




Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:18:22 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Non-Convex Paper

I think that the present discussion about the definition of Origami is
interesting and important in that it helps to focus our minds on what we mean
by "origami" and how it fits into the whole range of paper techniques. If I
have time, I may contribute some observations about this.

For the moment, I merely wish to add a limited note about folding from
non-convex paper, which has been equated with star-shaped paper (though I can
think of shapes of non-convex paper which are not stars in the ordinary sense
of the word.)

The 19th Century (c.1850) Japanese manuscript encyclopaedia, "Kayaragusa",
popularly known as the "Kan no mado", effectively uses star shapes for many
of its models. For instance, it will begin with a convex octagon and then cut
vertically inward towards the centre from the mid-point of each side.  The
raw cut edges are then folded back to the corners of the octagon to form an
eight-pointed star. The same technique is used in other models starting from
a square or hexagon to form four and six pointed stars.

A six-pointed star created in this way is used as the base for the famous Kan
no mado dragonfly that so intrigued folders in the 1950s. Only the second
part of the instructions were known (omitting the base) before the dicovery
of the copy of the Kan no mado in the Library of Congress in 1960.. Ligia
Montoya was the first to work out the base for the dragonfly and to complete
the folding of it.

In fact, these bases use more cutting than is necessary for the creation of
the preliminary star. The cut into each side of the respective polygons is
continued nearly to the centre of the paper, to give more freedom for folding
the arms of the star. This technique is applied in the dragonfly.

The Kan no mado was a private manuscript compilation  of knowledge, not
intended for publication. It is now thought that the paperfolding was derived
from the same school of paperfolding as produced the Senbazuru Orikata, which
was published as a printed book in 1797.

If this very important and ancient school of Japanese paperfolding could
employ such "illicit" techniques, who are we to say that "Origami"takes
flight at the first sight of a pair of scissors?

David Lister,

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:22:15 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Roberto Morassi.

I should like to extend a public welcome to Dr. Roberto Morassi who has
recently become a subscriber to Origami - L. Roberto lives at Pistoia in
Tuscany and is a professor of chemistry at the University of Florence.

Roberto has been a paperfolder for thirty years and has been a regular
visitor to conventions of the British Origami Society for over twenty years.
He began creating his own models about 1970, possibly the best-known of them
being his "Pearl in an Oyster". In 1978, Roberto was one of the leading
figures in the formation of the Centro Diffusione Origami, then based in
Florence.

Roberto is well-known for his "Origag" cartoons which used to appear in
"British Origami".One of his other interests is recreational mathematics, and
he has a huge collection of books on the subject. When he visits England,
much of his time is spent combing the bookshops for obscure books to add to
his collection.

I, for one, very much look forward to reading his contributions. Welcome,
Roberto!

David Lister,

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:12:33 -0400 (AST)
From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@empnet.com>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

At 10:40 AM 12/12/96 -0400, Doug Phillips wrote:

>I must admit I find such distinctions a bit hard to discern.  Paper, as a
>substance, has no specfic "shape" other than being substantially thin, and
>even that is pushing the definition of shape from 2-D to 3-D.  One must
>either "CUT" it to an initial shape for folding, or, create/form the paper
>in the desired initial shape.  To form paper with a definite edge requires a
>mold and deckle (or similiar technique) which is a boundary between which
>materials will be part of the piece of paper and which will not... a
>division, or, if you will, a cut, between the two groups.
>
It is of course true that paper does not naturally form itself into squares,
therefore the 'preferred' starting shape of a square in itself represents
cutting and conditioning the paper, no argument there.

However, applying this argument to other crafts and art forms I believe the
preference for square paper holds up.  For example, you can buy kits to make
decorative pillows or dolls or whatever.  Some of these come with the
pattern pieces already cut out and all the accessories included (buttons,
eyes, etc.).  I've always wondered what's the point of going to the trouble
of hand-crafting if everything is prepared to this extent.  IMHO, this is
similar to the pre-grated cheese, pre-mixed peanut butter and jelly, and
pre-made salads that disgrace the shelves of many supermarkets.

The square is the appropriate shape to begin with for me because it offers
no 'head starts'.  The excitement of Origami is that so much was
accomplished with so unyielding a shape to begin with.  If we start using
more favorable shapes to start with, where's the magic?  Why not just cut
out a silhouette of the desired shape and bend the paper in half?

Okay, so it's a little extreme.  But even though I've probably steam-rolled
everyone's toes, just remember this is only my little opinion.

                         ''~``
                        ( o o )
+------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.------------------+
|                                                     |
|          "Origami: Welcome to the Fold!"            |
|                Steve Woodmansee                     |
|              Bend, Oregon U.S.A.                    |
|                                                     |
|                    .oooO                            |
|                    (   )   Oooo.                    |





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:49:22 -0400 (AST)
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

{resuming advocate mode... -dwp]

In response to a message that I wrote questioning the square as ideal starting
shape for paper, Steve Woodmansee wrote:

+It is of course true that paper does not naturally form itself into squares,
+therefore the 'preferred' starting shape of a square in itself represents
+cutting and conditioning the paper, no argument there.

So far so good.

+The square is the appropriate shape to begin with for me because it offers
+no 'head starts'.  The excitement of Origami is that so much was
+accomplished with so unyielding a shape to begin with.  If we start using
+more favorable shapes to start with, where's the magic?  Why not just cut
+out a silhouette of the desired shape and bend the paper in half?

An interesting argument, but surely there are an infinite number of unyielding
shapes.  If we classify them into broad groups, there are probably dozens or
more.  If we are to choose the initial shape based on "unyielding"-ness, we
could do a lot better.  Hey, I know!  Why not start with a raw irregular piece
of paper that first has to be folded into a square?  Why cut the square?  Once
you start cutting, where _will_ it all end? ;-)

+Okay, so it's a little extreme.  But even though I've probably steam-rolled
+everyone's toes, just remember this is only my little opinion.

Semi-likewise.

There is clearly historicaly precident (right David Lister?) for starting
from a square, but there is also historical precident for cutting the paper
(thanks David Lister!).  It is interesting to me that one would be glorified
(the purity of the square) and the other denigrated (evil cutting!).

Surely even sticking with regular polygons, the equilateral triangle would be
more challenging/unyeilding to fold most models from!

>From a math standpoint, you'd probably want to pick a shape that tiles the
plane, so that you could minimize wasted paper.  If you stick to regular
shapes that tile the plane, what criteria favors squares over equilateral
triangles or hexagons?

-Doug





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:24:33 -0400 (AST)
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.COM>
Subject: Folding linked cranes (was Re: The Forms of Origami)

James Sakota, in reponse to Jerry D. Harris' message about classifying
"kinds" of origami, wrote:

+In addition to single piece of paper, modular origami, composite origami,
+there is an old book called Sembazuru Orikata, in which a piece of paper is
+cut into smaller squares, with connections among them, and traditional
+cranes are folded with each separate piece of square paper, making a string
+of cranes, which can be quite attractive.

Indeed they are attractive.  I am curious to ask those who have done this more
than the once or twice that I have:  When do you fold the cranes?  Before you
cut the squares, or after?  If before, how much precreasing do you do?  Is
part of the challenge of this technique to cut the paper first and then fold
each square without tearing the links?

I have been thinking of doing some "quilts" of bird-base based stars using
this technique (though whether I'll get the time before the holidays are out
or not...) and am curious to know if there is anyone else on the list doing,
or interested in, this stuff.

-Doug "I don't _HAVE_ to put a funny name here, but Tom _pays_ me to." Philips





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:15:57 -0400 (AST)
From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: Re: Folding linked cranes (was Re: The Forms of Origami)

>
>I have been thinking of doing some "quilts" of bird-base based stars using
>this technique (though whether I'll get the time before the holidays are out
>or not...) and am curious to know if there is anyone else on the list doing,
>or interested in, this stuff.

I believe Kenneway discusses chains of cranes in "Complete Origami". But
perhaps more helpful is Vol. III of Fuse's "Creative Life With Origami".
(This is twice in one week that I've mentioned this book :->.) It provides
diagrams for about five different crane groups. Perhaps after doing these
you could figure out how to do your quilt.

And then there is a Neal Elias model in Harbin's "Secrets of Origami" of a
stork carrying a baby. This is actually the traditional crane with an
attached 1/4 square for the baby. Funny, really.

pat slider
slider@stonecutter.com





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:24:13 -0400 (AST)
From: casida@ere.umontreal.ca (Casida Mark)
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

Hello,

If the argument has not yet been mentionned in this thread, it might
be worth mentionning:

"If a shape can be folded from a square piece of paper without cutting
but is too thick because of unused paper, then it is permissible to
cutaway the unused paper before folding, particularly if this results
in a simple starting shape such as (say) a 45 degree or equilateral triangle."

Although I prefer beginning from a square without cutting, I have found
folding models from other shapes to be interesting, and the above reasoning
seems to place a reasonable restriction on what shapes to permit.

                                ... Mark
--
*-------------------------------------------------------*
|          Mark E. Casida                               |
|          e-mail: casida@chimcn.umontreal.ca           |





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:13:31 -0400 (AST)
From: Brett Askinazi <brett@hagerhinge.com>

MarK,

Thats an interesting Quote, where did you find that?

It reminds me of the book ORIGAMI Animals by Hector Rojas.  Many of the
Models are precreased into a non convex shape and then finished into the
final animal shape.

Brett
askinazi@i1.net

----------
> From: Casida Mark <casida@ERE.UMontreal.CA>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <origami-l@nstn.ca>
> Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)
> Date: Friday, December 13, 1996 11:24 AM
>
> Hello,
>
> If the argument has not yet been mentionned in this thread, it might
> be worth mentionning:
>
> "If a shape can be folded from a square piece of paper without cutting
> but is too thick because of unused paper, then it is permissible to
> cutaway the unused paper before folding, particularly if this results
> in a simple starting shape such as (say) a 45 degree or equilateral
triangle."
>
> Although I prefer beginning from a square without cutting, I have found
> folding models from other shapes to be interesting, and the above
reasoning
> seems to place a reasonable restriction on what shapes to permit.
>
>                                 ... Mark
> --
> *-------------------------------------------------------*
> |          Mark E. Casida                               |
> |          e-mail: casida@chimcn.umontreal.ca           |





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:01:08 -0400 (AST)
From: Steven Casey <scasey@enternet.com.au>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

Mark Casida wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> If the argument has not yet been mentionned in this thread, it might
>> be worth mentionning:
>>
>> "If a shape can be folded from a square piece of paper without cutting
>> but is too thick because of unused paper, then it is permissible to
>> cutaway the unused paper before folding, particularly if this results
>> in a simple starting shape such as (say) a 45 degree or equilateral
>triangle."
>>
>> Although I prefer beginning from a square without cutting, I have found
>> folding models from other shapes to be interesting, and the above
>reasoning
>> seems to place a reasonable restriction on what shapes to permit.
>>
>>                                 ... Mark
>> --
>> *-------------------------------------------------------*
>> |          Mark E. Casida                               |
>> |          e-mail: casida@chimcn.umontreal.ca           |
>> *-------------------------------------------------------*
>

Brett Askinazi asks:
>MarK,
>
>Thats an interesting Quote, where did you find that?
>
>It reminds me of the book ORIGAMI Animals by Hector Rojas.  Many of the
>Models are precreased into a non convex shape and then finished into the
>final animal shape.
>
>Brett
>askinazi@i1.net
>
>----------

>From the world of Origami by Iso Honda :

"In some folds, we use a right triangle, though we could use a square, to
eliminate bulk."

I read this as "we use a right triangle, to eliminate bulk, though we could
use a square."

(depends how you read it but the context is in using right triangles in
favor of folding a square in half).

A good deal of origami forms the square into  triangle and rhombus shapes,
and never uses the excess paper, but sometime the extra layer, can also add
rigidity.

Apart from the literal meaning of origami which, means folded paper, we also
have the cultural history, which show us that some cutting was accepted, as
was a "limited" deviation from square shaped paper, in it's time.

But in our time frame I think most accept the uncut square as a fairly
standard starting point. Remember there is evidence of China and Spain
having there own traditions of paper folding. But in Japan it was more
highly refined. Out of recognition and respect for the tradition in Japan,
paper folding, is referred to as Origami, in Japan the tradition accepted
minor cutting and non-convex (concave) paper.

Origami has now become a world wide phenomenon, and has come a long way
since it's origins, with the practice of folded paper, mainly from a square,
numbering in the tens of thousands (could it be millions?).

Should we broaden our definition of origami from a closed system which
acknowledges, the square and a limited number of other shapes, to an open
ended system that recognizes any shape. Even in traditional origami there
seemed to be a practical limit.

So lets acknowledge our past and move on into the future!

Cheers,

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





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:14:03 -0400 (AST)
From: casida@ere.umontreal.ca (Casida Mark)
Subject: Re: squares and other shapes

> MarK,
>
> Thats an interesting Quote, where did you find that?
>
> It reminds me of the book ORIGAMI Animals by Hector Rojas.  Many of the
> Models are precreased into a non convex shape and then finished into the
> final animal shape.
>
> Brett
> askinazi@i1.net

My "quote" is not really intended as a literal quote.  I simply used quotes
as a way to set off the principle.  Actually I'm pretty sure I've read
something of the sort in an origami book somewhere, but I can't recall where.

> > "If a shape can be folded from a square piece of paper without cutting
> > but is too thick because of unused paper, then it is permissible to
> > cutaway the unused paper before folding, particularly if this results
> > in a simple starting shape such as (say) a 45 degree or equilateral
> > triangle."

Here is a little exercise in creativity that I set myself at one point.
There is a traditional carp folded from the fish base.  I was never very
happy with it because the tail is just a peak fold,

                           /|
                          / |
                         /  |
               ----------   |
                            |
               -------------

though the rest of the shape is a very satisfying carp (like the ornamental
ones I've seen in Japanese gardens.)  So I tried to invent a carp with a
normal fish tail,

                          /|
                         / |
                 --------  |
                           |
                 -------\  |
                         \ |
                          \|

(pardon my ASCII diagrams, but hope you get the idea) by modifying the
traditional fold.  I did so, from an uncut square, but there was a lot of
unused paper tucked away here and there.  It _looked_ fine, but the model
felt bulky to me and unelegant.  Now that I had shown that it _could_ be
done from a square, I began to ask myself if it wouldn't _feel_ better if
it had been folded from another shape instead where the paper could be
used more effectively.

I wonder if this isn't a common experience for others who have tried to
create new models?

                                        ... Mark

--
*-------------------------------------------------------*
|          Mark E. Casida                               |
|          e-mail: casida@chimcn.umontreal.ca           |





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:20:57 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: The Dover Bookshop, London

A few months ago there was mention in Origami - L of the Dover bookshop in
London.

I was able to visit it during my recent visit to London, and found that it
was situated in Earlham Street, between Cambridge circus (at the junction of
Charing Cross Road and Shaftesbury Avenue) and Seven Dials (in Monmouth
Street).

The shop is not a large one and the books it sells are not limited to those
published by Dover Books Inc.. Nor do they stock by any means the whole of
the Dover list. However, as far as I could see, they had most of the books on
paperfolding published by Dover. I also asked for a somewhat obscure book on
the names of stars and they were able to produce it. They also sell many of
the art books published by Dover.

I found the lady serving very pleasant and helpful and I think the shop is
well-worth visiting by any paperfolder who happens to be in the area.

For the extensive range of books on mathematics and science in the Dover
list, however, I would recommend Dillons at their main branch in Gower Street
or Foyles in Charing Cross Road.

David Lister.

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:20:46 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Circular Origami.

I have unexpectedly come across another reference to Circular Origami. It is
in a note I made during a telephone conversation with John Cunliffe, the
international organiser of the Envelope and Letter-fold Association (ELFA) on
21st, March, 1994. John mentioned a book by Kunihiko Kasahara, presumably in
Japanese, which has a section about Circular Origami.

John was somewhat vague about the book, but he thought that the English
translation of the title was "New Directions in Origami" or something
similar.

Any book by Kunihiko Kasahara on new ideas in paperfolding must be
interesting, whether or not it contains  Circular Origami.

Has anyone seen a book which might fit this description?  Better still, can
anyone identify it and let me have fuller particulars including the publisher
and ISBN number?

I shall be very grateful for any information whatsoever.

Daviod Lister

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com.





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:04:03 -0400 (AST)
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.COM>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

Steve Casey wrote:

+So lets acknowledge our past and move on into the future!

And the question yet remains: Why is the square so special?

Is it merely the force of historical practice, or is there something which
has yet to be articulated, that makes it particularly appropriate for
origami?

The argument that "it is the only shape that is mass produced"
while seemingly true, confuses supply and demand and a whole web that
interdependently enforces the status quo.  And it is the status quo which I
am questioning.

Let me try to drag one of the more well known members into this:  Robert
Lang has stated that some of his earlier models, which started from
rectangles with "odd" dimensions, were done before he learned he could do
everything with a square.  So, Robert, my question to you (and to everyone
else too) is:  Why the square?  What reasons can you give that are not
reiterations of "it's always been done that way" or "that is the form that
has been studied most."  Perhaps if I put it this way:

    What are the characteristics that describe the ideal starting shape(s) for
        origami?  (justifications here are needed or you could just list the
        characteristics of a square and circle your way into recursive
        non-answering.)
    Why does a square, better than any other shape, satisfy those
        characteristics?

-Doug "But tell me _why_" Philips





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:56:53 -0400 (AST)
From: Kim Best <Kim.Best@m.cc.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Doug Philips wrote:

>
>     What are the characteristics that describe the ideal starting shape(s) for
>       origami?  (justifications here are needed or you could just list the
>       characteristics of a square and circle your way into recursive
>       non-answering.)
>     Why does a square, better than any other shape, satisfy those
>       characteristics?
>

Tradition is as good a restriction as any to me.  Any standard is going
to be arbitrary.  But some standard is needed, otherwise you could take
the whole sheet of paper, put it in a grinder, add water and sculpt it
like clay.  Then when your done, you could call it wetfolding.  But where
you want to draw the line is going to vary from person to person.

The only argument for a square, I can give you, is this.  You can open up
a package of origami paper and start folding with no other equipment then
maybe a spray bottle.

I think the original argument was that you can't consistantly allow any
arbitrary concave shape as a starting point, and disallow cutting during
the folding process at the same time.  Since you could always unfold a piece
that uses cuts, size another sheet of paper to match the first and fold the
same model without cutting.

Even restricting yourself to only certain concave papers, would still give
some the weelies just because it a lot closer to the above, than starting
with a convex piece of paper.

Kim Best                            *******************************
                                    *          Origamist:         *
Rocky Mountain Cancer Data System   * Some one who thinks paper   *
420 Chipeta Way #120                * thin, means thick and bulky *
Salt Lake City, Utah  84108         *******************************





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:57:18 -0400 (AST)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper

At 10:40 AM 12/12/96 -0400, Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com> wrote:

>As a result, I find it hard to accept convex shapes as OK but not concave
>ones.  The arguments for a "regular" polygon is more interesting, since I
find
>no reason to prefer the shape and symmetry of a square over that of other
>shapes.  Nature uses many different forms of symmetry, so there is no
>"natural" preference for a square, only an artificially induced one. ;-)
>Actually, I find the equilateral triangle the purest form to start from
>because it is the regular polygon with the smallest number of sides. ;-)

This is an interesting point. I have always considered the square as the
choice origami shape, to be somewhat arbitrary. It has developed a strong
establishment in the origami community, and it's form has the strongest
association when the word *origami* is mentioned. I do not think choosing
the square had anything to do with any particular semblance to nature. In
fact, one of the interesting things about origami is the creator's ability
to somehow work the symetry of the subject matter into the very different
symmetry of the square.

It would be interesting if the triangle were the shape of choice for
origami. However, probably for practical reasons, the sqaure became the
form. I have always liked to think of origami as being somewhat analogous
to Haiku, the form of poetry with a very strict format. deviating from the
format would not render the poem bad, but it would no longer be regarded as
Haiku. Origami seems to have yet establish an official form. Deviations
from *my* favorite form (single square, no cuts) seem to abound. I think
this is a shame, not just for origami, but for the deviations on origami.
For example, I sometimes feel that dollar bill folds should not be regarded
as origami. The symetry of the paper being delt with is quite different
from the square; the creator has a whole different set of obstacles to
overcome. To call such work origami is somewhat downplaying  the difficulty
the dollar as an artistic medium imposes.

The reality of this above scenario is that origami as an art has a much
bigger name than bill folding, so both art forms seem to be lumped
together. The same argument can be extended for modular folds, composite
folds, ect. While to the general public this will all be just origami for
quite some time, as origamists, we should be able to respect and appreciate
what each of us are able to do with our choices of medium.

Marc





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:57:07 -0400 (AST)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Non-Convex Paper

At 06:18 PM 12/12/96 -0400, DLister891@aol.com wrote:

>For the moment, I merely wish to add a limited note about folding from
>non-convex paper, which has been equated with star-shaped paper (though I can
>think of shapes of non-convex paper which are not stars in the ordinary sense
>of the word.)
>
>The 19th Century (c.1850) Japanese manuscript encyclopaedia, "Kayaragusa",
>popularly known as the "Kan no mado", effectively uses star shapes for many
>of its models. For instance, it will begin with a convex octagon and then cut
>vertically inward towards the centre from the mid-point of each side.  The
>raw cut edges are then folded back to the corners of the octagon to form an
>eight-pointed star. The same technique is used in other models starting from
>a square or hexagon to form four and six pointed stars.
>
>A six-pointed star created in this way is used as the base for the famous Kan
>no mado dragonfly that so intrigued folders in the 1950s. Only the second
>part of the instructions were known (omitting the base) before the dicovery
>of the copy of the Kan no mado in the Library of Congress in 1960.. Ligia
>Montoya was the first to work out the base for the dragonfly and to complete
>the folding of it.
>
>In fact, these bases use more cutting than is necessary for the creation of
>the preliminary star. The cut into each side of the respective polygons is
>continued nearly to the centre of the paper, to give more freedom for folding
>the arms of the star. This technique is applied in the dragonfly.
>
>The Kan no mado was a private manuscript compilation  of knowledge, not
>intended for publication. It is now thought that the paperfolding was derived
>from the same school of paperfolding as produced the Senbazuru Orikata, which
>was published as a printed book in 1797.
>
>If this very important and ancient school of Japanese paperfolding could
>employ such "illicit" techniques, who are we to say that "Origami"takes
>flight at the first sight of a pair of scissors?

While I am certainly not the scholar David is on matters of origami
history, it is obvious to me that the *origami* of the kan no mado period
has a radically ifferent flavor than the origami of today. My theory on the
extensive use of cuttin for *ancient origami* was that paper was much more
valuable back then, so any technique that conserved paper was gladly
embrased. I could go through a slew of reasons on how using cutting for the
formation of appendages greatly maximizes your given area of paper. I think
the art of origami has to some degree evolved into an art of forming
appendages. Even on a purely superficial asthetic level, *cut* appendages
and *folded* appendages have an entirely different look, as they stem from
entirely different ideals. Origami has evolved so much since ancient times,
I would hesitate to call artwork of the kan no mado style (if it were to
appear today), origami. It would almost be like seeing a Neanderthal in
modern times, and calling him human. Origami in the ancient style would
make excellent kirigami today, but I think the ideals of origami have
changed considerably.

Marc





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 21:51:50 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Doug Philips wrote:

=Surely even sticking with regular polygons, the equilateral triangle would be
=more challenging/unyeilding to fold most models from!
=
=>From a math standpoint, you'd probably want to pick a shape that tiles the
=plane, so that you could minimize wasted paper.  If you stick to regular
=shapes that tile the plane, what criteria favors squares over equilateral
=triangles or hexagons?

Perpendicular axes are easier to work from than non-perpendicular ones.

          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, 13 Dec 1996 21:58:32 -0400 (AST)
From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

On 13 Dec 96 at 20:04, Doug Philips wrote:

> The argument that "it is the only shape that is mass produced"
> while seemingly true, ...

Not at all.  Dollar bills [or currency in whatever country you're in] are
a LOT easier to come by, are surely mass-produced, and are cheaper in the
end [since you need only supply paper for correct and complete folds ---
any mistakes or experiments can simply be turned in at the bank for free
replacement.

Why aren't folds out of Japanese yen-notes the standard..:-)

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





Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:16:07 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Bernie Cosell wrote:

=On 13 Dec 96 at 20:04, Doug Philips wrote:
=> The argument that "it is the only shape that is mass produced"
=> while seemingly true, ...
=Not at all.  Dollar bills [or currency in whatever country you're in] are
=a LOT easier to come by, are surely mass-produced, and are cheaper in the
=end [since you need only supply paper for correct and complete folds ---
=any mistakes or experiments can simply be turned in at the bank for free
=replacement.

Squares are easily mass-produced and provide more symmetry than dollar bills.

=Why aren't folds out of Japanese yen-notes the standard..:-)

Quite simple: the smallest yen note is the 1000 yen note, worth a little less
than US$10. Gets rather expensive!

          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, 13 Dec 1996 22:19:27 -0400 (AST)
From: James_Sakoda@Brown.edu (James M. Sakoda)
Subject: Re: Folding linked cranes (was Re: The Forms of Origami)

>James Sakota, in reponse to Jerry D. Harris' message about classifying
>"kinds" of origami, wrote:
>
>+In addition to single piece of paper, modular origami, composite origami,
>+there is an old book called Sembazuru Orikata, in which a piece of paper is
>+cut into smaller squares, with connections among them, and traditional
>+cranes are folded with each separate piece of square paper, making a string
>+of cranes, which can be quite attractive.
>
>Indeed they are attractive.  I am curious to ask those who have done this more
>than the once or twice that I have:  When do you fold the cranes?  Before you
>cut the squares, or after?  If before, how much precreasing do you do?  Is
>part of the challenge of this technique to cut the paper first and then fold
>each square without tearing the links?
>
>I have been thinking of doing some "quilts" of bird-base based stars using
>this technique (though whether I'll get the time before the holidays are out
>or not...) and am curious to know if there is anyone else on the list doing,
>or interested in, this stuff.
>
Doug Philip:  To do sembazuru orikata the paper, usually square, is cut
into smaller squares, sometimes into squares of different sizes.  It is
possible to do some precreasing of diagonal and horizontal lines to make
the folding of the bird base easier.  For example, all diagonal lines can
be valley folded, while the horizontal ones are mountain folded to ease the
folding of the preliminary folds.  The trick is to be able to fold the
cranes while the smaller squares are connected together.  One aim is to
come up with a unique design by varying the ways in which the smaller
squares are connected.  I have a design which I call Generations in which
the paper is cut into four large squares.  The upper righthand square is
connected to the other three.  The other three squares are then divided
into four (second generation) squares, with the upper righthand square
connected to the other three.  This process can be continued until the
squares become too small, either from the point of appearande or in terms
of diffidulty of folding.  James M. Sakoda.





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:03:06 -0400 (AST)
From: Steven Casey <scasey@enternet.com.au>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

Doug "But tell me _why_" Philips wrote:

>Steve Casey wrote:
>
>+So lets acknowledge our past and move on into the future!
>
>And the question yet remains: Why is the square so special?
>
>Is it merely the force of historical practice, or is there something which
>has yet to be articulated, that makes it particularly appropriate for
>origami?
>
>The argument that "it is the only shape that is mass produced"
>while seemingly true, confuses supply and demand and a whole web that
>interdependently enforces the status quo.  And it is the status quo which I
>am questioning.
>
>Let me try to drag one of the more well known members into this:  Robert
>Lang has stated that some of his earlier models, which started from
>rectangles with "odd" dimensions, were done before he learned he could do
>everything with a square.  So, Robert, my question to you (and to everyone
>else too) is:  Why the square?  What reasons can you give that are not
>reiterations of "it's always been done that way" or "that is the form that
>has been studied most."  Perhaps if I put it this way:
>
>    What are the characteristics that describe the ideal starting shape(s) for
>       origami?  (justifications here are needed or you could just list the
>       characteristics of a square and circle your way into recursive
>       non-answering.)
>    Why does a square, better than any other shape, satisfy those
>       characteristics?
>
>-Doug "But tell me _why_" Philips
>
>

 Do we have to justify what we use? Why are other shapes better? :-)))

For me the square is my preferred method of doing origami, I still
acknowledge paper folded in other shapes as origami. But only to a limit, I
personally draw the line at star shapes or incised paper and "very" thin
strips of paper. With very thin strips the paper would behave much the same
as string or ribbon. It wouldn't work as well as string, and by it's very
nature would rely on weaving or knotting to create a model.

With star shapes and paper with slits the appendages are almost completed
before the folding begins, you could simply cut out a shape of an animal and
fold it in half. Not very clever.

Part of the charm of origami is the built in challenge of creating something
from nothing. Triangles, squares, rectangle's, polygons are all challenging
shapes to work with. One characteristic for material would be that it
shouldn't be  already cut into the shape of the appendages or flaps used to
create the model.

The square has simply emerged as one of the most popular of all shapes. It's
use is traditional and modern. The square has become part of origami culture
and folklaw, through continued usage. It may not be the *most* practical but
it's surely the most popular.

One final reason why square paper is "so" important:

Because with out it, nearly "ALL" my my origami books would be totally
*useless*  :-)

-Steve "The stirrer" Casey ( Ripping off -Doug "But tell me _why_" Philips )

Cheers,

scasey@enternet.com.au
Melbourne Australia





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 05:47:51 -0400 (AST)
From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@empnet.com>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

At 10:50 AM 12/13/96 -0400, Doug wrote:
(snip snip)

>There is clearly historicaly precident (right David Lister?) for starting
>from a square, but there is also historical precident for cutting the paper
>(thanks David Lister!).  It is interesting to me that one would be glorified
>(the purity of the square) and the other denigrated (evil cutting!).
>
>Surely even sticking with regular polygons, the equilateral triangle would be
>more challenging/unyeilding to fold most models from!
>
>>From a math standpoint, you'd probably want to pick a shape that tiles the
>plane, so that you could minimize wasted paper.  If you stick to regular
>shapes that tile the plane, what criteria favors squares over equilateral
>triangles or hexagons?
>
>-Doug
>
..And the upshot of all this is that I have come to believe that starting
with a square and only a square and allowing for no cutting is purely a
personal preference and by no means an Origami standard.  I may even one day
find myself after a drunken binge waking up next to a pair of scissors and a
pile of rhombic paper, surrounded by new and fascinating models (paper that
is). : Z

                         ''~``
                        ( o o )
+------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.------------------+
|                                                     |
|          "Origami: Welcome to the Fold!"            |
|                Steve Woodmansee                     |
|              Bend, Oregon U.S.A.                    |
|                                                     |
|                    .oooO                            |
|                    (   )   Oooo.                    |





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 05:47:22 -0400 (AST)
From: Katharina Grif <Katharina.Grif@uibk.ac.at>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square...)

It can be some other point of view on the square paper.
You should not forgett,that origami as a kind of art
is very old one, and was brought to Japan from
the buddists- and for the first time it was
very symbolic. We should use not an  european
or american mentality thinking why this  and that
is happend in Asia-it is other logic and rules there.
 So,for people who are familliar with esoteric
philosophy, square can have another very interesting
meaning. We can compare it with compressed file for
young modern students,or with mantra in buddism.
The  square is very esoteric and universal form
(also in math.)and every fold could have very other
deeper meaning,especially for ancient Japaneses.
 Of course the circular form is more philosophycal
and interesting in esoteric meaning and maybe
because of that and because of our undeveloped being
this form of origami paper is developed not enough yet.

 with best wishes, Kate :)





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 06:18:20 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Square parer and the Concept of paperfolding.

There's so much discussion going on, i'm finding it hard to keep up!

Just two small poinfs. First, square paper is not - repeat, not -  in any way
a commonly available shape of paper. Most paper is rectangular (Well, I know
a square is a rectangle - perhaps I mean ob!ong!). Think of writing paper,
wrapping paper, drawing paper, poster paper . They are all 999 per thousand
oblong. They always have been, too. It's probably something to do with the
aesthetic appeal of non-sqare apaper - the golden rectangle and all that. In
fact, to buy square paper for paperfolding is not at all easy. The situation
in the United States is probably easier than in England. Here. ordinary
stationers' shops rarely carry origami paper, even if they sell books about
origami. I know the origami societies sell square paper, but they are a
special case.

The mention of the Golden Rectangle (and I may also throw in the Silver
Rectangle) as having aesthetic appeal brings me up sharp against the general
acceptance that square paper is the ideal shape for folding.

My other point relates to paperfolding in the past. It must be acepted that
old-time paperfolders do not seem to have been much concerned about folding
from a pure square or avoiding cutting. The truth is that "Paperfolding" as
such is a very moodern art. It's hard to put a date on when it started,
(indeed, it slowly evolved), but let us try 1850. Before that there were
papercrafts in a generic sense, but no idea of paperfolding as a separate
discipline/occupation/ art form/concept/entity. People made models in paper
and they used whatevr techniques were at their disposal, whether it included
folding or cutting or shaping or twisting or guluing. There was no conscious
insistance on the purity of pure folding.

In these circumstances, one cannot deduce the laws of "Paperfolding" from the
Kan no mado or the Sembazuru Orikata, or what Michio Uchiyama did. I don't
say people didn't consciously fold paper, but to them it was not a SEPARATE
occupation. Pick up any Western book of parlour pastimes before 1900 and you
will find a happy jumble of papercrafts wher paperfolding is not isoated from
other papercrafts. The same is true of old Japanese books and I may say, of
many modern Japanese books.

Paperfolding in its presently used sense is a modern discovery. It has been
defined with stringent rules. I am sure that folding from a simple uncut
square is, indeed, a very valid and important art form. But it must be seen
in its context as one art form among many.

David Lister

Grimsby, England,

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 06:18:31 -0400 (AST)
From: Marcia Mau <marcia.mau@pressroom.com>
Subject: Capital Folders Meetings

Capital Folders will meet on the Third Tuesday of each month from January to
June, 1997.  Dates are:  Jan 21, Feb 18, Mar 18, Apr 15, May 20, & June 17.

Our meetings are held from 6:30 to 8:45PM in the Second Floor Stack,
Cleveland Park Library, Washington, DC.  The library is located at
Connecticut Ave NW and Macomb St, two blocks south of the Cleveland Park
Metro on the Red Line.

Several of us get together for dinner before the meeting.  There are lots of
restaurants in the neighborhood.  If you're interested in dining together
before folding, please contact me or Steve Buck (folderbuck@aol.com) to
reserve a place.

Marcia Mau
Vienna, VA USA
marcia.mau@pressroom.com





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:27:13 -0400 (AST)
From: mplewinska@earthlink.net (Magdalena Cano Plewinska)
Subject: paper grain

Hi everyone:

A quick question: How do you determine whether a paper has  grain and
what the direction is?

   - Magda Plewinska
     Miami, FL, USA
     Email: mplewinska@earthlink.net





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:07:06 -0400 (AST)
From: casida@ere.umontreal.ca (Casida Mark)
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

Steve Woodmansee wrote :

> ..And the upshot of all this is that I have come to believe that starting
> with a square and only a square and allowing for no cutting is purely a
> personal preference and by no means an Origami standard.

Mmmmmmm... maybe.  But what are you going to tell someone who has never
experienced origami and first asks what it is?  Aren't you going to
start by saying something like,

  "For an origami purist, it is folding models from a square piece
   of paper without cutting,"

and then go on to ennumerate the many interesting exceptions?

                                  Vive la difference!
                                      ... Mark

--
*-------------------------------------------------------*
|          Mark E. Casida                               |
|          e-mail: casida@chimcn.umontreal.ca           |





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:22:58 -0400 (AST)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Origami Philosophy

Hi All -

        Given all the discussion about original paper shapes in origami,
here's a philosophical question that springs to mind from all this:
obviously, some models (say, for example, Dave Brill's "Horse") are made
from non-square paper (in this case, an equilateral triangle).  _But_, if
we first fold the equilateral triangle from a square, then isn't the model
really folded from a square?  Similarly, isn't folding a "Flapping Bird"
from a dollar bill making the model from a
1:something-point-something-something-something instead of a square, even
though one must first fold the bill into a square and then proceed?  Where
does one draw the line?

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  768-2701
Southern Methodist University
Box 750395                            jdharris@post.smu.edu
Dallas  TX  75275-0395                (Compuserve:  102354,2222)

                                              .--       ,
                                         ____/_  )_----'_\__
                                 ____----____/ / _--^-_   _ \_
                         ____----_o _----     ( (      ) ( \  \
                       _-_-- \ _/  -          ) '      / )  )  \
"Evolution: It's      _-_/   / /   /          /  '     /_/   /   \
Not For Every-       //   __/ /_) (          / \  \   / /   (_-C  \
Body!"              /(__--    /    '-_     /    \ \  / /    )  (\_)
                   /    o   (        '----'  __/  \_/ (____/   \
  -- Michael       /.. ../   .  .   ..  . .  -<_       ___/   _- \
     Feldman       \_____\.: . :.. _________-----_      -- __---_ \
                    VVVVV---------/VVVVVVVVV      \______--    /  \
                         VVVVVVVVV                   \_/  ___  '^-'___
                                           _________------   --='== . \
                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--- .      o          -o---'  /





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 14:17:14 -0400 (AST)
From: Basyrett@aol.com
Subject: Re: NOA Magazine,  December 1995

Help!!!!!
Does anyone have a copy of Dec 95 NOA magazine?  It has Santa on a sled,
Santa wall hanging type thing.  I've lost mine,  looked everywhere and am
very upset. :-(  It was one of my favorite issues.  If you can send me a copy
I would appreciate it.
E-mail me and we can discuss the details.
Thanks  :-)
Barbara, Long Beach NY





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:19:51 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: [NOR] Looking for Lily Stubbs, NZ

I received an email question about origami
signed "Lily Stubbs" with
an email address of:

rodil@wave.co.nz>

I've tried sending to this address on weekends and
weekdays, but it keeps getting returned as undeliverable.
Is Lily out there somewhere, or does anyone know her,
or a correct email address?

Thanx,
Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com
valerivann@aol.com





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:39:45 -0400 (AST)
From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@empnet.com>
Subject: Re: paper grain

At 11:27 AM 12/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi everyone:
>
>A quick question: How do you determine whether a paper has  grain and
>what the direction is?
>
>
>
>   - Magda Plewinska
>     Miami, FL, USA
>     Email: mplewinska@earthlink.net
>
For most of the commercially available paper I use, I can shine a light
through the paper at close range and determine the grain.  Hope this helps.

                         ''~``
                        ( o o )
+------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.------------------+
|                                                     |
|          "Origami: Welcome to the Fold!"            |
|                Steve Woodmansee                     |
|              Bend, Oregon U.S.A.                    |
|                                                     |
|                    .oooO                            |
|                    (   )   Oooo.                    |





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:39:17 -0400 (AST)
From: John Smith <jon.pure@paston.co.uk>
Subject: Why does a fold make a straight line?

At 10:27 PM 12/6/96 -0400, you wrote:

>> Why does paper always crease in a straight line?
>
>Because the locus of points in a plane equidistant from two fixed points is a
>straight line, is one way of putting it.

>Robert J. Lang
>
This definition seems to me to be a description of the condition for a
crease to be a straight line rather than an explanation of why a crease
turns out to be straight.

 Start a crease from the boundary of a sheet of paper by pinching the 2
layers together between finger and thumb and then push the finger and thumb
held tightly together across the paper, a straight crease results. Now by
making the crease this way one is not holding points or surfaces together in
advance of the crease making, the way that theory would suggest is
necessary. In practice if you use a long strip of very soft,floppy
paper(toilet paper in the UK) sooner or later the crease veers away from the
straight and narrow path sometimes forming a sort of curve.

I suspect that the inherent stiffness of good paper constrains the crease to
a least effort path which is a straight line.

I will now duck down in a straight line (flat) before the missiles arrive.

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





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:46:12 -0400 (AST)
From: John Smith <jon.pure@paston.co.uk>
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square...)

At 05:47 AM 12/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
>It can be some other point of view on the square paper.
>You should not forgett,that origami as a kind of art
>is very old one, and was brought to Japan from
>the buddists- and for the first time it was
>very symbolic.
> with best wishes, Kate :)
>

This is a most valuable contribution to the early history of Origami. I
would like the chance to see the original sources for your observation. Can
you please let me know the titles and references and where,if possible,one
might see them.   John.
John Smith
Norwich
England
e-mail  jon.pure@paston.co.uk





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:45:02 -0400 (AST)
From: James_Sakoda@Brown.edu (James M. Sakoda)
Subject: Re: Origami Philosophy

>Hi All -
>
>        Given all the discussion about original paper shapes in origami,
>here's a philosophical question that springs to mind from all this:
>obviously, some models (say, for example, Dave Brill's "Horse") are made
>from non-square paper (in this case, an equilateral triangle).  _But_, if
>we first fold the equilateral triangle from a square, then isn't the model
>really folded from a square?  Similarly, isn't folding a "Flapping Bird"
>from a dollar bill making the model from a
>1:something-point-something-something-something instead of a square, even
>though one must first fold the bill into a square and then proceed?  Where
>does one draw the line?
>
>
>
>Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
>Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  768-2701
>Southern Methodist University
>Box 750395                            jdharris@post.smu.edu
>Dallas  TX  75275-0395                (Compuserve:  102354,2222)
        One needs to determine for himself what rules he is going to follow
in creating origami figures.  There are no hard and fast rules.  Even
cutting on occasion can be excused if the results are superb, or if
circumstances make it inevitable.  If one is doing a commercial job which
requires an exact replica of something, and the only way you know of doing
it immediately is to cut, then one is likely to excuse oneself for
resorting to cutting.  There are also times when it is expedient or
desirable to add color, to use some kind of glue to hold pieces together.
On the gluing I prefer the use of poster putty whidh allows separation of
the pieces even after gluing together.
        There are two basic rules that has been expressed by Kosho Uchiyama
and others which I like to follow. These rules are  to fold if possible
without the use of excessive force or waste of paper.  Using a square to
form an equilateral triangle is a waste of paper.  Forcing a narrow figure
from a square when a rectangle or a diamond shape would be more suitable
is either the use of excessive force or waste of paper or both.  I, as well
as others, have played with asymmetric or free form paper in which the four
sides of not of equal length.  If one imposes the restriction that opposite
sides sum to 180 degrees, then it is possible to fold a perfect bird base
in which the four flaps move up and down freely, as Jacque Justin has
proved mathematically.  In Chatani's popup creations there seems to be an
awful lot of cutting and little folding, but I believe that underneath it
all is a basic folding principle which allows the popped up elements to
fold flat neatly.
        All rules for origami are arbitrary, and one must choose those he
is going to follow.  Imposing one's own standards on others is not too
fruitful.  I believe it is a serious error to tell a beginner that origami
must start with a square piece of paper.  The first thing that a boy is
likely to learn to fold is a dart from a letter size paper.   James M.
Sakoda





Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 18:33:51 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Re: Paper Grain

Magdalena Cano Plewinska asks how to detect the grain of paper.(14th,
December)

One way to detect the grain of a piece of paper is merely to balance the
sheet on one's finger at the centre point.The paper will then curve with the
grain, which should be immediately observable. Square paper is ideal for this
purpose and it should work too with circular paper and any other reasonably
regular convex shape. Obviously it will not work with very large paper or
paper of an irregular shape, where factors other than grain contribute to the
way it curves.

Another way, which works best with square paper, is to bring two opposite
corners of the paper together as though you were going to make a diagonal
crease. Hold the two corners together between the tips of the finger and
thumb of one hand and cradle the curved (but not creased) paper along the
diagonal in the V between the thumb and forefinger of the other hand.

Then release the finger and thumb that hold the corners together.The corners
of the paper will spring apart to the left and the right and the paper will
try to conform itself so that it is curved along the grain. Continue the
movement of the paper until it is in a book fold. The book fold will indicate
the line of the grain. Paper  is  always more ready to curve along the grain
than across it.

Yoshizawa habitually tests the grain of the paper before he folds it. He not
only wants to know the line of the grain for the physical purposes of
folding, but he seeks an intimacy with the paper which will show him its
life, before he begins to transform it into a creature that has life.

David Lister,

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com
