseph Wu's
model apparently displayed), I do not see that as any reason to discount
the model's artistry. I have seen Joseph's other work, and it is crear he
can be quite expresive with paper as the medium. To achive that
expressiveness, he just had to resort to a repeating pattern of tessalations.

Getting to geometric origami, I do have a lot of mixed feeling about how
valid the whole genre is as an art form. As a craft, I have felt modular
origami is quite beutiful. However, in many cases, the creators of modular
origami are not really creating; they are executing a pre-existing
mathematical concept to be realized in paper. There is some element of
artistry (choice of paper and colours), but when we are dealing with a
textbook realization of a stellated n-gon, I feel that is a case of pure
crafstmanship. When pieces go beyond strict mathematical contraints, that
is when I would say artistry is displayed.

Tom, in your responce to Joseph, you never clearly stated what your
feeling are on strict geometric works. I would be curuous to here how other
practitioners of geometric models regard their work.

>	You know, it all really comes down to your own personal
>definition of what art is.  I strongly believe that "art" depends on
>how you look at things.  A chocolate chip cookie can be thought of as
>a "work of art", provided that you think of it in the right way.
>But a lot of people (artists, especially) don't like this definition
>because it implies that literally everything is art.  I agree!
>But Paul Jackson (at least how I understand him) won't stand for this
>because otherwise how would he define himself as an artist?  He needs
>to be very clear at to what is art and what isn't, if only to be
>able to define his profession.  (He told us how he had to do a LOT
>of arguing just to convince his artist colleagues that origami really
>is a "valid" artform, so of course he's going to have very strong
>opinions about what art is!)

I would think most bakers like to think their chocolate chip cookies are
works of art. I also think all objects have the potential of being art. I
have heard stories of people hearing clanking noises, and mistaking it to
be a brilliant percussion performance. I am not exactly suggesting one's
faulty radiator is a brillaint artist in disguise. Rather, I am giving a
different angle on what art is. With this example, the artist is really the
observer, as he is the one who is capable if hearing the art. Art is really
a two way communication between the creator and the observer. Granted, it
is a very inacurate means of communication (not too many people seem to
interpret pieces the same way), but at least for some of the better work
out there, they are universaly enjoyed.

To connect this to origami, I have found it interesting on how many people
create through doodling (in the recent Paul Jackson interview in Origami
USA's *The Paper,* Paul has revealed doodling as a creative technique).
Through doodling, one is acting as an artist through observation. It is
interesting to note that even though something as seemingly serendipitious
as doodling, there is often a consistency of syle when a particular arist
does it (further evidence there is an artist in the house).

Marc





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 05:19:46 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Art.    Important Correction.

Oh, Woe unto me! My gremlins have been at it again. I certainly need that
spray gun urgently!

Reading Pat Slider's reply to my contribution on the Philosophy of Origami
Art, this morning, 3rd Novermber, I realise that one of my sentences has been
completely reversed in meaning. It's the one reproduced by  Pat Slider at the
beginning of her comment.

I intended to write: "First Art does not  [repeat, NOT]  depend on beauty".
However, the word "Not" somehow fell off the computer screen and what reached
Origami-L was "First Art does depend on Beauty". Why does this system not let
me go back and make a correction before my gaffe goes down to posterity? What
chance is there of people reading my original contibution in conjuction with
this correction.Can I get it corrected before it reaches the archives/

Anyway, thatnk you very much Pat for your kind comment. I'm sorry that I
misled you and everyone else who may read my ccontribution.

David Lister

Grimsby, England.

D|Lister891@AOL.com





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 09:20:44 -0400 (AST)
From: Derek Stottlemyer <dereks@ic.net>
Subject: Re: Another Origami Sighting!

Joshua Kronengold wrote:
>
> Derek Stottlemyer writes:
> >Hello to all,
>    >    There is a game called "GURPS" (Generic Universal Role Playing System,
> >like Dungeons and Dragons), where one skill you (Your fictional
character) can
> >learn is Origami.  It even has a picture of a crane.
> What sourcebook?  I'd think that Origami wouldn't make a ma--oh,
> right.
>
> It's in Lee Gold's Gurps Japan, right?        No it's in one of the revised
     basic
game, I don't have the book, but it's
one of the basic ones.
        -Derek





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:34:14 -0400 (AST)
From: Pat Slider <slider@ims.mariposa.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Art.    Important Correction.

>Anyway, thatnk you very much Pat for your kind comment. I'm sorry that I
>misled you and everyone else who may read my ccontribution.

oh well. It was an interesting comment to think about nonetheless. Have to
admit there is less room for communication errors in email than in
conversations though. And no one can interrupt you :->.

Of course, what you do write can haunt you forever in the archives!

pat slider
slider@yosemite.net

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he
grows up" -- Pablo Picasso





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:50:06 -0400 (AST)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Tanteidan Membership?

Hi All! -

        I was just perusing the membership info at the Origami Tanteidan
web site, and I was struck by several things, and I hope someone here can
clear them up.  The info for joining says that current membership "for the
7th FY" is 2000 yen cash.  Well, I plugged into a web site with currency
exchange info, and learned that, at present, 1 US dollar = 114.05 yen.  A
little math shows that the 2000 yen membership fee translates to $17.54.

        Now, something tells me I'm missing something substantial here.
First of all, I assume that this is _not_ the fee for an overseas
membership (no such info is given).  Second, for what I've heard about the
Tanteidan's publications, this fee seems absurdly small (though, frankly,
I'd be ecstatic if it really _were_ just $17.54).  Thirdly, I don't even
know if OT _accepts_ non-Japan-based members (I can't see how it might
justify _not_ including them).

        So...does anyone out there (Joseph?  Marc?  Tom?) know more about
what is involved in joining this group?

        Thanks in advance!

                                                        -- Jerry





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 14:30:17 -0400 (AST)
From: Greg Cymbalist <ae565@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Marc K's Enterprise

> Ditto!  My son's birthday is 7/18 and I'm waiting for the Klingon Bird of
> Prey diagram;  it would be great to get the Enterprise also.  In addition to
> folding anything he can get his hands on, my son is also an avid
> "Trekkie"(sp?). Thanks for any help!
> Lisa Krieger

Can anyone remind me where to get the diagrams for the Enterprise? I
missed it somehow. Thanks.
Greg

|    Greg Cymbalist                                              |
| ae565@freenet.toronto.on.ca                                             |





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:53:09 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Robert Harbin: "Secrets of Origami".

At the end of his lonf comment dated 3rd, November, 1996, Steven Casey asked
whether the republication of Robert harbin's "Secrets of origami" was still a
possibility.

I am pleased to assure him that it is. I was myself surprised and delighted
to hear from Mick Guy a few weeks ago that a reprint by the Dover Press had
become a possibility and very recently, a new edition of this classic work
has been confirmed.

Mick Guy, as President of the BOS has written a preface to the new edition. I
have added an Introduction, saying something about Robert Harbin and how the
BOS comes to be presenting the new edition. I have also copiled a new
bibliography and added a short list of origami societies. The  book and the
new drafts are with Dover in New York  now, and I understand that everything
has been received very favourably.

Of course, there can be many a slip 'twixt the lip and the cup, and we do not
know what the editor assigned to the book will do. Subject to this, the
suggested publication date is next spring, although this seems a little
optimistic to me.

Let's hope that everything goes well. it's certainly something to look
forward to.

David Lister

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com.





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:52:41 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Art

Having now cleared my typologigcal blunder out of the way, (insofar as it can
ever be wholly eliminated), I can now reply to the substance of Pat Slider's

Pat has illustrated precisely what I mean by Art not being dependent on
Beauty. It was a confusion that was made, especially by academic painters
from the Renaissance to the 19th Century, until the invention of photographpy
supplanted the functions of representational art in recording accurate images
of people and things, and, indeed, in reproducing them in the most
"beautiful" way.

I agree that Bosch's, Picasso's and Warhol's paintings (even of Campbells'
soup cans!) and the gargoyles of an anonymous mediaeval stone carver are all
works of art. Whether they are beautiful depends upon one's definition of
"beauty".As I wrote, there is a conventional meaning to "beauty", which
conforms to what most people think of as beautiful. ("She is a beautiful
girl";" that was a beautiful sunset"; "that is a beautiful melody"). Some
people would extend the meaning of beauty (as well as "art") to include
gargoyles and Maekawa's Demon. But  I suspect that  if you extend the meaning
of "beauty" too much, it ends by being  merely another word for "art" and so
loses its value as a word having its own distinctive meaning.

Steven Casey has also commented at length, and I agree with what he says. As
a comment on the way authors of paperfolding books present origami, I can say
that I  have included books by Gay Merill Gross, Paul Jackson and the Biddles
in the very recently compiled Bibliography which I have written for the new
edition of "Secrets of Origami". (I have also included a number of other
books  - whether they will all get into the book will depend on the
ruthlessness of the editor.)

I have previously referred to Music as an anology of paperfolding. It is
possible for a composer to lace his script with words such as andante,
fortissimo, accellerando and the rest. Some composers try to be minutely
precise with their instructions, but in the end it is is all to little avail.
No music script can come near to explaining precisely how the music should
go, though words will help. It is the same with the origami diagrams of the
Yoshizawa "school". Yes, by all means let the creators of models indicate by
word, diagram and picture what they intend, but nobody should expect that
merely by following instructions enhanced in this way, they willarrive at a
model such as Yoshizwa or Brill could fold. That is where the artistry comes
in.

As I write this I realise that however we define the it, we use the word
"art" in many quite different ways, some only subtly different from each
other, some bearing little relationship. For instance, I have used the word
"artistry". The first word I wrote in that place, before I changed it to
"artistry" was "art" itself. It would not have been an incorrect usage..It is
the same with other words, not least, "beauty". Whatever prescriptive
lexicgraphers may seek to achieve by defining words, words will not be tied
down. Not even the Academie Francaise can achieve that.  My attempts to tie
down the meanings of "art"and "beauty" in my last contribution were not
intended to fix the definitions of the words for all time. They were merely
an attempt to find workable meanings that reflect informed usage of the words
in the present age and for our present purposes.

When all the fine words have died down, I am frankly surprised that our
humble recreation of folding paper brings us so quickly and so deeply into
the imponderables of the philosophy of aesthetics. Perhaps there is, after
all, something greater than ever we dared to imagine in our pastime of
Origami.

David Lister,

Grimsby, England.

DLister891.AOL.com





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 20:58:27 -0400 (AST)
From: "M. Schleicher P. Saalbach" <parkmaam@iac.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Tanteidan Membership?

At 01:50 PM 11/3/96 -0400, Jerry D. Harris wrote:
>Hi All! -
>
>        I was just perusing the membership info at the Origami Tanteidan
>web site, and I was struck by several things, and I hope someone here can
>clear them up.  The info for joining says that current membership "for the
>7th FY" is 2000 yen cash.  Well, I plugged into a web site with currency
>exchange info, and learned that, at present, 1 US dollar = 114.05 yen.  A
>little math shows that the 2000 yen membership fee translates to $17.54.
>
>        Now, something tells me I'm missing something substantial here.
>First of all, I assume that this is _not_ the fee for an overseas
>membership (no such info is given).  Second, for what I've heard about the
>Tanteidan's publications, this fee seems absurdly small (though, frankly,
>I'd be ecstatic if it really _were_ just $17.54).  Thirdly, I don't even
>know if OT _accepts_ non-Japan-based members (I can't see how it might
>justify _not_ including them).
>
>        So...does anyone out there (Joseph?  Marc?  Tom?) know more about
>what is involved in joining this group?

Hello, Jerry. Pamela here from Japan. Earlier this year, I brought this
issue up to the Origami Tanteidan group, as I was attempting to help them
with their web site. Apparently, it continues to be an issue, as does trying
to figure out how to get payment to them easily as an overseas subscriber. I
would suggest contacting Nakanishi-san who, at my last understanding, was
one of the page maintainers. His address from his last Origami-l message is:
        "Na. (NAKANISHI Ken-ichi)" <nakanish@pd.scei.sony.co.jp>

P.S. I miss your ascii signatures, too! :-(

Good luck!

Pamela Saalbach
E-mail: parkmaam@iac.co.jp
Home Page: http://www.iac.co.jp/~parkmaam/





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:03:33 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Nativity Scene (was Re: how I got started)

On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Karen Liebgott wrote:

=My current endeavor is to make a nativity scene, but I haven't found
=diagrams I like. I got Araki's "Origami for Christmas" from the library but
=it doesn't include Joseph.
=Any recommendations? I do have a used bookstore doing a book search for
=Harbin's "Secrets of Origami." I've never actually seen the book though. I
=noticed OUSA has "Presepe in Origami" (Nativity in Origami) and "Origami de
=Chrismas." I don't know if the latter has a nativity set but I presume it
=does, containing 40+ models! Anyone seen these books that can help me? I
=would consider myself an intermediate folder.

I would suggest "Presepe in Origami" which consists only of intermediate
models. As far as I remember, "Origami de Christmas" does not contain a
Nativity scene. There are also some good intermediate level shepherds and
sheep in Kasahara's "Creative Origami".

          Joseph Wu           Faith: When you have come to the end of all the
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   light that you know and need to step into the
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  darkness of the unknown, Faith is knowing that
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami one of two things will happen: either there will
 Webmaster, DATT Japan Inc.   be something solid to stand on or you will be
    http://www.datt.co.jp     taught how to fly.                --Anonymous





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:08:42 -0400 (AST)
From: Jean Villemaire <boyer@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Marc K's Enterprise

Greg Cymbalist wrote:
>
> > Ditto!  My son's birthday is 7/18 and I'm waiting for the Klingon Bird of
> > Prey diagram; it would be great to get the Enterprise also. In addition
> > to folding anything he can get his hands on, my son is also an avid
> > "Trekkie"(sp?). Thanks for any help!
> > Lisa Krieger
>
> Can anyone remind me where to get the diagrams for the Enterprise? I
> missed it somehow. Thanks.
> Greg
>
> |    Greg Cymbalist          |
> | ae565@freenet.toronto.on.c |

So, here it is:

        ftp://ftp.rug.nl/origami/models.bin/.menu.html

I've folded this incredible model.  Try it with foil-backed paper, a 24
in. square.  You'll end up with a 12 in. long ship.  Diagrams are from a
sketchbook that has been passed through scanner.  Writing is difficult to
read.  I had to save the six gif documents on my disk to be able to get a
complete print of each page.  But it's worth all the trouble.  Good luck.

BTW, I'm from Montreal.  Si tu viens a Montreal, essaie de contacter
quelqu'un du nouveau club Origami-Montreal.  It would be a pleasure to
have an hour or two of folding together.

Jean Villemaire, Montreal, Quebec
boyer@videotron.ca





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:04:26 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Philosophy of diagramming

On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, zachary brown wrote:

=Recently someone said that various origami artists get offended when
=asked to diagram their work, because there is no way that diagrams can
=capture what was put into the model. These people, I think, tend to be
=followers of Yoshizawa, as I am.

<additional explanation deleted>

=I get very discouraged when I hear creators of beautiful models being
=reluctant to diagram. Of course it's up to them and I'm not saying I'd
=like to chain them to a drawing table, but I would like to say that I
=think they may have misunderstood what diagrams are all about. They are
=not about the finished product. They are not even about the model you have
=folded. They are an art unto themselves. They are the art of giving a
=boost to others, to let them participate in the art of folding, to let
=them take your model away from you and make it their own.

Zack, thanks for your discourse on the philosophy of diagramming. You have
helped me to realize why I don't like to diagram. I've always said that I
was just too lazy to diagram, or that I prefer folding to diagramming.
But, if, as you assert, diagramming is an art in its own right, then I can
say that I have spent my energies developing my "artistic talents" in
origami, and have not spent the time or effort required to be a good
diagrammer. Nor do I desire to do so! The art of diagramming hold little
interest to me. I am a perfectionist (most of the time) and I seldom see,
much less produce, diagrams that satisfy me. I would much rather teach
someone how to fold something than to sit down and try to diagram it.

I would like to add something to your comments, though. Creators are not
the only ones to not think of diagrams in this way. Most paper folders do
not think of diagrams this way. Too many people want to "face the next
challenge", to be able to claim that they've made the next cool model, and
then discard it in favour of the next one after that. There is no "art" in
that, just self-gratification. I think that is the sort of attitude that
really perturbs some of the creators, and causes them to refuse to diagram
certain of their works. Too, there are some works that deserve to remain
unique, at least in the minds of their creators (but usually also in the
minds of others). We cannot begrudge them that.

          Joseph Wu           Faith: When you have come to the end of all the
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   light that you know and need to step into the
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  darkness of the unknown, Faith is knowing that
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami one of two things will happen: either there will
 Webmaster, DATT Japan Inc.   be something solid to stand on or you will be
    http://www.datt.co.jp     taught how to fly.                --Anonymous





Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:50:49 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: adios for a time amigos

Relax everybody!

Recently an "email bomber" subscribed thousands of
individuals ranging from the USA president to magazine
editors and plain folks at random to hundreds of maillists
each. It was enough to bring 2 of Compuserve's mail servers
to a crawl and make 3-4 day delays in mail delays in some
areas.

It is possible to subscribe someone to a mail list using
their address instead of yours. (In fact this is how
some kind souls occasionally get folks off this list when
all else fails; I don't know how its done personally, just
that it can be done; and I think the fewer folks who know
how, the better).

Anyway, I suspect some of the folks who "never wanted to be
subscribed in the first place" got put on the list in this
way, and don't know this is possible. Those lacking
in manners or possessed of short fuses or in a permanent
state of adolescence then assume its some sort of plot
by the origami-l and resort to flame mail...

--valerie
