




Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 19:49:35 -0300 (ADT)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Art for self or art for money (was Re: Eric Kenneway)

Joseph Wu, writing in response to David Walker's note about selling
wetfolded models, says:
+Remember to get permission from the creators, and seriously consider a
+royalty for use of their designs.

That is a point I find most "odd" about the "selling" end of the
spectrum.  But first to set up a little bit more context for my
question by quoting Joseph some more:

Yesterday (17.Jul.1997) Joseph Wu wrote, in response to John Smith's
message about sharing vs. selling:

+Consider, John, what your concept of "sharing" really means. Artists do
+not get credit for their hard work and inventiveness. Artists are
+stolen from, sometimes indirectly (e.g. when people photocopy origami
+books instead of buying their own).  Others make money off of the work
+of the artists (e.g. when people sell the models they have folded from
+books and other instructions).

and also:

+I've said it before, and I'll no doubt have to say it again: origami is
+sharing. Sharing is a voluntary activity. Forcing people to share
+is selfish.

So, while I sympathize with Joseph, I'm going to play devil's advocate,
because I think this is opposite to his and John Smith's positions
simultaneously!

Why is it that 'permission' is recommended/mentioned/etc. only when
models are being sold (exchanged for money)?

If you check out the OUSA materials regarding copyright, you find that
the OUSA lawyers consider that final model are copyrightable.  Whether
you GIVE away a model or whether you SELL it, you are "forcing" a
creator to share a model, and as Joseph rightly says, that is selfish
(and by the OUSA description, also illegal in the US). Certainly it is
worse to profit by illegal activities, but it is no less immoral if you
do not!

So, Joseph and John (and the rest of origami-l!):  Why is it bad to force
creators to share models only if you get currency as a result?  Why aren't
exchanges for goods "BAD", and what about less tangible, but no less real
payments, such as a favor-in-return, affection, etc. etc.??

Consider that "fair use" under international copyright law does not
automaticly apply just because you aren't making money from copying
documents (the typical case, books, magazines, etc.).

-Daddy-o "Belaboring the obvious again" D'gou





Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 04:54:38 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Richard O. Roos" <aolos2@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Origami sighting..

Spotted in the August issue of Discovery Magazine in the Vital Signs
Department: an article by Tony Dajer entitled "Sweet Inspiration"...
concerning emergency airway management and intubation...,

"Now the paralytics had achieved their full effect-Mr. Gu's jaw dropped
open.  Holding my breath, I gently slipped the laryngoscope blade to the
base of the epiglottis and pulled up.  Like a reviving orchid, the
epiglottis floated up to reveal the gateway to the vocal cords and trachea.
It was my last try.  I aimed the tip of the tube at the dark, glistening
tunnel, then advanced my hand as if smoothly releasing a paper airplane".

rich (still lurking) roos
fremont, ca.





Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:59:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Origami Not Valuable? (Re: Art for self or art for money (was Re:
 Eric Kenneway))

Joseph Wu wrote:
+On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Mr & Mrs Owen wrote:
+> Joseph's words hit on something close to my heart.  People around my city
+> do not understand or appreciate Origami.   My son has worked for 8 years to
+> perfect his folding.  I have watched him carefully fold works of art as
+> gifts only to see them tossed in the trash when his back is turned.  It is
+> cruel.
+
+Solution: don't give them to people who won't appreciate them.

I think the "issue" here is that their son doesn't know that his work
is being trashed because it isn't being done openly.  So now the
parents are in the bind of either having to "inform" him of people who
are being deceptive, or letting him go on giving gifts that they know
will be trashed, or perhaps slying arranging for the deception to be exposed
in some other way.  But no matter what the choices and what the action, none
of it is very nice.

I'll toss in two cents of my own, though the Owen's didn't ask for any advice,
so of course this advise applies to itself too (cent 2)!
    cent 1: I usually don't give origami as a gift until I already know
            the recipient is interested.  I know of someone is interested
            based on how they react to stuff they see that I am doing,
            or have done.  This probably means that I miss some people
            who are too shy to express their feelings and enjoy origami
            without saying so.  Not my problem though.

    cent 2: Generic gift giving philosophy:  A true gift comes with no strings
            attached.  I get my "payback" (ooo, and this ties in with
            the "art" thread too) when I give the gift.  What happens
            afterwards is none of my business.  If I do find out that a
            recipient is putting on a front, I'll stop giving origami
            (or whatever it was) to them, not only does it save me
            folding time (or rather, lets me spend it more wisely), but
            it also relieves both parties of the pain of the
            deception.  But if I don't know, I'm not going to spend any
            time worying about whether the reaction I see is genuine or
            not.

But neither of those helps to relieve the Owen's situation of observing
deception.  That just out and out sucks.  Unfortunately, it isn't
limited to giving origami either.  Sigh.

-D'gou





Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:39:40 -0300 (ADT)
From: "frog@gardener.com" <frog@gardener.com>
Subject: Re: Yoshizawa books in English?

can anyone tell me how to unsubscribe to this newsletter?
thanks





Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:19:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Tessellations Again

Allen Parry has reminded me that in my note about tessellations posted on
16th July, I made a glaring omission  by omitting the name of Paulo Taborda
Barreto, who is certainly one of the most important workers in this field
today. I was not trying to make a comprehensive list of tessellators, and he
does tend to keep a low profile so this is how I came to overlook him. But
that's no excuse.

Paulo is Portugese by birth, but lives in Holland. He was present at the
Second meeting of Scientific Origami at Otsu in Japan in November 1994, where
he gave a talk and showed his work on tessellations in an exhibition. I have
also attended a lecture by him and seen his exhibition on another occasion
which memory lapse prevents me from pinpointing at present.. However, he has
published little if anything,even in interim papers, because he hopes to
publish a comprehensive explanation of his work and he doesn't want anyone to
publish any of it before him.

I admit that my memory of his work is a bit hazy, but I have the impression
that Paulo's work is freer and more generalised than that of other
tessellators. One of his techniques is to crumple a piece of paper and then
unfold it and to abstract from the apparently random crease patterns
configuarations that can be repeated to form a tessellation. h uses a
computer to develop his ideas. The result is not always what we think of as a
plane tessellation. Some of his work resembles an orderly cumpling down of
the paper into a pattern of several layers of stars. If anyone else can add
to these tentative descriptions of Paulo's work, I shall be grateful. There
is no doubt, however, that he is one of the leading researchers in this
field.

On the subject of tessellation, I have also come across a paper written by
Yoshihide Momotani, which may have been given by him at Otsu. (Owing to a
clash between parallel programmes, I was ubnable to attend his lecture, much
tessellations or "pseudo-tessellations"  created by himself. One of them is
not far removed from his famous Wall and it reminds us that the Wall in its
vcarious forms, should alsom be seen as a tessellation.

In his posting to Origami-L on 16th July, Alex Bateman wrote that he thought
that Yoshihide Momotani was creating tessellations from non-twist units at
about the same time that Fujimoto was first using twist folds.  I confess
that I don't understand what Alex means by "Non-twist units" and I shall be
very grateful if he will enclarge on this.

Also, Jeannine Mosely mentioned David Huffmann as having folded
tessellations. I do have a file on David Huffmann, but so far,it only covers
his recent folding and in particular his use of curved folded lines. I know
he has been folding for many years and again, I should appreciate it if
anyone could give me more information or references. It is remarkable how new
innovations in folding creep in in a very obscure way and then develop into a
burgeoning discipline before anyone has realised it.

David Lister.

Grimsby, Lincolnshire.

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 13:56:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: Postcards <postcards@postcards.com>
Subject: copyright

>If you check out the OUSA materials regarding copyright, you find that
>the OUSA lawyers consider that final model are copyrightable.  Whether
>you GIVE away a model or whether you SELL it, you are "forcing" a
>creator to share a model, and as Joseph rightly says, that is selfish
>(and by the OUSA description, also illegal in the US). Certainly it is
>worse to profit by illegal activities, but it is no less immoral if you
>do not!
>
>So, Joseph and John (and the rest of origami-l!):  Why is it bad to force
>creators to share models only if you get currency as a result?  Why aren't
>exchanges for goods "BAD", and what about less tangible, but no less real
>payments, such as a favor-in-return, affection, etc. etc.??
>
>Consider that "fair use" under international copyright law does not
>automaticly apply just because you aren't making money from copying
>documents (the typical case, books, magazines, etc.).

Ok, here's another one.  Copyright is retained by the owner, unless
given away in writing.  Folding is an algorithm, since no two are
ever exactly alike, though similar.  The final results are also varied.
The final model may be copyrightable, as it is, but not as generalized
to everyone who folds the same model.

Since most origami books ENCOURAGE you to fold, to share, to create,
and there is no disclaimer on anything but the printed work, law and
practice come into conflict.  It could be argued, probably successfully
that such works have been released to the public domain to be copied,
modified, and worked on.  In fact, most books specificially encourage
you to do so.  So, while the attribution is there, it's what would be
the 'attributed public domain.'

I would probably suggest if you want to 'claim' something, if you
feel you folded it first, register the final work, and an unfolded
lined paper with the copyright office.  What protection that would
give you is probably negligible, but for $20 you could always say
"See, my date is earlier than yours."

I have to admit, that reading this list the past few weeks, has taken
about 90% of the joy of folding out of origami.  The wonder of paper
folding has given way to legal issues that should not be there.  Art
is made to be copied.  It's made to be enjoyed.  It's made to be altered
and expanded.  It's not made to be hoarded and possessed.

I expressed this when I first got here, and I'll do it again, or rather
just did.

I don't think you all get the point.  If you want royalties, publish
a book, share your work, your diagrams, and get on with it.  If you
expect someone to pay you a royalty for each folded diagram, then you
better put that in writing in your book, and I'll bet your book sales
fall into the negative numbers.  There really is no evidence, by long
popular tradition, that a folded diagram, or the method to get there,
is copyrightable.  The final object is.  The final design is (or may
be).  The diagrams are, as a printed work.

But, I really, really think that if you continue with this, and I
don't mean you as individuals, I mean you as all folders, that you
will do more damage to the craft than you have any idea about.

I have to say "you" folders, because in this issue I don't consider
myself one of you.  I delight in this, and in watching what happens
when I take a flat piece of paper and make it into something else.
And, once I forget that, I'll stop.  I think many of you have already
forgotten that.

How many people model the USS Constitution or the Enterprise?  No two
are ever alike, no matter how close to the original they are.  The same
with origami.  No matter how many try to fold a crane, no two are ever
alike.  No matter how many try to make a box or an ornament, no two,
like snowflakes, are ever exactly alike.

There is no question that the final results, the creations, the works
may be copyrightable by the FINAL artist.  If you make cards and boxes,
that are unique and different, then copyright the works.  Create your
own signature.  But think about craft shows.  How much out there is
similar, but different in the skill or personality of the crafter??

If you want origami to proliferate, you can't keep cutting it's
roots, or people will just ignore it for another craft.  You goals
should be to respect the copyright on the books, and encourage people
to purhchase rather than copy them, *NOT* limit their ability to fold
designs.

-rsp-





Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 15:02:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: copyright

Postcards wrote:
> Your goals
> should be to respect the copyright on the books, and encourage people
> to purhchase rather than copy them, *NOT* limit their ability to fold
> designs.
>
As far as this whole line of discussion goes, This statement is the that
makes the most sense to me.  I own a good number of books, I also have
photocopies of portions of a good number of books, the difference being,
the books I have photocopied portions of are all books no longer in
print.  If the book is available I try to buy it.  Beyond this, I don't
see how we are profiting the creator of origami models.  Yes, I believe
the creator of a model should be credited.  when I give a model to
someone, I always take the time to mount my gift and on the bottom of
the model I put the name of the model, the name of the creator, the book
to find it in, and last of all the name of the folder.  I think if we
want to help the writers and publishers of Origami books, something as
simple as this may do the trick.  In giving out this information, we
tell the public who created it and what book to buy if you really like
it.  I have yet to see an author and I know there are several on this
list, suggest that they should be paid for each model folded, if this
statement is wrong, please correct me!  But do any of the authors out
there feel asking people to do as I do on models, giving out creators
names and the books the models were in, would not be to thier benefit?
Even if those who were selling Origami pieces were to do this, think of
the free press, and the extra book sales it might cause!
Sorry if I tend to waffle on, but this seems to be dragging itsself out
to the bitter dregs, and this seemed to me to be the best compromise
solution, that would effect everyone involved in only a possitive way.
Perry
> -rsp-

--
>From pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net

***************************************
* Hey, no matter where you go, there  *
* you are.  B. Bonzai :?)'            *





Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:28:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: PErick3491@aol.com
Subject: Re: copyright

To the reply from Postcards about copyrights--thank you.





Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:33:16 -0300 (ADT)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: Paper for a Tiger

Hi!

I have finally given up on the tiger stripes, because I realized that
this is no question of effect, but of realism.

With the Camel technique, is was not really a question of realism, ie. I
only wanted an effect that could mimic a camel's skin texture. A camel's
skin does not _look_ like paper painted and the treated with salt, but
this techniques contributes to the _impression_ of a ragged skin.

But there is no effect that can produce the _impression_ of tiger stripes.
Either there are real stripes on the paper, and preferably as realistic
ones as possible, or there are not. But painting realistic tiger stripes
disagrees with my opinion that the main objective of origami lies in the
folding, not in the preparation of the paper.

So preparing paper for special models is only possible when the skin
texture of that animal is not too definite.

For example, it would be possible for an octopus to paint a piece of
mulberry paper from behind so part of the paint would soak through the
paper and create splotches on the other side that somehow mimic the
mottled skin of an octopus. (Preparing paper for an octopus would be quite
difficult in reality, because an octopus can change the color and texture
of its skin according to the background he is moving on. So if you really
wanted to show that you know in what way your model is being realistic,
you'd have to first choose a background to display the model on and the
colour the paper accordingly.)

But conversely, it is impossible to mimic something as definite as the
mask of a raccoon or the stripes of a tiger with the appropriate choice of
paper. This can be achieved using color-changing techniques, as it has
been shown by John Montroll and Fumiaki Kawahata, but not otherwise.

And how did I solve my dilemma then, you ask? Simple, I'll do a white
tiger. AFAIK, this is not a natural color of a tiger, but you can breed
white tigers artificially.

(You could use this workaround for other models as well, ie. doing a black
panther when you find it too difficult to produce orange dots with a black
halo on a yellow background. :-) )

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





Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:38:43 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mr & Mrs Owen <djowen@pcl.net>
Subject: Thank you.

Thank you to Joseph Wu and Daddy-o D'gou.  Your kind thoughts helped on a
delicate subject.
It hurts when I see his work ignored.  On the other hand  there are so many
occasions when he  captivates a crowd usually while waiting (impatiently)
in some store for me.  I am very proud of him.
v/r mother of the folder
p.s. I'm sorry I changed the subject line, but it was too long.
----------
> From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <origami-l@nstn.ca>
> Subject: Re: Origami Not Valuable? (Re: Art for self or art for money
(was Re: Eric Kenneway))
> Date: Saturday, July 19, 1997 7:59 AM
>
> Joseph Wu wrote:
> +On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Mr & Mrs Owen wrote:
> +> Joseph's words hit on something close to my heart.  People around my
city
> +> do not understand or appreciate Origami.   My son has worked for 8
years to
> +> perfect his folding.  I have watched him carefully fold works of art
as
> +> gifts only to see them tossed in the trash when his back is turned.
It is
> +> cruel.
> +
> +Solution: don't give them to people who won't appreciate them.
>
> I think the "issue" here is that their son doesn't know that his work
> is being trashed because it isn't being done openly.  So now the
> parents are in the bind of either having to "inform" him of people who
> are being deceptive, or letting him go on giving gifts that they know
> will be trashed, or perhaps slying arranging for the deception to be
exposed
> in some other way.  But no matter what the choices and what the action,
none
> of it is very nice.
>
> I'll toss in two cents of my own, though the Owen's didn't ask for any
advice,
> so of course this advise applies to itself too (cent 2)!
>     cent 1: I usually don't give origami as a gift until I already know
>           the recipient is interested.  I know of someone is interested
>           based on how they react to stuff they see that I am doing,
>           or have done.  This probably means that I miss some people
>           who are too shy to express their feelings and enjoy origami
>           without saying so.  Not my problem though.
>
>     cent 2: Generic gift giving philosophy:  A true gift comes with no
strings
>           attached.  I get my "payback" (ooo, and this ties in with
>           the "art" thread too) when I give the gift.  What happens
>           afterwards is none of my business.  If I do find out that a
>           recipient is putting on a front, I'll stop giving origami
>           (or whatever it was) to them, not only does it save me
>           folding time (or rather, lets me spend it more wisely), but
>           it also relieves both parties of the pain of the
>           deception.  But if I don't know, I'm not going to spend any
>           time worying about whether the reaction I see is genuine or
>           not.
>
> But neither of those helps to relieve the Owen's situation of observing
> deception.  That just out and out sucks.  Unfortunately, it isn't
> limited to giving origami either.  Sigh.
>
> -D'gou





Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:43:04 -0300 (ADT)
From: helena@mast.queensu.ca
Subject: Re: Tessellations Again

Hello, thank you to everyone who has written things about
tessleations.  I'm very interested.
 I'm afraid I'm not going to be very good at replying to people who
email me about this at the moment, since I am in UK, estranged from
a decent connection to the internet.  Anyway, I'm looking forwards
to finding out more about the work of the people you mention David.
Also hoping to learn lots from Alex Bateman when I am in Cambridge.

By the way, does anyone know what is the best way to write in
Japanese to Japanese?  I emailed Kawasaki using Romanji, but didn't
hear back; maybe I wasn't polite enough or something; but I really
want to use Kanji, but my other Japanese friend said she couldn't read
the flie I sent, which I wrote in JIS using NJStar - though I could
read the stuff she sent, though I don't know what kind of file it was.
Sorry this is not origami, but I thought there igmight be other people out
there who are communicating about origami in Japanese, and could help me
out.

Thank you!

Helena
helena@mast.queensu.ca





Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:47:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: chall@scsn.net (Carol Hall)
Subject: doves--thanks

Thanks to all who responded to my query about dove models.  It is the
personal experiences with the different models that makes this list so valuable.

Carol Hall
chall@scsn.net





Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:50:22 -0300 (ADT)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Success report: Tiger by Nishikawa Seiji

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Dennis Brannon wrote:
> Success or failure reports are welcome.

OK, there you are:

> 1. possible to fold the model from the directions in the book

I folded the model from the directions in Kasahara's "Origami: La Era
Nueva". This is a great book, but it's long out of print now, and I only
have photocopies of this single model. :-(

> 2. the choice of paper that worked well with this model
>     (that too can lead to another discussion)

As I have written in a message yesterday, I have given up on making paper
with tiger stripes. I have used rice paper glued to foil instead. This
worked very well, although the rice paper is a little heavier than the
mulberry paper I normally use. To avoid having the foil shine through on
the back of the model, I glued a thin strip of rice paper to the diagonal.

> 3. the state of mind of the folder afterwards 8^)

I made the paper at 22.00 in the evening, and I finished folding just
after midnight. This was pretty quick for me, but then the Tiger is not as
complex as some other mdoels I have tried, ie. Kawahata's Pegasus or
others.

> 4. that tools were used

Tools were used.

> 5. what tools were used.

I used my usual tools, ie. a pair of thin tweezers and a thin japanese
chopstick.

> 6. points out a model that at least one folder on the list
>     found a worthwhile challenge.

This tiger has an incredibly detailed face, complete with ears, jaws and
eyebrows. If you model the final piece correctly, you can even achieve
something that looks like these sideboards tigers have. This is the most
detailed face I have ever seen in a model.

I had a few problems with the final modeling, ie. how to prevent the legs
from sticking out from the model, how to adjust the legs so it could stand
on three legs, etc., but it came out all right.

I hope to take photos of a few of my models next week, and Eric Andersen
has offered to display them at his website when I've managed to scan them
in. (Thanks, Eric!) Of course, this model cannot compare to the one shown
at Joseph Wu's website, but I'd like to show my own menial efforts.

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





Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:53:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: Postcards <postcards@postcards.com>
Subject: Copyright - by example

 For some perspective on copyright in the US, you might want
to check out:

http://www.typeright.org/

Which is a group of font face designers seeking CHANGE to
existing US law which specifically DENYS copyright protection
to font faces.

Their argument is for fonts for which SIGNIFICANT AUTHORSHIP
can be demonstrated be afforded protection by copyright.

-rsp-





Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:19:11 -0300 (ADT)
From: Marcia Mau <susu@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Puzzellations

I recently purchased a Beetles, Moths, & Bumblebees tesselation puzzle. It
     retails for about $16 but I found
one on sale.  The 84 pieces are made of thin foam, printed on one side, and can
     be arranged in the patterns on
the box top and the instruction booklet or you can create your own designs.
     There are three different
shapes and three colors of each shape.  By combining printed and solid sides,
     even more puzzle combinations
are possible.  Arranging the pieces is like working a jigsaw puzzle where you
     create the designs.

The booklet describes periodic repetition, rotational and translational
     symmetry, and reflection or mirror
symmetry.  The puzzles are inspired by MC Escher, Roger Penrose, and Benoit
     Mandelbrot.

The web site is: http://members.aol.com/tesselatns/

There is a listing of stores and museums which carry the puzzles in the US,
     references, teaching hints, and
links to other web sites on tesselations.  You can see what the puzzles and
     other products look like.

Robert Fathauer, the owner of the company, is a researcher at JPL.  He is now
     running the puzzle business
full-time.  Some of the products are targeted to mathematics teachers and have
     been exhibited at NCTM
conferences.

I apologize for missending some msgs to the list recently.  In addition to
     being kicked off the list last
Thursday I am trying a new ISP.





Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 01:33:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Cheing Jin Lin <jlche3@student.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Convention Memorabilia - Photos and Video

    Umm, I know this is a bit late (haven't been checking my mail for
a while...) and I'm not exactly sure what this is all about, but I'm
interested in the video.
    Sorry, have no ideas abt the prints-thingy.

Jin Lin

> Date sent:      Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:30:27 -0300 (ADT)
> From:           Allen Parry <parry@eskimo.com>
> Subject:        Convention Memorabilia - Photos and Video
> To:             Multiple recipients of list <origami-l@nstn.ca>
> Send reply to:  origami-l@nstn.ca

>
> Hello folks.....especially Zachary Brown who
> wanted a video of the panel discussion.......
>
> Well......I was Mr Video man / Photographer at
> the convention this year.  I took 274 pictures of
> the exhibit models using some quality camera
> equipment.  I just got the pictures back and they
> turned out wonderful.
>
> I also did a video of the Origami designers panel.
> The panel was moderated by Jan Polish.  On the
> panel were Joseph Wu, Robert Lang, Michael LaFosse,
> Jeremy Shafer, Marc Kirschenbaum and John Montroll
> discussing the nature of origami design....an interesting
> discussion and those who have never met the designers,
> interesting to see what they are like.
>
> Anyway, if there is interest, I can see about making
> copies.  Copies of the prints could get expensive and I
> am not sure what would be the best way to allow you to
> select which prints you might want.  If you have any ideas,
> let me know.
>
> If you have interest....why don't you e-mail me privately.
>
> Allen Parry
> parry@eskimo.com





Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 02:35:11 -0300 (ADT)
From: dbwalker@nilenet.com (David Bruce Walker)
Subject: Re: ORIGAMI-L digest 791

>In a previous post, the following was stated:

>Ok, here's another one.  Copyright is retained by the owner, unless
>given away in writing.  Folding is an algorithm, since no two are
>ever exactly alike, though similar.  The final results are also varied.
>The final model may be copyrightable, as it is, but not as generalized
>to everyone who folds the same model.

the problem with the above arguement is that models made from a diagram
look very much like the original. I may not be able to reproduce the exact
copy the creator made from his design, but you can tell i tried.  this is
the old "look and feel arguement" which microsoft used against apple.
another aspect of this is intent. I was trying to duplicate the creator's
work, just my skill or knowlege were lacking. this same arguement was used
in the world of card magic, some magicians felt that if they changed the
face or color of the cards it was a new effect. NO, the same sequence was
used and the end result was the same if just blurred.
>
>Since most origami books ENCOURAGE you to fold, to share, to create,
>and there is no disclaimer on anything but the printed work, law and
>practice come into conflict.  It could be argued, probably successfully
>that such works have been released to the public domain to be copied,
>modified, and worked on.  In fact, most books specificially encourage
>you to do so.  So, while the attribution is there, it's what would be
>the 'attributed public domain.'

the problem with this arguement is that you can hold rights in reservation,
ie, sell your land but keep all the mineral rights.

  If you
>expect someone to pay you a royalty for each folded diagram, then you
>better put that in writing in your book, and I'll bet your book sales
>fall into the negative numbers.

I would buy any book by montroll, lang, or wu or anyother creater if i liked
the models no matter what they said
>
>But, I really, really think that if you continue with this, and I
>don't mean you as individuals, I mean you as all folders, that you
>will do more damage to the craft than you have any idea about.

and what damage can a open discussion have, you agree or disagree, you fold
or don't and you pay or you don't

i myself have no problem paying a royalty if someone requests it, or getting
permission to use diagrams or instructions as I have done in the past for a
class i was teaching.
It does not take away my joy in folding the model any more than paying for
my golf clubs take away my joy of playing golf.

 I would be more concerned with the practical aspects associated with such
demands. ie, if i folded elias' the last dance, who in the b.o.s would i
contact and how do you determine what a fair royalty is, a one-time fee or a
percentage for each model folded.

and what if as in the case of a model I have folded which combines two
models, the body or concept belongs to one folder and the head to another?
how do you determine the percentages

but for me forget all of the above, what is really comes down to is respect.
I have met joseph wu, robert lang and john montroll and like them, i could
no more cheat them out of what they may feel is just compensation for the
labor than i could any other friend or family member.  this applies to all
whom i have  met and whose i haven't. anyway,enough of this, if any of you
want to reply privately, please do, I'm thinking of writing about this for
the paper or maybe this would be a good panel discussion at the next OUSA
convention.  i'm off to fold a ..... wait i better not say, you never know
who might be reading this :}

david





Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:34:42 -0300 (ADT)
From: jeffry kerwood <jkjeff@hotmail.com>
Subject: (LONG) Many things .... !!!

HI from Jeff Kerwood in Pittsburgh. I've been away for a while
but here I am again (and lovin' being a full time dad). It's not fun
living on one salary. I used to buy origami books like crazy, no more of
that. Thanks to the CMU origami club for its donations of origami books
to the CMU library.

Good to hear lots of fun was had at the convention, wish I coulda been
there.

I've been doing lots of folding so here goes? This is pretty darn long
so if your pressed for time now you may want to save it and read it
later. Otherwise grab a cup of java, better make it a pot, and let's get
started.

1) Any body know of cool (yes I was born in 1956 so cool is still in my
vocabulary) ways to display models. I'm sure anybody who has been to
origami conventions / conferences has seen lots of things displayed.
Others who have "been around the block a few  times" must surely have a
few tips about this tucked away. I'm not thinking about displaying
anything particular (*flats*, big modulers, small 1 piece 3D'ers, etc.).
Just looking for ideas.

2) I needed to cut a bunch of rectangular paper. Here's what I figured
out. I have a Fiskar sliding type cutter. It has recessed markings every
half inch (both vertically and horizontally). I use my embossing stylus
to mark the rectangle then cut it by hand. Works for me.

3) Along those same lines I have found that I could make the same kind
of recessed marking (embossing) template on picture framing matboard. I
did this for the many polys I needed when folding from Phil Shen book.
It worked great. I made a large poly and then inside that one I made
smaller polys (every 1/2 inch) so I could make whatever size poly I
wanted. (More about this below)

4) I have reserved a display case in the local library for an origami
display (for the month of October). I have plenty of stuff I am proud of
to put in there but it is nothing like some of the stuff you experienced
folk can do. I'd love to put origamis best fold forward and show some of
*the good stuff*. It's only one three shelf display case so nothing real
big. In fact minis would be good since I don't have any. If you'd like
to show something in the display send it to Jeff Kerwood, 638 Ravencrest
Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15215. Send info about folders name and who created
the model (and book its from if you know). If you include your name and
address I'll return your model to you. Of course I'll be careful but I
can't guarantee it won't get damaged. Does anyone have a one page
history of origami that I can put in the display. If so email it to me
(see address below). Pittsburghers: I won't be at the Sept 20th OCOP
meeting so you can bring them to the Aug meeting or I can pick them up
at your home (or where ever) or you can mail them to me.

5) I enter this topic - `M`A`T`H` - with complete trepidation. My
highest academic mathematical accomplishment was to flunk out of high
school algebra (I did go on to get a Masters degree (so I, at least
theoretically, do have a brain in there somewhere but high school was
pretty much a haze remember being born in 1956 put me in his school
during the early 70's (oh the temptations of youth))). I am truly a
mathematical hypersubneophyte so what I'm about to say, although correct
(I think), is surely really myopic in it's perspective.  Most everybody
probably knows, or could easily figure this stuff out but since it has
made paper preparation so much easier for me I figured I'd pass it on.
(NOTE TO TOM HULL AND OTHER MATH GODS: Please don't laugh at this (well
ok, why not - go ahead and laugh, but remember (actually you don't even
know this so you can't really remember it, but anyway) that even thought
I stink a math I am fun and friendly and smile a lot)). Undoubtedly this
and much more can be found in books (any body have recommendations?).

     A) Cutting Paper into Polys: I was doing the Phil Shen book and
needed to cut lots of polys. Also, when I created them by folding the
paper and cutting off the tip (as shown in the book) it created
unsightly creases across the center of the finished model. Here is my
revelation. To make an accurate poly sided piece of paper with no
creases (compass required): n = number of sides, c = center angle, r =
radius, l = length of one side.  360 / n / 2 = c. c(sin) * r * 2 = l.
Use the compass to draw a circle with radius r.  Reset the compass to a
length of l and "step" the compass around the parameter of the circle.
Connect the points, cut it out, and you are done.

     B) If you don't want to think and/or know trigonometry just skip
this one. If you do want to follow this one you'll need to look at
*Linked circles* by Alex Bateman at
http://www.mrc-cpe.cam.ac.uk/jong/agb/Tessellation/circles.gif. You'll
see a diagonal line going from the upper left corner down towards the
right (call this O). Call the other parallel diagonal lines with ends at
the top edge of the paper O1 - O5. Here is the problem, how far apart,
along the top edge are these lines. I surmise (translate that into I
don't remember how I figured this part out) that a line perpendicular to
O (call it A) extended to O1 would be 1 inch long (for a 6 inch piece of
paper). If you mentally slide A up until the O1 end of A is at the edge
of the paper (call the edge H) you will have a right triangle (the right
angle is between O and A. Now we can use trigonometry to determine the
length of the edge of the paper between the O and O1 lines (H). You will
see by looking at http://www...circles.gif that taking the diamond shape
(seen clearly in the second diagram on the first line) and bisecting it
horizontally you get two equilateral triangles (each angle = 60
degrees). Using that info we can determine the H - A angle to be 30
degrees and the H - O angle to be 60 degrees.

(if the following diagram looks goofy save it to NOTEPAD and look at it
there)
(mentally rotate this until it makes sense when looking at
http://www...circles.gif)
                    O1
               -------------------
              /|
             / |
            /  |
           /   |
          / 30 |
         /     |
     H  /      | A
       /       |
      /        |
     /         |
    /          |
   / 60     90 |
   -------------------------
         O

Heres what I do to figure the length of H. But first, what I figured out
about trig. With any right triangle: knowing the length of any one side
and one angle other than the 90 degree angle, you can figure out  the
length of all sides. Here also is what the H, A and  O in the diagram
above means. H = hypotenuse, A = the line adjacent to the known angle
(in this case we will use 30 degrees), and O = the line opposite to the
known angle. Here are the primo important formula:
   Formula 1:
     Length of O = tan of the known angle * length of A
   Formula 2:
     Length of O = sin of the known angle * length of H
   Formula 3:
     Length of A = cos of the known angle * length of H
   Formula 4:
     Length of H = the square root of (A squared + O squared)

So the object is to determine the length of H so we know where to mark
the paper to fold the diagonal lines. Lets start with A = 21. To
determine H we need to know the values for A and O. We know A so we need
to determine the length of O.

So here goes (shown to 3 decimal places):

A = 21

Formula l 1:
O = known angle (tan) * A
O = 30 (tan (just find the key and hit it)) * 21
O = 12.124

Formula 4:
H = square root of (A squared + O Squared)
H = square root of (21 squared + 12.124 squared)
H = square root of (441 + 147)
H = 24.248

Once the question (how can I determine H) came to mind it just became an
* I just need to know this *. Now YOU TOO can mark the diagonals
accurately without fretting. (PS: I know someone is going to come along
and show how this can easily be done without math but - hey it was the
mental challenge - the need to overcome.)

6) After making the model on page 6 of the Fuse spiral book 2 (at least
I think it is 2, ISBN 4480872620) the model was "spoingy" (wouldn't lay
flat). Any tips on how to make it stay flat. I thought of weighting it
down with marbles overnight. I haven't tried it yet but suspect it will
spoing back after a few days anyway. (Now, I know I don't have to say
this but - NO GLUE, PAPER CLIPS (my current solution), TAPE, STAPLES or
VELCRO).

7) Whats good paper to use for Fuse spirals (esp. pages 6, 63 & 68 of
the Fuse book mentioned above). I tried 4 or 5 different papers for page
6 and all but one of them "slumped" after a few days so that the rounded
edge that it sits on became flat. The one paper that did not slump was a
bit too thick. So, any good papers for this that aren't too thick?

8) While I'm on the topic of Fuse spirals. How the heck (or should I say
*HECK*) do you fold the spiral tower on page 68 without ending up with a
crumpled heap. I had a nice clean well "preembossed" (all lines pre
drawn with embossing stylus) but by the time I had finished putting in
the precreases the paper looked like ..., well let's keep this G rated.
I got the model finished but heck if I'd let any body see it. What is
the secret, it is a special precreaseing sequence?

9) I stopped into a business paper store. It had like 2 or 3 bazillion
kinds of paper in it. I looked and looked and looked and found some cool
stuff. One with an antique print that folds real nicely was *Parchtone
Text - Aged (8.5 x 11, 60#). It was kind of expensive though - I think
$13.00 per 500. I have folded with other 60# paper that folded *thick*
but this paper doesn't feel bulky when you fold it. There was no way
could I look at everything. They had some sample packets but even they
contained only a small percentage of their total inventory. Seems like
there should be good papers to be found on this avenue - any thoughts?

10) Before my "absence" from origami-L I kinda chopped off the heads of
ALL origami authors. Saying, how come they never give enough narrative
(esp. for the hardest moves). Well, as I said then, I'm new to origami
and maybe don't know enough to have that opinion. Humm, now the point. I
must have been looking at an especially bad crop. Many of the books I've
worked from lately are totally fine. So my atonement, *GOOD JOB TO LOTS
OF YOU ORIGAMI AUTHOR PEOPLE!!!*.

11) I wrote the following before the current royalties discussion
started. Even though I've just read pages of emails on this topic I'd
still like to ask a simple and direct question. What do people really do
in practice? And do you feel what you do is fair?
>> I know some of you make and sell origami. What do you do about
royalties? Do you make all your own models? Send Fuse her 10% (or
whatever)? Hope no one ever asks this question? <<

12) I have given Phil Shens 10 pointed star a try and didn't make it
through the "magic collapse" step 9. I've not given up yet and will give
it another go or two but if any one wants to send me a little narrative
about how to make that step happen it would be helpful. I'm hoping there
is a secret technique because I see all the mountain and valleys but
can't make it happen. Heres a question to get you started, what happens
with the squash folds that are on the back (not seen) in the step 9
diagram. Oh, AhHa, heres the ultimate solution, send me a video of you
folding it. I'll reimburse you for the cost of the video and postage. If
you want to do this send it to Jeff Kerwood, 638 Ravencrest Road,
Pittsburgh, PA 15215. That would be cool.

13) Storing 1" paper: I don't know if they sell them this way (and I
haven't stopped at a golf store to check) but if you could by ONE golf
ball in a box I'd bet the box would work for this. Or how about the
*belt case* for a beeper?

14) Speaking of small. I have never folded with small paper, what would
be good models to start with, and what are the essential tools?

15) More about storing paper, this time LARGE. I have lots of big paper
( biggest about 3' x 4') and can't figure out a way to store it so that
it is easy to sort through, isn't *rolled* (I can't stand fighting with
paper that keeps wanting to roll itself around my head), and doesn't
take up the entire family room floor. Any thoughts?

16) Sy - did you ever find 2 color paper that works wet?

17) What is good paper to use for wet folding. David Brill *Brilliant
Origami* page 104 says heavier grades of Fabirano or Canson are good.
True? I looked in the FF and OUSA catalogues and didn't see these listed
(I did look quickly so I might have missed it). Anybody know where to
get this (or whatever is best)?

18) www.origami.com. Thanks, THIS IS GREAT. One idea. I see you have
(plan to have) reader reviews of origami books. How about a similar
thing for paper. Folders can enter and comment about specific papers
they have used. Especially art, business, hard to find and special
purpose (2 color wet) papers. I (and others?) would also benefit from
reviews/comments about specific papers within big categories (there are
zillions of chyigomi and washi papers, which do people find to be the
best?).

19) AGGGGHHHHHH!!!! - I love tesselations too but man do I get lost in
all your math jargon. What book (or online source - whatever) can I read
to figure out what the heck you guys and gals are talking about? (Thanks
David for you tesselation history. It was NOT too verbose.)

20) I love gadgets and see that others of you have found a few of your
own (like coffee stirrers and chopsticks). I find this interesting, pass
along your favorite gadgets. I have some that I have found REALLY
helpful. This email is getting long enough so I'll pass my gadget list
along another time. I will pass on the following bits of info:
     A) I asked my dentist where he orders his *tools* (I ordered and
dentist. Its free so if your into TOOLS take a look, I think you'll like
it.
     B) I just found this so I don't know much about them. Don't know if
you can get a catalog or what. But anyway, its kind of an interesting
site, take a look: www.scissorsales.com (they have lots more than
scissors).

21) Would I like to hear about success stories. Yes! but especially if
it includes details about what papers, gadgets you used, has a little
narratives about how you got through the sticky steps and discloses and
special *techniques* you used.

Thanks to anyone who made it to the end of this loooong email. I truly
appreciate the time you took to read it and any feedback you can give. I
wish I could meet you in person. If you are ever passing through
Pittsburgh stop over for a BBQ. I think you guys and gals are, as TONY
would say, GRRRRRRRRRREEAATTT!!!.
==========================================================

I see a lot of new names on the list, WELCOME!

Good to be back,

Jeff ( JKJEFF@HOTMAIL.COM )
PS: I only get to my emails once or twice a week so if you if I don't
respond right away to your emails, that's why. But  don't fret, I will.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 17:19:52 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Paper for a Tiger

Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@t-online.de> sez

>But conversely, it is impossible to mimic something as definite as the
>mask of a raccoon or the stripes of a tiger with the appropriate choice of
>paper.

Is not origami the art of suggestion? Dave Brill often makes his designs
from plain brown paper, since using exotic/skin coloured paper would
distract from the fold itself. If exotic colours are essential to
indicate the chosen subject, I'd suggest it's not a particularly good
design in the first place. I've seen stripeless tigers that were
instantly recognisable, for instance.

Looking for "skin" effect paper is a small step down a path that ends up
with those horrific Rojas folds, where paint has been liberally daubed
across the paper in an attempt to breathe life into poor folding.

The Montroll cow/zebra effect is technically stunning, but lacks grace
(IMHO). Will we ever see an elegant stripey fold? I hope so, but it will
take some achieving.

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, 21 Jul 1997 17:30:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: (LONG) Many things .... !!!

jeffry kerwood wrote:
> 1) Any body know of cool(yes I was born in 1956 so cool is still in my
> vocabulary) ways to display models.

I have been mounting things on all of those cd roms I get in the mail,
compuserve, demos, etc.  If you glue a circle of paper, cardstock,
whatever to the the pretty side it works fine for mounting models.

Perry

--
>From pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net

***************************************
* Hey, no matter where you go, there  *
* you are.  B. Bonzai :?)'            *





Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 17:53:49 -0300 (ADT)
From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Subject: Re: polygons and linked circles

On 21 Jul 97 at 13:35, jeffry kerwood wrote:

>      A) Cutting Paper into Polys: I was doing the Phil Shen book and
> needed to cut lots of polys. ...
> ...  To make an accurate poly sided piece of paper with no
> creases (compass required): n = number of sides, c = center angle, r =
> radius, l = length of one side.  360 / n / 2 = c. c(sin) * r * 2 = l.
> Use the compass to draw a circle with radius r.  Reset the compass to a
> length of l and "step" the compass around the parameter of the circle.
> Connect the points, cut it out, and you are done.

This is similar to a standard drafting technique for doing just this.
After you draw your circle, switch from a compass to dividers --- they're
the same as a compass but with points at both ends instead of a
pencil/inkingpen at one end.  the usual technique involves estimating the
"1/nth".  Then starting from one place [where you can make a good hole
with the dividers] you **gently* walk around the circumference.  When
you're done your last step will have either overshot or undershot the
original pinhole by a bit. Estimate 1/nth of the error and in most cases
that'll be more than good enough.  If you're a perfectionist [or you're
working with a LARGE circle], you can just do it again.  Converges VERY
quickly and is really quite accurate and hardly mars the paper at all [the
actual pinholes you USE will get obliterated by the cuts to form the
polygon... the ones you used in your test-runs around the circumference
will *go*away* [they'll be on the part of the circle you throw away].

Same technique works for dividing an edge into nths only you go across
instead of around

>      B) If you don't want to think and/or know trigonometry just skip
> this one. If you do want to follow this one you'll need to look at
> *Linked circles* by Alex Bateman at
> http://www.mrc-cpe.cam.ac.uk/jong/agb/Tessellation/circles.gif. You'll
> see a diagonal line going from the upper left corner down towards the
> right (call this O). Call the other parallel diagonal lines with ends at
> the top edge of the paper O1 - O5. Here is the problem, how far apart,
> along the top edge are these lines. ...

I think you're working too hard on this one.. it is a lot easier than you
make it out to be.  Since it is clear that they are equilateral triangles
and regular hexagons, you know that those diagonal lines have to be sloped
at 60 degrees.  that's easy enough to fold.

As for the spacing, look at the *horizontal* lines, the ones parallel
with the edge you're asking about [for example, look at the topmost one
Alex sketched in in upper-left-hand diagram].  It is obvious that the
triangles along that line are *congruent* and that all of the line
segments everywhere in the diagram have to be the same length.  And so you
can just divide the edge into *equal*parts* with alternate 1/nths going
left-at=60deg, right-at-60deg for as many iterations of the pattern as you
wish. for example, you can divide the one edge into quarters which will
end you up on a square piece of paper with two complete hexagons, about
eight complete triangles, and assorted parts-of-figures around the edges.
Obviously, if you're more ambitious you can divide the starting-edge into
more divisions and you'll get correspondingly more hexagons and triangles.

 /Bernie\

  After than, everything is a bit more difficult, so you'll have to
use the 60/120 diagonals up from the one marked edge as guidelines to put
in all the other parallels and crossing lines.

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





Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:43:37 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Paper for a Tiger

On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Nick Robinson wrote:

=The Montroll cow/zebra effect is technically stunning, but lacks grace
=(IMHO). Will we ever see an elegant stripey fold? I hope so, but it will
=take some achieving.

A photo of KOMATSU's tiger is now on the front page of my site. Take a gander
at it.

Joseph Wu - origami@planet.datt.co.jp - http://www.origami.net/homes/jwu
> It's your privilege as an artist to inflict the pain of creativity on
yourself. We can teach you how WE paint, but we can't teach you how YOU
paint. There's More Than One Way To Do It.
> Have the appropriate amount of fun.    --Wall, Christiansen, Schwartz





Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:11:00 -0300 (ADT)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Paper for a Tiger

At 05:19 PM 7/21/97 -0300, Nick Robinson <nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@t-online.de> sez
>
>>But conversely, it is impossible to mimic something as definite as the
>>mask of a raccoon or the stripes of a tiger with the appropriate choice of
>>paper.
>
>Is not origami the art of suggestion? Dave Brill often makes his designs
>from plain brown paper, since using exotic/skin coloured paper would
>distract from the fold itself. If exotic colours are essential to
>indicate the chosen subject, I'd suggest it's not a particularly good
>design in the first place. I've seen stripeless tigers that were
>instantly recognisable, for instance.

I think Sebastian was talking mote about paper texture and colour, rather
than a specific pattern. This, I believe, can be important to the
effectiveness of an origami design. Different models are more appropriate
for different types of paper, and it is important for the folder to realize
which types should be used.

For models that are defined by internal folded edges, thicker paper will
heighten the effect (literaly). Using lighter colours will help as well
(which will also make any effects caused by shadows to be more dramatic).
Conversely, darker colours and thinner paper should be used to conceal any
unwanted folded edges.

Texture does affect the thickness of the paper, so it is certainly a
consideration. The length and variations in the grain will affect the way
the eye perceives things.

As for patterens, some models will work better, and some will not. The
general rule is that patterns work much better with structuraly simplistic
models, that have a large enough surface area to leave the pattern
uncluttered. The big exception seems to be with models made from 7x3 ratio
paper. For some reason they seem to beg to be made from American legal tender.

>
>Looking for "skin" effect paper is a small step down a path that ends up
>with those horrific Rojas folds, where paint has been liberally daubed
>across the paper in an attempt to breathe life into poor folding.

Some models were designed for exhibition, and some were not. Both sorts of
models fulfill a particular need in the origami community. With the
exibition oriented models, i would think it would make sence to present
them in their best light, which includes picking the best looking paper. In
picking a paper, one consideration is to ensure the paper does not steal
the spotlight. i know this is a subjective area, but I think the effects
Sebatian was refering to are subtle in nature. Personally I am excited to
hear about someone (other than myself) who is doing interesting things with
foil-backing (if you are listening Sebastian, we should exchange our ideas).

>
>The Montroll cow/zebra effect is technically stunning, but lacks grace
>(IMHO). Will we ever see an elegant stripey fold? I hope so, but it will
>take some achieving.

Nick, it looks like you are mixing up issues here. It is hard to dispute
the groundbreaking effects of the zebra duo that appeared years ago from
Montroll and Kawahata. The lines used in Montroll's work are perhaps a bit
more angular than the Yoshizawa's out there, but I feel we are talking more
about style preferences here. I think one of the great things about that
"Zebra" is how consistent in style it is to the rest of Montroll's models
(it is loosly based on his often used dog base). In a certain sence, I
think Montroll designs his work more for their foldability, rather than
their displayablility. The fact that most of them are quite displayable
(which is an understatement), is quite an accomplishment. Much of the more
sculpted works out there are not even remotely as foldable (by people other
than the original artist).

Marc





Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:58:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: rick@tridelta.com (Rick Bissell)
Subject: Shen Star / HOTMAIL

(Jeff Kerwood wrote)
>12) I have given Phil Shens 10 pointed star a try and didn't make it
>through the "magic collapse" step 9. I've not given up yet and will give
>it another go or two but if any one wants to send me a little narrative
>about how to make that step happen it would be helpful.

Hi Jeff,
Glad to see that you are "back in the fold" so to
speak.  Regarding the Shen 10 pt star, the diagrams in
Paul Jackson's "Complete Origami Course" are clearer
than the ones in the BOS book.  The "Pentagonal
Flower" is also included.

Maybe this will help:

With the top of the star facing upwards,
simultaneously flex all ten points that will form the
star tips outward and down while at the same time from
below pushing up the 5 inner corners that are moving
upward and inward towards the center of the model (use
both hands - three, if you have them). It is important
to firmly strengthen the five mountain ridges that
radiate from the center button on the top of the star
as you are completing the opening procedure to lock
everything in place.  Once you have it open though, it
will stay that way forever.

Hope this helps.  If not, let me know and I'll send
you a completed model.  This is one of my favorites.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A concern:  I see that you are using HOTMAIL.  There
was a posting on another list that I am on about these
so-called "free" mail providers.  It was claimed that
they are in fact not really free, because they monitor
the addresses of outgoing recipients and incoming
senders and sell these addresses to spammers.  Does
anyone on this list know more about this?  I am
fortunate (knock knock) to be "spam free" at this
point, so please don't email me directly until I know
more about this problem.  Thanks for your
understanding.

   -- Rick
