




Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 13:43:14 -0300 (ADT)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: OrigamiUSA Convention

Devin McPherson wrote:
>

>   I appreciate you attempt to send this pdf file. I'm having trouble
> converting it with Communicator. Any suggestions on how I can get it to
> be read by Acrobat.
> I have already set up my helper list to include this extension but that
> doesn't seem to make any difference.

Idon't know this is first time I ever sent a pdf file, I can't figure
out what happened, maybe I'll zipp it and try again. here is the same as
zipp, after the con Some one will probably tell me what I messed up
Perry
--
>From pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net

***************************************
* Your Life is only what you make it. *
* so make it good. :?)'               *
***************************************





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 13:47:13 -0300 (ADT)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: New folding diagrams

Devin McPherson wrote:
>
> Dino Andreozzi wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > there is a couple of new folding diagrams on my home page.
> > The URL is:
> > http://hem.passagen.se/foldiag.html
> > Take for yourself. This is *sharing* :-)
> Thanks for sharing a 404 error.;-)

Try this for Dinos' page
> http://hem.passagen.se/dion/
At any rate it works when I use it.
Perry
--
>From pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net

***************************************
* Your Life is only what you make it. *
* so make it good. :?)'               *





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:37:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: Postcards <postcards@postcards.com>
Subject: Copyright & Craft

Copyright & Craft

There is a problem with all of this.  Origami is essentially a craft,
not an art.  Like woodworking.  The final product itself, in it's
form, can be copyrighted, or protected from duplication or sale, but
not from imitation.

The difference between that and music is that the music industry has
a lot of money, and can do things other industries can't, like kill
new technologies like DAT and DVD for their own ends.  They have actually
tested and fought for 'performance' protection of a work.

Again, this comes to the point of trying to protect ones creation,
rather than work in the craft.  At some point, that will kill origami,
and cripple it.  The fact that everyone is so concerned with ownership
speaks volumes.

I'd be curious about the patented origami work.  I'd also be curious
if it would stand up to challenge.  This of course depends on what it
is, and how much is drawn from previous works, or what is considered
to be in the open domain if not public domain.

By publishing a book of works, with the folds to make it, and encouraging
the folding of the projects and similar creations, you are giving up a
certain degree of control.  Since it would appear the final creation is
the property of the folder, their sale of it or use of it, would be allowed.

They could not use or copy a book, or diagram or layout without permission,
as that IS copyrighted as a finished work.  You CAN copyright your diagrams
of how to fold a crane, your layouts, even your final work, but you cannot
in any way prevent someone else from doing the same on their own.

A design ON a finished work could also become a trademarked thing.  There
are prints and patterns that are trademarked, but there are also very
close clones.  The watches are the same -- how many clones of the Rollex
are there??

There seems to be a big dichotomy here, as to the goals and purposes of
the segments of the group.  Some, are crafters, and buy books and materials
to make a product and sell it.  If you sell a craft book, you have given
that implcit right, unless your SPECIFICALLY deny that right.  If you do,
then who would buy your book??  It's not a craft book, it's an art book.
Since most origami books are 90% diagrams, they'd sit on the shelf.

Attributing designs to a creator or originator is fair, but there is a
long tradition in crafts and marketing that speaks to how such works are
allowed to be used.

Woodsies (r)  are another thing.  They came up with some basic shapes
of wood, and a few cute designs.  The designs are so intuitive and based
on simple shapes that any protection of them would be difficult if not
impossible.  The painted designs, if unique, could be protected, and
their pricey pamphlets ARE fully protected.

Perhaps rubber stamps is a better analogy.  Some companies, Walt Disney
most notably, tries to sue anyone who purchases and resells their products
and they have met with mixed success.  But, they have soured the market
so that people avoid them.  Other companies SPECIFICALLY state on their
stamps you can't resell anything made with them.  Why would a crafter
purchase such a stamp??  Well, OTHER companies sell stamps with the
copyright provision that only HAND STAMPED items could be sold.  THAT
is a REASONABLE policy, and in sync with what is expected by the consumer
when the item is purchased.

Walt Disney has even put on their wall paper you can't make items from
it!  They are standing on the copyright and trademarks of the characters
there on, not on the item itself.  A slick trick of the law, but Disney
is big enough to bully the courts.

In reality, if you want to protect your origami, you should not publish
the diagrams, you should not make it 'generally available' and instead
simply publish a book of photos of your 'art'.

This is a very tricky area, and the rewards are much smaller than the
grief and strife it causes EVERYONE.

Protect your art (it already is) and share your craft.  Be recognized
for what you do, not what you don't.

Robert S. Pataki, MD
PUGDOG Enterprises, Inc.





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:57:54 -0300 (ADT)
From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>
Subject: Re: Making vs. buying vs. teaching

Nick Robinson wrote:
>
> Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net> sez
>
> >There are many collectors that
> >look for the animal they collect in different media...origami included.
>
> I hadn't thought of that. It all rests with permission & appropriate
> remuneration. You can use my work as & how your ethics dictate, with the
> proviso that if I see anything used commercially (books, adverts etc),
> I'll be investiging!
>
> all the best,
>
> Nick Robinson
>
> personal email  nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
> homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
> BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/
> RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk - now with real Audio clips!

Nick, Hi,   I was really thinking of models you've already made.  I
thought you were looking for an outlet to sell your models.  I can't
spend time doing really complex things.  I haven't learned to download
stuff so haven't got any design or books you're sharing...I'd love to
and will when I learn how.  Whenever I can, (depending on my 60 year old
memory)  I give people the information on books that I get my models
from.

Whatever you make from the sale is yours so long as I don't have to
provide more than a bag to put the model in when its sold.  You
determine the price, and sign your work.  I price my jewelry according
takes me less than a minute or two to fold, of course it takes
additional time to make it into jewelry...glueing so it won't unfold and
lacquering to make it waterproof and permanent.  I think I make about
$24 an hour rounded out to the varying folding times for different
models.   I've always wanted to sell "fancy models",  individual works
of origami art but I've not considered anything I make fancy enough.  It
would really be an honor to get different people's neat works to sell.
I think it would be a real boost to the origami society to get
recognized as other artists do.  What do you think?  Might work.  It's
only one person but maybe others will start.

Any other origami "stores" out there?

Aloha, Jan





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:21:52 -0300 (ADT)
From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>
Subject: Re: Making vs. buying vs. teaching

Sebastian Marius Kirsch wrote:
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Paul & Jan Fodor wrote:
> > Where is that quote "Origami is sharing, not selling"
> > coming from?
>
> You should better ask Nick that. A while ago, when there was a similar
> thread, he carried that footer for weeks. I thought this would be a nice
> reason to revive it. :-)
>
> Yours, Sebastian               sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de,skirsch@t-online.de

Dear Sebastian,   Sorry, this is but my second week on a newsgroup net,
if that's what its called.  I'm still foggy as to what is being said by
whom.  I probably owe a few apologies for butting in when I thought I
was the one who started the "selling vs making" discussion.  I noticed
quite a few quotes and wondered if everyone had these quotes at
fingertips or if the organizer was inserting them.  Dumb me.

Aloha, Jan





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:32:00 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Theil <theil@htonline.com>
Subject: Re: Selling Origami

I would like to make a suggestion regarding this topic, but by
making it I don't want to give the impression that I think it is
"correct" in any way. I just wanted to throw the idea out there:

I always thought that origami books could be considered
"pattern" books similar to quilt pattern books, or woodworking
pattern books, or even individual clothing patterns that are
sold for the purpose of creating a specific wearable item. In
the case of clothing patterns, the company copyrights the
pattern presentation, but makes no claims against people who use
the pattern to make items for sale (wedding gowns would probably
be the most salable item in this group). Likewise with quilt
patterns, many designers publish how-tos for their work knowing
that the patterns may very likely be used to create items for
sale. The point being that artists realize while they don't
relinquish the rights to their design, they do relinquish the
rights to royalties from the sale of finished goods.

Another example comes from the field of cookery. You cannot
copyright the idea (recipe) for chocolate-chip cookies, but you
can copyright the cookbook or the recipe flier, etc. for the
presentation of the recipe information. No one expects to get a
royalty on the sale of every chocolate-chip cookie consumed.
While I believe there may be some protection against outright
copying of a recipe, one has only to add a pinch of salt, or
alter the preparation terminology to get around this problem,
and the same might hold true for origami diagrams.

It seems to me that a lot of the confusion over who owns what,
and what rights creators maintain with the sale of goods has
only arisen since the advent of software. The ease with which
information may be transmitted caused more problems than had
previously occurred. Even so, no one would claim that Microsoft
deserves a royalty on every work produced using Word.

I don't wish to seem insensitive to the very real problems of
protecting intellectual property, but it seems to me that
discussion of how to be remunerated for the sale of origami
models made by using published diagrams is pushing the envelope
of possibility.

For what it's worth,
Linda Theil
theil@htonline.com





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:11:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>
Subject: Re: Selling Origami

Steve Theil wrote:
>
> I would like to make a suggestion regarding this topic, but by
> making it I don't want to give the impression that I think it is
> "correct" in any way. I just wanted to throw the idea out there:
>
> I always thought that origami books could be considered
> "pattern" books similar to quilt pattern books, or woodworking
> pattern books, or even individual clothing patterns that are
> sold for the purpose of creating a specific wearable item. In
> the case of clothing patterns, the company copyrights the
> pattern presentation, but makes no claims against people who use
> the pattern to make items for sale (wedding gowns would probably
> be the most salable item in this group). Likewise with quilt
> patterns, many designers publish how-tos for their work knowing
> that the patterns may very likely be used to create items for
> sale. The point being that artists realize while they don't
> relinquish the rights to their design, they do relinquish the
> rights to royalties from the sale of finished goods.
>
> Another example comes from the field of cookery. You cannot
> copyright the idea (recipe) for chocolate-chip cookies, but you
> can copyright the cookbook or the recipe flier, etc. for the
> presentation of the recipe information. No one expects to get a
> royalty on the sale of every chocolate-chip cookie consumed.
> While I believe there may be some protection against outright
> copying of a recipe, one has only to add a pinch of salt, or
> alter the preparation terminology to get around this problem,
> and the same might hold true for origami diagrams.
>
> It seems to me that a lot of the confusion over who owns what,
> and what rights creators maintain with the sale of goods has
> only arisen since the advent of software. The ease with which
> information may be transmitted caused more problems than had
> previously occurred. Even so, no one would claim that Microsoft
> deserves a royalty on every work produced using Word.
>
> I don't wish to seem insensitive to the very real problems of
> protecting intellectual property, but it seems to me that
> discussion of how to be remunerated for the sale of origami
> models made by using published diagrams is pushing the envelope
> of possibility.
>
> For what it's worth,
> Linda Theil
> theil@htonline.com

Linda,  I think you make a heck of a lot of sense!
Jan Fodor





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:31:40 -0300 (ADT)
From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>
Subject: (no subject)

Dear Valerie Vann  I just sent an email to you but my message came
back.  Would you sent me an email message so I can contact you.  Thanks,
Origami by Jan, Jan Fodor.   Origami@aloha.net





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:15:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>
Subject: Selling origami

Matthias Gutfeldt hello... It just occured to me that I should be
offering you the opportunity to sell your origami pieces in my craftfair
booth.  It really would have a lot of exposure.  People come to my booth
seeing the "Origami" by Jan sign and are delighted to see it for sale.
Very few people have come across jewelry in origami but the familiarity
with origami is there and there are big smiles always.  Just make
whatever you feel like, there are all kinds of collectors.
        You set your price, and I send you your money when it sells.  The only
requirement would be to send it in a clear container that I can display
it in.  My inventory takes up the whole table (over a thousand) so there
is not much room, I may end up hanging it from the tent.  Encased in a
see through container would help to preserve it.  I'm not sure what
other means you'd want to take to enhance preservation.  I do a lot more
for my jewelry because it is worn and has to hold up to handling and
dangling.  It does lose some of its "origaminess", but I justify it
because of it new purpose for being.
        Let me know what you think, we can work out problems of selling origami
works of art.
Origami by Jan, Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:15:22 -0300 (ADT)
From: Diana Davey <davey@key.net.au>
Subject: Re: Selling Origami

At 17:32 29/06/97 -0300, Linda wrote:
>I would like to make a suggestion regarding this topic, but by
>making it I don't want to give the impression that I think it is
>"correct" in any way. I just wanted to throw the idea out there:
>
>I always thought that origami books could be considered
>"pattern" books similar to quilt pattern books, or woodworking
>pattern books, or even individual clothing patterns that are
>sold for the purpose of creating a specific wearable item. In
>the case of clothing patterns, the company copyrights the
>pattern presentation, but makes no claims against people who use
>the pattern to make items for sale (wedding gowns would probably
>be the most salable item in this group). Likewise with quilt
>patterns, many designers publish how-tos for their work knowing
>that the patterns may very likely be used to create items for
>sale. The point being that artists realize while they don't
>relinquish the rights to their design, they do relinquish the
>rights to royalties from the sale of finished goods.
>
>Another example comes from the field of cookery. You cannot
>copyright the idea (recipe) for chocolate-chip cookies, but you
>can copyright the cookbook or the recipe flier, etc. for the
>presentation of the recipe information. No one expects to get a
>royalty on the sale of every chocolate-chip cookie consumed.
>While I believe there may be some protection against outright
>copying of a recipe, one has only to add a pinch of salt, or
>alter the preparation terminology to get around this problem,
>and the same might hold true for origami diagrams.
>
>It seems to me that a lot of the confusion over who owns what,
>and what rights creators maintain with the sale of goods has
>only arisen since the advent of software. The ease with which
>information may be transmitted caused more problems than had
>previously occurred. Even so, no one would claim that Microsoft
>deserves a royalty on every work produced using Word.
>
>I don't wish to seem insensitive to the very real problems of
>protecting intellectual property, but it seems to me that
>discussion of how to be remunerated for the sale of origami
>models made by using published diagrams is pushing the envelope
>of possibility.

Hear, hear!

Diana Davey
Emerald Beach, NSW, Australia





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:49:33 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve179@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Fluff? Resource? or what?

On 06/28/97 13:00:41 you wrote:
>
>It seems to me the list goes through phases in which
>there are larger proportions of chit-chat, non-origami
>related material (though some of this relates to printing,
>diagraming, preservation etc. so is of interest to *some*
>members). There are also "slow" times, and this is one
>of them, because the OUSA Convention in New York involves
>many of the most active list members.





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:55:56 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Selling Origami, copyright etc.

Those of you who have recently joined the list
and who have World Wide Web access might want
to try using Alex Bateman's search page for the
message archive of the origami-L. Alex's "Search
Page" is not part of the origami-L archive, it is
something he maintains privately as a service to
the origami-L mail list.

If you go to his search page you can search ALL
the PAST messages of the ORIGMI-L mail list by
any key word you like, just by filling out a form.

I would suggest trying it with "copyright". There
has been extensive, exhaustive discussion over the
years on the the origami-L about copyright issues
as related to origami, about art vs craft, etc. etc.

While it certainly is possible that someone will
shed some new light on these (e.g. copyright), you
might want to see what's already been said...

Alex Bateman's origami search page:
http://www.mrc-cpe.cam.ac.uk/jong/agb/origami.html

--valerie
Valerie_Vann@compuserve.com





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:08:32 -0300 (ADT)
From: Dino Andreozzi <andreozzi.a@botkyrka.mail.telia.com>
Subject: Re: New folding diagrams

Devin McPherson wrote:
>
> Dino Andreozzi wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > there is a couple of new folding diagrams on my home page.
> > The URL is:
> > http://hem.passagen.se/foldiag.html
> > Take for yourself. This is *sharing* :-)
> >
> > Happy folding
> >
> > Dino
>
> Thanks for sharing a 404 error.;-)
>
> --
> -=[Devin]=-
>

Hi Devin and all of you out there,
sorry for the wrong URL ( I missed a word :-( )
This one will absolutely work:
http://hem.passagen.se/dion/foldiag.html

Best wishes

Dino





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:13:42 -0300 (ADT)
From: cahuff@mindspring.com (carol huff)
Subject: gibberish and a request

Hi
Got an attachment that is nothing but weird text. HELP. I have a Mac and
Eudora Lite. Translation????
Also speaking of collectors. . . Does anyone have a greyhound or similar
such dog folded??? Would love to have instructions for one.
Thanks
Carol

cahuff@mindspring.com





Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:53:15 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <mikeinnj@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Megabytes (was:Re: Postscript format - Rose)

Dino Andreozzi wrote:
> the rose is not 113MB as Janet said. The file is 113 kb.

Oops - you're right.  Actually, my job is data communications and my
specialty is file transfer.  At work I talk in terms of Gigabytes per
hour transfer rates, and I keep getting pushed to find ways to make
things go faster.  Actually had an application talking about terabytes
of data to transmit per day just recently.  Nowadays, MB sounds like
peanuts.

Janet Hamilton

--
mailto:Mikeinnj@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~Mikeinnj/





Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 01:28:01 -0300 (ADT)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: OrigamiUSA Convention revisited

As promised, here is a more coherent report of the happenings. One of may
favorite parts of the convention experiece is to stare in awe at the varios
masterpieces in the exhibition room. I am sure everyone is curios about
what treasure master Yoshizawa brought with him. My only complaint was that
his portion of the exibit was too small; it did leave me with a craving for
more. The most subtly interesting portion of his exibit was the collection
of leaves, acorns and other ground coverings. The attention to deatail and
form was great, yet it did not detract from his familiar collection of
animals. I allso appreciated seening his old self-portrait, which was
recently rescued from the OrigamiUSA archives. This model brought back lots
of old memories (I had seen it represented in some old books.

If there were a subject that could bee deeemed most frequently tackled, it
would have to be the frog. It is difficult to pick a favorite from such
origami notables like Peter Budai, Robert Lang, and Joseph Wu.

This year, Eric Joisel (sp?), sent us even more of his work.It was
inspiring (to say the last), to see what is possible when such skill and
artistic depth is applied to origami.

The sad news it that the exhibition room was dismantled today. Thas is why
It is now the foremost on my mind. The good news is that various people
(most notably Allan Parry), brought their photographic equipment and
tallent to document the event; I hope they are willing to share their work
soon.

Tommorow is Techniques Day, which is becoming one of the more popular
portions of the Convention Experience. As I am participating in this, I
will have to sign off so I can prepare. More to follow.

Marc





Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:04:33 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Selling Origami (was:Re: reply/subject="Dear Mr. Montroll")

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> sez

>I think this has little to do with 'selling', per se, but rather
>licensing and copyright and such.

Point taken. I tend to hope that people who sell respect the latter.

>I think the issue should not be "don't do it", but rather "how can we
>ensure that the creators get their due".

Yup.

>One simple way to arrange might be to establish the 'tradition' that the
>only use one can make of a fold is to make the model for ones own use.

That makes sense to me...

>Indeed, but that's a matter of the marketplace.  In every art and
>every craft there is a HUGE spectrum of quality and skill represented,

yes, so as an origami interest group, we should perhaps encourage high
standards, even if we (I) don't necessarily possess them!

>Similarly, I don't see that teaching/sharing won't continue
>-- it is really quite an orthogonal activity from the craft/selling side.

orthoganal - errrr can't find me dictionary, but selling & sharing don't
usually happily co-exist.

> Compiling books [even as the
>BOS does] and selling them is as much "selling origami" as making little
>earrings or some such and selling those, no??

Not to my mind - but I see origami as a process rather than a finished
object. The only thing I want to sell is the idea of enjoying/doing
origami rather than admiring finished results (although that's fine!)

>Of course not.  But that's not your or my call to make.

No, but it's worth pointing out to would be "sellers" nicht wahr?

Thanks for a stimulating response!

all the best,

Nick Robinson

personal email  nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/
RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk - now with real Audio clips!





Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:05:05 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Making vs. buying vs. teaching

Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net> sez

>Nick, Hi,   I was really thinking of models you've already made.  I
>thought you were looking for an outlet to sell your models.

Not sure where you got that idea, but it's not something I generally do.
Most of my work is simple enough for people to fold themselves. I
haven't really got any "jaw-droppers" ;)

all the best,

Nick Robinson

personal email  nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/
RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk - now with real Audio clips!





Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:05:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: mplewinska@mindspring.com (Magdalena Cano Plewinska)
Subject: Re: Perry Bailey's file

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:45:49 -0300 (ADT), Valerie Vann
<valerie_vann@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Perry,
>
>I got the message with the file incorporated OK,
>but the automatic MIME decoder on Compuserve didn't
>know what to do with it. I had to decode it manually
>using a utility.

Valerie, what utility did you use to decode it?

Thanks,

   - Magda Plewinska
     Miami, FL, USA
     email: mplewinska@mindspring.com





Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:05:29 -0300 (ADT)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: gibberish and a request

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, carol huff wrote:
> Got an attachment that is nothing but weird text. HELP. I have a Mac and
> Eudora Lite. Translation????

Posted help yesterday. (Either the listserver or t-onlines mailserver is
damn slow, since I haven't received this message by now.)

> Also speaking of collectors. . . Does anyone have a greyhound or similar
> such dog folded??? Would love to have instructions for one.

I believe that there is a greyhound by John Montroll, which is published
in "Origami Sculptures" by Montroll and in "La Era Nueva" by Kunihiko
Kasahara. (I'm not too sure because I haven't got either of these books
here.)

Yours, Sebastian               sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de,skirsch@t-online.de





Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 00:03:44 -0300 (ADT)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: gibberish and pdf file

My appologies folks I honestly did not know you could not send an
attachement to a list server.  Mea culpea.  I plead guilty, through
ignorence.  I also appologise to all of you who were upset that I even
attempted to add a file, I get the message, can we please let it go????

for those who on the other hand wanted to see the file it can be found
at
http://hem.passagen.se/dion/

Thankyou
Perry
>From pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net

***************************************
* Your Life is only what you make it. *
* so make it good. :?)'               *





Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 00:51:42 -0300 (ADT)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Are complex models sculpturesque?

One of the highlights at the Monday OrigamiUSA Convention was the panel
discussion on creativity. It was expertly moderated by Jan Polish, and had
such notables like John Montroll, Jeremy Shaffer, Michael LaFosse, Joseph
Wu, and myself. Even better yet, we had some inteersting notables in the
audience. A question I foulnd interesting (and did not have a chance to get
into), was on if complex models fail to look like origami after they have
reached a certain level of complexity, and have undergone some sculpting.
This has bothered me in the past, on a personal note, as i was afaraid my
models were beginning to look like I used many sheets to create them, and
were perhaps painted as well (I often employ many colour changes). the
orihgami community seems to accept my models as origami (after all, I often
supply the diagrams to prove it), but I was wondering what sort of
reactions people get when more sophisticated models are shown to a
non-origami audience. I would like to hear some reactions firt, before
going intoi detail on my feelings on this.

Marc





Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 01:16:41 -0300 (ADT)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Are complex models sculpturesque?

At 12:51 AM 7/1/97 -0300, you wrote:
>One of the highlights at the Monday OrigamiUSA Convention was the panel
>discussion on creativity. It was expertly moderated by Jan Polish, and had
>such notables like John Montroll, Jeremy Shaffer, Michael LaFosse, Joseph
>Wu, and myself. Even better yet, we had some inteersting notables in the
>audience. A question I foulnd interesting (and did not have a chance to get
>into), was on if complex models fail to look like origami after they have
>reached a certain level of complexity, and have undergone some sculpting.

I for got to mention that the notable question asker was John Smith
himself. Sorry John. I am leaving the rest of this note intact, for
comprehendability reasons.

>This has bothered me in the past, on a personal note, as i was afaraid my
>models were beginning to look like I used many sheets to create them, and
>were perhaps painted as well (I often employ many colour changes). the
>orihgami community seems to accept my models as origami (after all, I often
>supply the diagrams to prove it), but I was wondering what sort of
>reactions people get when more sophisticated models are shown to a
>non-origami audience. I would like to hear some reactions first, before
>going into detail on my feelings on this.
>
>Marc





Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 03:17:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: Updated Web page, new photos

I just put up some new photos of some models I'm working on
for PCOC (Pacific Coast Origami Conference, San Francisco, Nov.).

These are solid surface geodesic polyhedrons or spheres, with
the surfaces composed of "folded diamonds" or shallow triangular
pyramids, closely resembling one type of Buckminster Fuller
geodesic dome. There will be a set of at least five, with the
most complex taking 270 units of 4 different types.

If you're "into" modular origami, have a look.

http://people.delphi.com/vvann/index.html

Look for the link with the red and purple sphere picture.

Valerie_Vann@compuserve.com





Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 05:31:13 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steven Casey <scasey@enternet.com.au>
Subject: Re: One liners (was: It ain't THAT bad...)

At 09:03 PM 30/06/97 -0300, Steve wrote:

>Dear Wayne:
>
>It's been done, about a year ago.  Can't remember what the name of the
>subject line was though, so you're kind of on your own with the archives.
>

Check the following subject lines: "Origami sayings" or "Cute T-Shirts "

A couple to get you started.

        Origamists do it with feeling.

        Get in touch with origami.

        The art of origami is increasing. (My business is in creasing)

        I'm an origami fan (with peacock graphic)

        Origami the paper plain (of existance)

        Origami the Peace of paper.  ( by ??)

        Unfold with origami. (by ??)

        Origami - it's not just for squares! (  Rachel Katz )

        Origamist: Someone who thinks 'paper thin' means 'thick and bulky'.

        ( Kim Best )

        "It's a good thing the average person doesn't realize
        the awesome destructive power of origami"              Earthworm Jim

        *** Origami is sharing, not selling! *** ( Nick Robinson )

cheers,

Steve Casey

scasey@enternet.com.au





Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:38:32 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@dorsai.org>
Subject: Re: One liners (was: It ain't THAT bad...)

>         Unfold with origami. (by ??)
>
> Steve Casey
> scasey@enternet.com.au
>

For all it's worth, I think the above line was mine :-)
It received no reaction from anyone. At the time I figured that it
must be because origami deals with folding rather than unfolding :-)





Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 08:42:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: Aurora Lozada <alozada@notes.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Paper for Rose

Thanks Dennis for your help.  You have been a great help.

I need help on this.  If I buy this tissue paper (the name of the store is not
familiar to me - CostPlus - what is the counterpart in USA), will this be the
inside or outside of the rose?  Is the foil better to be the outside?  If the
tissue comes in white only and will be the outside of the rose can you color
this?  You indicated using paint, would this peel off?

I'm still confused on what kind of tissue paper but I'll try and look at
different Hallmark stores and see what I could find.





Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 09:16:51 -0300 (ADT)
From: Zachary Brown <zbrown@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Are complex models sculpturesque?

> One of the highlights at the Monday OrigamiUSA Convention was the panel
> discussion on creativity. It was expertly moderated by Jan Polish, and had
> such notables like John Montroll, Jeremy Shaffer, Michael LaFosse, Joseph
> Wu, and myself.

PLEASE tell me an audio tape will be made available.

> if complex models fail to look like origami after they have
> reached a certain level of complexity, and have undergone some sculpting.
> This has bothered me in the past, on a personal note, as i was afaraid my
> models were beginning to look like I used many sheets to create them, and
> were perhaps painted as well (I often employ many colour changes). the
> orihgami community seems to accept my models as origami (after all, I often
> supply the diagrams to prove it), but I was wondering what sort of
> reactions people get when more sophisticated models are shown to a
> non-origami audience. I would like to hear some reactions firt, before
> going intoi detail on my feelings on this.

I've never had a problem with, for instance, Montroll's zebra. Once I
explain that the stripes come from the other side of the paper people are
amazed but not incredulous. That's really the most complex model I make
nowadays, except when I used to do Engel's reindeer, people were also
amazed but not incredulous that it involved no cutting.

I think basically the non-origami community is willing to believe that a
given model was constructed in the way we explain it, but it would be
interesting to see how far that trust would extend: is there a model that
people will simply not believe was done with an uncut square?

My own opinion about this, is that origami has reached a stage where
complexity can be substituted for creativity, in other words any subject
can be created using standardizable techniques. If the origami community
is going to start rejecting models as not being "true" origami, that will
be the basis of their rejection, in my opinion. I can see a not too
distant future, where people will discount origami creations, no matter
how intricate, on the basis of the triviality of their design. "Oh, that's
not really origami, see it relies on complexity."

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I do believe that in many
cases inventors choose complex methods because it makes the design easier
to come up with. This is a necessity of the history of the medium. We are
at the beginning of origami's creative history, where any invention is
better than no invention at all.

But I do hope that the masters of today will start striving to create the
same models using simpler means. Maybe it is already happening. And maybe
I am already off the mark when I say there is too much gratuitous
complexity. Origami is changing rapidly.

Anyway it sounds like a great panel, and I sure hope someone taped it.

Zack
