




From: MORGANA <la.llibreria@BCN.SERVICOM.ES>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 23:00:16 +0200
Subject: Re: Help finding Daedelus on the web

Corders wrote:
>
> Hi all:
>
> I've been a lurker for a long time, and have really enjoyed the information
> that I've received from the origami digest.  I'm not sure if I'm sending
> this email to the right address.  If I'm mistaken, please forgive me.
>
> I recently saw on the web a display that included a heart with a cross and
> two beautiful human angel-looking figures.  The figures were described as
> "daedelus" by Gabriel Alvarez.  Could someone please tell me if I can find
> the diagrams for this model on the web?  If not, where could I find them in
> an "in-print" book?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Jim
Dear Jim
The "daedalus", ("Dedalo" in spanish) by Gabriel Albarez is diagramed in
the book:
"El libro de las pajaritas de papel" by Grupo Riglos
Edited by ALIANZA EDITORIAL
Collection: Libro de bolsillo  N: 1339
I.S.B.N. 84-206-0339-2
Printed in Spain
This book is avaiable.

A coment:  If you want to know the legent of Daedalus and his son Icarus
e-mail me privately.





From: Magdalena Cano Plewinska <mplewinska@MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 23:42:26 +0000 (
Subject: Re: Apology (RE:RE:Do I get Origami)

On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:45:01 +0200, Sebastian Marius Kirsch
<skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Julian A. wrote:
>> Before I asked several questions about several things, but few if no one
>> responded.
>
>Yes, and that's because your questions were too simple.

>The mailing list lives because of the interaction between its members. If
>someone....only asks questions without giving information himself,
>he will not get an answer....There are people here who are able to answer your
>questions, but you have to prod them on the right spot to get a response.

Let me add to Sebastian's message. Few of us are up to writing a long
essay on any subject. Life is too short and we do other things besides
reading and answering questions on this list. That means that when you
ask a question on this (or any) mailing list, you need to be pretty
specific about it. There is no simple answer to a question such as
"what is the best paper for flowers?" It depends on the specific type
of model, what size you want it to be, what you expect to do with it
and probably many other things I haven't though of. To get a
meaningful answer, you need to give us a little background on what you
are trying to achieve, what you've already tried and what problems you
have run into. Also, some single sentence questions can send the
message that the questioner is *demanding* (not just asking for) an
answer. I wouldn't go out of my way to answer a question phrased that
way and I have found that neither would most others.

I disagree a little about the statement that people only answer
questions only if they get something in exchange. I answer a lot of
questions in my area of expertise (genetics) on other lists. The only
thing I get for it is "karma credit" and being forced to focus my
thoughts into a coherent form (I guess that's something :)). I am
happy to answer but it takes a lot of time to explain such things
properly and I would resent anyone demanding that I do it whenever the
question is asked rather than when I feel I can spare the time. I am
sure others feel the same way on the subject of origami.

I personally do origami because I find it relaxing to fold models I
know well, challenging to fold new models, and just plain amazing that
it's possible to make something that is recognizable as an animal or
person out of a square piece of paper. I also love the way modulars
come together to make a whole. I'm happy when other people appreciate
my models but that is definitely not my top motivation (or even
close). I'm sure others have their own reasons. Whatever your reason
is, only you can decide whether it's sufficient for you.

Better luck getting your questions answered in the future.
--
Magda Plewinska                   mplewinska@mindspring.com
Miami, FL, USA





From: Peter Niggemann <peter.niggemann@BIGFOOT.COM>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:43:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Apology (RE:RE:Do I get Origami)

>
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:06:01  "Julian A." <hullianx13@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote;

> ...For now I just ask if anyone can tell me where to find
>enchanting yet simple models?
>

Origami Made Easy, Kunihiko Kasahara contains many simple but elegant
folds as do most any of Kasahara's books. I would recommend Origami
Omnibus by the same author if you can find a copy but it is out of
print. Origami Plain and Simple, Robert Neale and Thomas Hull also
contains a number of simple but clever folds.

I find that the model with the fewest folds that evokes the essence of
the subject matter is superior to one which is a literal copy taking
hundreds of steps. There is a dove on pg. 355 of Origami Omnibus which
is done with only 10 steps. So not only is the dove found in a simple
square of paper but it is found so effortlessly.

This is not a knock on the impressive work done by Lang, Montrol,
Engle. etc. I have shoe boxes full of insects. They are interesting to
fold and if done properly quite a stroke to the ego. However you cannot
expect someone who is not bitten with the origami bug to understand why
you spent all day folding moths. It is best to fold what pleases you
the most and not worry so much about what other people think. The same
thing goes for mailing lists on the internet.





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 06:44:01 +0200
Subject: Re: Apology (RE:RE:Do I get Origami)

On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Magdalena Cano Plewinska wrote:
> I disagree a little about the statement that people only answer
> questions only if they get something in exchange. I answer a lot of
> questions in my area of expertise (genetics) on other lists. The only
> thing I get for it is "karma credit" and being forced to focus my
> thoughts into a coherent form (I guess that's something :)).

Yes, that exactly what I meant by "getting something out of it". When
you answer a question, you need to sort out your thoughts, and this is a)
fun, and b) useful for yourself, because if you have sorted out your
thoughts, you can access them more easily. (Well, sort of. I did a little
workshop on wet-folding at this year's conventions, and I was amazed at
how much I know about wet-folding, and how little of it I put into
practice.)

Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)





From: Boseditor@AOL.COM
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 08:39:01 -0400 (
Subject: Please help me identify an author/designer...

Yep, I admit it - Electra is one of mine. Glad you liked it, Tom. Even more
glad you made it and put it on display!

You might also like to know that you can put 60 of the same units together to
make a larger and - in my opinion - much more beautiful ball. In this larger
model all the rings of units in Electra become curved arcs. I call the large
one Electra60 to make it easy to distinguish which one I'm talking about - and
because it generates a lot of high voltage interest.

To make Electra60 first put five modules together in a pentagonal ring. To
every face then add two more modules which link up to make a square. Then join
each of the squares with a triangle - you don't add any extra modules to do
this. Just continue this pattern of pentagons, squares and triangles in a
symmetrical way and the model will form itself.

Enjoy!

Perhaps it's worth mentioning as a matter of general interest that I gave Paul
Jackson permission to use this model on the basis that I would retain full
copyright, be fully credited and receive a copy of the book.

Unfortunately it soon became clear that the publisher's had little intention
of respecting the spirit of this agreement. The problem was and is that Paul
worked for them on a flat fee rather than a royalty basis - and therefore has
absolutely no control over what the publishers now do with the material he
supplied them with.

I ought to make it clear that Paul remains most upset about the situation but
there's nothing he can do about it and he is in no way to blame. It's a
learning curve for all of us.

However - look what's happened. As usual with Paul's books this one is stuffed
full of quality material presented in a very folder-friendly way - and this
excellent material has been distributed more widely in more forms than any
other origami book I've ever heard of. And at an incredibly cheap price at
times.

Maybe every origami cloud really does have a silver lining!

Dave Mitchell





From: Larry Finch <LarryFinch@AOL.COM>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:25:13 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Apology (Was-Do I get Origami)

In a message dated 98-06-19 06:10:05 EDT, jfrmpls@SPACESTAR.NET writes:

> > For now I just ask if anyone can tell me where to find
>  >enchanting yet simple models?
>

Have you mastered the crane and the jumping frog, both relatively easy
traditional folds? You will find them in many books. The OUSA archives has an
excellent strawberry that requires a lot of folding, but is relatively easy.
(It is frequently taught in a beginning class at NY's American Museum of
Natural History, the home of OUSA).

David Brill's _Brilliant Origami_ has some exceedingly challenging folds, but
also some unusual ones that should not be too difficult for a beginning
folder. And Peter Engel's _Folding the Universe: Origami from Angelfish to
Zen_ is in the same category (it includes the crane and frog, BTW). Robert
Harbin has several books of easy to intermediate folds.

Larry





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 10:44:39 +0100
Subject: Re: Please help me identify an author/designer...

Tom Hill <tomh@GROUPWORKS.COM> sez

>Anyway, there's one model in the book.

Elektra was published in a Jackson book. His works for Quarto have been
*extensively* pillaged & recombined by the company. I should know, since
they've used some of my work in one of them!

all the best,

Nick Robinson

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 RealAudio clips!





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 10:45:36 +0100
Subject: Re: _Great_ simple models

Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE> sez

>Nick Robinson's models are
>also very elegant, but as far as I know, only few of them are published. Nick,
>can you tell us how one can get your booklet?

Easy! Visit my homepage (address below) & place an order....

all the best,

Nick Robinson

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 RealAudio clips!





From: Jean-Jerome CASALONGA <jjerome.casalonga@HOL.FR>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 11:27:45 +0200
Subject: Re: Sellers' point of view

Joseph Wu wrote :

> I even had to sign it for him at his insistence.

WHAT ! ?

You mean Yoshi asked you to *draw* something on an origami model ?

Why not draw eyes to your model ?

That's one point I would like to raise to the Origami community : Should a
model be dedicated ?
I always thought it is strange (not to say stupid) to put the signature of
the artist *on* the artwork (like, a pianting, or a sculpture).

It would be like, when listening at a music, the player would stop inteh
middle of the play and would say : 'This music was created by JS Bach' and
then resume the playing.

        The idea of "Pure Origami" is that you should not add or remove anything
from the paper.  That should include writting on it.

This is why I'm surprised that Maaaaaaaaaster Yoshi would ask you to do
such an heretic act.

        Even if you signature was on a hidden part of the model, this is NOT
     pure
origami.

        JJ Casalonga
(who will dedicate his latest book : "I don't like dedicates" at Barneys &
Nobles soon )





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 11:57:41 -0400
Subject: Ongoing Debates - please read

Seems like overkill, and unnecessary, IMHO, Steve.

All that's required in the way of "filtering" is
for everyone to try to put meaningful descriptive
and to change the subject lines of on-going discussions
when the topic shifts from the original one.

Second, it usually takes everyone a little while to
learn to be more careful about email, since the "tone"
is difficult to interpret without the visual and audible
signals we're used to in face to face speech. It is
perhaps somewhat more difficult on this list, since
the membership is international, and sometimes
misunderstandings occur.

Perhaps that has something to do with the remarkable
tradition of civility on this list, that everyone
comes to know they must make an extra effort. It
also helps to recall that whatever you write here
is being archived "for the ages" in at least two
places, and those archives get indexed by the major
Web search services as well... :-)

Regards,
Valerie Vann





From: Norman Budnitz <nbudnitz@DUKE.EDU>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 15:29:51 -0400
Subject: Southeastern Origami Festival

>The other day I received a leaflet from America about the Southeastern
>Origami Festival. I just wondered who sent it. I guess it must be
>someone on the list. If it is, please send me a message. I can't make it
>I'm afraid as travel to America (from England) isn't exactly within my
>budget at the moment. Still it was nice to hear about it. The full-size
>origami skeletons of a T-rex and a triceratops (I think) sound
>wonderful. Perhaps the people who are going to make it (or have made it
>already) could tell us about it, unless it's already been discussed
>before I rejoined the list.
>
>Martin Gibbs.

The leaflet you received was sent out by Jonathan Baxter and his crew,
announcing the SEOF.  Although the Festival is in September, we wanted to
get information out before the New York OUSA Convention so that people
there could make their autumn plans together.  On the other hand, though
you will probably hear more about SEOF in the coming months, let's let OUSA
have the limelight right now.  I know I am heading up to New York a couple
of days early to help out.

Oh, and the T. rex and Triceratops?  If you won't be able to see them in
person, watch for photos as our web site develops.  More later.

*******************************************************************
Norman Budnitz          919-684-3592 (day)
nbudnitz@duke.edu               919-383-0553 (eve)
                                919-684-6168 (fax)

Dept of Zoology, Duke University, Box 90325, Durham NC 27708-0325 (work)
4115 Garrett Drive, Durham NC 27705-8005 (home)

PROGRESS: the victory of laughter over dogma.
(Tom Robbins, Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas)





From: V'Ann Cornelius <vann@LHT.COM>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 18:09:32 -0700
Subject: California Airplane Contest

FYI ...  The Second Annual Paper Airplane Contest

                 July 25  Saturday

                 4:00 pm

                Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California

                [This is a public airport with a small cafe
                over a hanger space. ]

 Entry Fee:      $9.95 for adults, $7.95 for children under 12
                 includes BBQ dinner.
                 Dinner is available for non-entrants.
                 It is sponsored by the Airport Cafe.

 Divisions:      Distance:  Length of flight from launch
                 Accuracy:   Comes closest to the target

                 A different plane may be entered in each division.

 Registration:   Day of event, from noon until 4pm

 Rules:

 1.      Planes must be made from a single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper
         or smaller.
         Cardboard, poster board or the like will not be allowed.
         Any plane deemed by the judges to not be in the spirit of
         the contest may be disqualified.

 2.      No foreign objects or materials of any kind, such as paper
         clips, stapes, tape, water, glue etc. will be allowed.

 3.      The paper cannot be cut or torn.

 4.      Top five contestants in each division will "fly off" against
         each other in the prize round.
         Prizes will include gift certificates for
           Barnstorming Adventures
                 [time in the air in a bi-plane with a pilot]
           Carlsbad Airport Pilot supplies
           Palomar Airport Cafe.

 5.      Contestants will be allowed only one attempt.

 6.      All winning planes become the property of the
         Palomar Airport Cafe.

 7.      Decision of the judges is final.





From: Terry Buse <tbuse@VSTA.COM>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 08:47:18 -0500
Subject: Re: 50 Ways lyrics

Hi Katherine,
Not bad. When is the next chat? Maybe this time I won't be taking Ty to the
doctor :)
S@@ ya
Terry

-----Original Message-----
Date: Saturday, June 20, 1998 9:55 PM

>50 Ways to Fold Your Model
>
>The problem is all inside your head, she said to me
>Origami is easy if you take it mathematically
>I'd like to help you with your creases, that's the key
>There must be fifty ways to fold your model
>
>She said we really need to work on your technique
>This is a rabbit ear, right here you fold a peak
>A few more folds you learn will help with what you seek
>There must be fifty ways to fold your model
>Fifty ways to fold your model
>
>CHORUS:
>You just get a good book and look
>Go on the Web, Deb
>Joseph Wu would do
>Or listen to Lang
>Hop on the bus, Gus
>Go to a convention
>Take a great class, las
>It s a gas!
>
>She said it helps to have a diagram that s clear
>It makes it so much easier to follow it, my dear
>I said I can believe that,
>And please take away my fear
>About the fifty ways
>
>She said it's really not that hard, you will agree
>It does take practice, but just wait and you will see
>A finished model will fill you with such glee
>There must be fifty ways to fold your model
>Fifty ways to fold your model
>
>CHORUS
>
>Well that is my version. Chris how are you coming along with your
>lyrics? Norma and Ria did you come up with a song yet? Anyone else care
>to try? It's fun!!!
>
>Kathy <*))))><





From: lmh <lmh@COMPUSMART.AB.CA>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:05:35 -0600
Subject: Re: 50 Ways lyrics

Katherine,

Really enjoyed your rendition.
Thanks
Lynda

----------
> From: Katherine J. Meyer <kathy@SILENTWORLD.COM>
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: 50 Ways lyrics
> Date: June 19, 1998 20:59 PM
>
> 50 Ways to Fold Your Model
>
> The problem is all inside your head, she said to me
> Origami is easy if you take it mathematically
> I'd like to help you with your creases, that's the key
> There must be fifty ways to fold your model
>
> She said we really need to work on your technique
> This is a rabbit ear, right here you fold a peak
> A few more folds you learn will help with what you seek
> There must be fifty ways to fold your model
> Fifty ways to fold your model
>
> CHORUS:
> You just get a good book and look
> Go on the Web, Deb
> Joseph Wu would do
> Or listen to Lang
> Hop on the bus, Gus
> Go to a convention
> Take a great class, las
> It s a gas!
>
> She said it helps to have a diagram that s clear
> It makes it so much easier to follow it, my dear
> I said I can believe that,
> And please take away my fear
> About the fifty ways
>
> She said it's really not that hard, you will agree
> It does take practice, but just wait and you will see
> A finished model will fill you with such glee
> There must be fifty ways to fold your model
> Fifty ways to fold your model
>
> CHORUS
>
> Well that is my version. Chris how are you coming along with your
> lyrics? Norma and Ria did you come up with a song yet? Anyone else care
> to try? It's fun!!!
>
> Kathy <*))))><





From: Michael Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:01:10 +1000
Subject: Re: Apology (RE:RE:Do I get Origami)

Hi Julian,

Your recent apology humbles me, as I have obviously misjudged you. I was
always warned off using that yardstick! Please accept my apology and a few
lines of genuine advice.

Kunihiko Kasahara's "Creative Origami" is filled with simple yet elegant
origami models, ideal for experimenting with the traditional bases.
Montroll's "Origami for the Enthusiast" leads the folder through a series
of increasingly difficult projects, though is short on written text.
Lang's "Complete book of Origami" is rich in text, perfect for getting a
clear explanation of each type of fold, as well as using various
non-square bases.

ps. as a side note, I can fold some of the more difficult Engel
models, and yet I cannot say the same for the famous rose!

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Michael Janssen-Gibson                 e-mail: mig@isd.canberra.edu.au





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 11:18:11 +0200
Subject: Should a model be signed ? BORN from: Sellers' point of view

Bonjour, Jean

>WHAT ! ?
>
>You mean Yoshi asked you to *draw* something on an origami model ?

It's also surprising for me, but...

>Why not draw eyes to your model ?

I think a signature is something other than drawing an eye (or two). The
signature tells you the connection of the model and the person who signed it
but an eye drawn on the model doesn't. A signature is not decoration on the
model but the eye is.

>That's one point I would like to raise to the Origami community : Should a
>model be dedicated ?

I think it doesn't *have to be* dedicated but *can be*, if *asked*.

>I always thought it is strange (not to say stupid) to put the signature of
>the artist *on* the artwork (like, a pianting, or a sculpture).

Yes, I agree. But why not to put a signature on the back?

>It would be like, when listening at a music, the player would stop inteh
>middle of the play and would say : 'This music was created by JS Bach' and
>then resume the playing.

:)) Going with the same analogy, JS Bach could sign 'the back' of his music
so that when you're listening to it, you say 'Yeah, that's JS Bach!' without
hearing 'This music was made by JS Bach' in the middle of the play.

>Even if you signature was on a hidden part of the model, this is NOT pure
>origami.

Y? If I unfold the model partially, and write a signature in the inner part,
it can't be seen, only if you unfold that part. And the one who asked for
dedication, will know it, and no one else (okay, the dedicator will). So it
won't hurt anyone's eyes (drawn or not :).

Well, if you sign it with gl*e or c*t your name out, that's not pure but why
not to write on the inside of the model, if asked?

I agree with you that if a signature that can be seen from meters far,
spoils the model. But if it can't be seen, it's no problem for me.

I only sign my models if 'X.Y.' asks me to do, and I always write it inside
(unless I'm forced by person 'X.Y.' to write on the outside).

>   JJ Casalonga
>(who will dedicate his latest book : "I don't like dedicates" at Barneys &
>Nobles soon )

:)

Please don't take my letter offending, I had no intention like that in my mind.

Best wishes for the dedication,

Peter Budai





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 11:18:19 +0200
Subject: Does it worth to confuse subjecting?  WAS:(Ongoing Debates)

Steve Woodmansee wrote:

>The list members also frequently found themselves re-hashing old topics
because >of new questions, new members, re-worded sentiments, etc.  Sound
familiar?!

I think new members deserve the same things as the old ones did.
'For a newborn, every joke sounds new.' (saying).

>So...somethine that was very effective in managing these situations without
>stifling input or offending anyone, was a method of forcibly categorizing
>input to these areas which required all mail posted to the list to be
>identified with one of 5 (I think) pre-designated primary topics.  In our
>case that might be COPYRIGHT, HELP, ADVICE, etc.  Mail submitted without
>the pre-designated topics was rejected automatically.
>
>I found this method to be fair and easy to use.  It also facilitated an
>easily practicable method of filtering out topics I wasn't interested in or
>didn't wish to deal with.  Would that work for us?

I think no. First of all, when a new member enters the list, she/he won't
know why her/his message bounces off each time and would get upset.

Another thing is what Kim Best wrote already (saying: 'I do think we can,
voluntarily, do more to keep our subject lines moreinformative'), that we
ourselves can provide better subjecting (although, as for me, I barely got
email from the list whose subject didn't tell what the email was about).
Please don't uniform and automatizate the subjects.

>[...] without intimidating those who want to be part of the lovelier
>(and gentler) aspects of this list.

Reading the first sentences (if the subject doesn't help) will tell you if
it's a strong debate or a gentle discussion. From then on, you can decide to
read or delete the message. But it's also worth to read a stronger tone
letter and then write your opinion about the subject (not the tone) using
kind tone, to calm the debate down, to transform it into a gentle discussion.

Kim Best wrote:

>And when the subject changes in an ongoing thread, please lets change the
>subject line.

I strongly agree. If something new arises from an earlier topic, or the
discussion starts a different aspect, let's call it a new topic (perhaps
leaving the old topic at the end).

Think it over, Steve. I think it wouldn't worth to make such changes.
Although I agree that sometimes discussions turn into wrong directions. For
example Jan Fodor started the "Seller's point of view" in an extremely kind
voice and then there were stronger voice letters in connection with this topic.
But see, that there were also kind letters again, which helped the
discussion not to turn the mailing list into a fighting list.

So, as you wrote:

Peace to All

Peter Budai





From: Jane Rosemarin <jfrmpls@SPACESTAR.NET>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 15:16:36 +0100
Subject: Re: NO: Should a model be signed ? BORN from: Sellers' point of view

Peter Budai wrote:

>:)) Going with the same analogy, JS Bach could sign 'the back' of his music
>so that when you're listening to it, you say 'Yeah, that's JS Bach!' without
>hearing 'This music was made by JS Bach' in the middle of the play.

Of course Peter refers to style, but Bach sometimes signed his work by
using as a theme the musical notes his name spelled. He didn't do this
regularly, but there is a chorale prelude with the theme b-flat, a, c,
b-natural (in English musical language) which is what b-a-c-h is in
German musical language. (I think the French equivalent is bemol, la, do,
si, but I'm away from home and can't check.)

-Jane, who folds to music





From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@ALOHA.NET>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 20:52:21 -1000
Subject: Re: Sellers' . . . On Creativity [LONG]

> Just my two cents . . .
>
> Mike "The Day Paperfolding Stops Being Fun is the Day I Stop Folding Paper"
     Naughton
>
Mike Naughton,
        I think I love you.  That was such a thoughtful, warm supportive
email.  I agree with you on all points.  For me to have said that would
have been arrogant and full of conceit.  In actuality I sort of expect
Yoshizawa to throw up his hands when he receives my samples and say,
"What is this lady talking about...these are not my models!"  I'm not
sure if he recognizes origami jewelry.  Besides gluing and lacquering, I
had the audacity to insert bead eyes into the frog.  I've had people,
not just a few, focus in on the eyes and declare how it really makes the
frog.  Poor Mr. Yoshizawa may not even know his frog when he sees the
"open-mouth surgery and red tongue implant" I performed on the "Vegas"
frog.  Hoooh! What brazen moves I know.  After I sent them I thought,
maybe he'll totally reject them and I can do them without the
association of his creatorship.  I can dream can't I?  I have this thing
about honesty that I can't get away from so, whatever he says will be
so, so long as he lives.  I truly hope that I do not totally upset him
as that was not my intention when I sent the models.  I hoped that there
may be some redeeming quality about them that will make him forgive the
liberties I took.  I don't know if he acknowledges my ignorence of this
whole credit matter.  He felt that "common sense" should have informed
me.  I certainly believe that adding one's own expression to any kind of
art is legitiment but I don't know what Yoshizawa's stand is on that
point.  Others have encouraged me to make some changes and call it
mine.  I have made changes but it never occurred to me to call it mine.
It sure would have been simpler.  But at what point does one do this?
You've sure hit the nail on the head there.
        Well, I'm really glad that I shared this letter with all of you.  Prior
to this, every time someone brought up the subject, I became guilty and
defensive.  Once I declared myself and decided to brave the
consequences, I felt freed.  I didn't realize there would be so many
sypathetic and kind people out there who would also brave the gauntlet
and support and encourage me.  Even those who don't support my views
have been kind; who can ask for more?  I feel bad that many have
expressed "hostility" toward Mr. Yoshizawa.  But those who have, have
brought out views that needed clearing up and I for one appreciate the
testimonies to Yoshizawa's very nice characteristics.  With all he has
contributed, I think he can afford to have idiosyncracies that we have
strongest words were "you have made me very sad", and "I wish you would
stop".  Hardly something an egotist would say.  I know I brought up the
word but my intentions were to try to make sense of things and to reach
for all possibilities.) I hope to make an honest effort to comply to.
        Once again, thank you. I'm sure the other creative sellers, and
jewelers on the net thank you.
                Aloha nui loa (big aloha), Jan
     ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Part 1.2       Type: application/ms-tnef
>                            Encoding: base64

--
<http://www.gotomymall.com/hawaii/origami/>
Origami by Jan website...the Fodor folder





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 23:05:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Sellers' . . . On Creativity [LONG]

Jan Fodor wrote:
. . .Not being blessed with creator talents . . . .

I have thought for a long time about the postings in the "Seller's point of
     view"
 thread. Many of my thoughts are confused, as I see things both to support and
to criticize on various sides of the questions raised. However, this comment in
particular has stayed with me, and I would like to respond to it. Jan Fodor, I
     think
you are a creator - you may not create original origami designs, but you create
origami jewelry, and that makes you a creator. In doing so, you select various
materials - origami designs among them, but also paper, glue, lacquer, pins
     and/or
fasteners, etc., that have no connection to the creation of the original
     origami design.
You assemble all of these elements into beautiful jewelry, and your artistic and
creative talent are what makes your jewelry special - different both from
     origami models
by themselves and also from other origami jewelry. Just as you feel incapable of
creating original origami designs, I dare say most origami desigers would be
incapable of creating very high quality jewelry; you are each creators in your
     own
spheres, with different talents and using materials.

Jan Fodor also wrote:
. . .we forget those who put the steps there for us to step up on. . . .

I think that's true, and I think it's true for virtually everyone. There are
     very few
(if any) people in the world who do completely original work, and even granting
that Mr. Yoshizawa may be one of them I think the vast majority of origami
     designers
either consciously or unconsciously, knowingly or unknowingly, build on the
work of others. Their creativity lies not in the fact that their work is
     entirely
their own, but instead that they have made a distinctive addition to the world
that they found. Thus, to be fair, when we say that we should give the "creator"
credit, we should credit not only the originator of a particular fold but all
     of the
other creators whose work contributed to the final model. While nice in theory,
this seems clearly impractical, and it makes a lot of sense to limit our credit
to the model's originator (who may also have credited others as appropriate).

By extension, your jewelry is your own creation, despite the fact that it is
built upon the work of others. Expecting you to give credit is one thing, but
expecting you to give veto power over your use of materials (e.g. origami
designs) to the designer seems just one step away from giving veto power
to some earlier designer over the later designer's work. I think most origami
designers would object to having to get permission to build on someone
else's design, especially if their finished model bears little resemblance to
     the
one that inspired them (and maybe the inspiration wasn't even a model -
maybe it was a folding sequence, or crease pattern, or an insight into the
possibilities of a particular fold). I think just the suggestion that this might
be necessary would stifle much of the creative explosion which we have
been enjoying over the past decade or so.

The bottom line, I think, is that we need to find a balance in which we can
all appreciate the debt we owe to those who have gone before, while at
the same time recognizing that we deserve credit for our own individual
contributions. The pendulum seems to swing back and forth over time: for
a while, almost all designs were treated as "traditional" (meaning that no
attribution was necessary or credit due), and while that greatly facilitated
the spread of the designs, it was clearly unfair to their creators. Now we
seem to have moved in the other direction, where in the name of "ethics"
and "respect" we are tempted to grant creators wide control over how
their designs may (or may not) be used. I hope we are moving towards a
reasonable compromise; bearing in mind that as with any compromise
no side is going to end up with everything they want.

Just my two cents . . .

Mike "The Day Paperfolding Stops Being Fun is the Day I Stop Folding Paper"
     Naughton





From: "Katherine J. Meyer" <kathy@SILENTWORLD.COM>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 08:07:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Origami in Therapy Story

Hi Joseph:

Thank you (and Kathleen) for sharing that wonderful story with us.

It makes me wonder about that little girl, I hope she is doing better now.

Origami is more than just a piece of paper, in so many ways.

Kathy <*))))><





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:01:53 -0700
Subject: New Diagrams (including the X-Wing Fighter)

I've placed new diagrams for 5 new models on my website. They are all in
the PDF format. The models are:

Angled Modular (Hacky Sack) by Winson Chan
Tower Box by Winson Chan
Chi-Wing Fighter (you know what it really is) by Wayne Ko
Birdbase Chess Set by Joseph Wu
Yuan Bao by Joseph Wu

The URL for these new diagrams is
<http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca/Files/PDF/models.html>. Or you can just
link to it from my "Diagrams" page.

Enjoy!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:07:45 -0700
Subject: Origami in Therapy Story

Kathleen, a new member to our list, sent me this story via my website. She
has kindly agreed to let me share this with everyone on the list.

>I just wanted to tell you a story about using origami in therapy. When I
was just out of college, I worked as a mental health care provider in a
state hospital.  I worked on the adolescent unit, and on Friday and
Saturday nights, the young women (I worked mostly on the Girl's Side, as it
was called) were allowed to stay up late.
>
>I would bring in my origami book, which I used myself as a form of
relaxation, and was pleasantly surprised by their reception of `folding
paper.'  We would sit around the day room table, and many of them would sit
there for hours with me, wanting to learn how to make different animals or
other creations.
>
>There was a 14-year-old girl who was originally from Vietnam.  She had
escaped from the war on a boat with two of her brothers, and somehow, they
ended up in Texas!  Anyway, while on the boat, at the age of 10, she was
raped several times by other men on the boat (her brothers were devoted to
her and visited often).  Apparently, the whole traumatic experience
(escaping, going to a strange land, being sexually assaulted) was too much
for her to stay present.  She retreated into herself and never spoke again.
 She had a very sweet smile, and she could understand what was being said
to her, and would often laugh, for no apparent reason, or in response to
other people's words.
>
>Anyway, she never would sit down with us, but often would circle the table
and laugh.  One night I asked her if she wanted to sit down with us and
make something.  She sat down, and the other girls passed the paper to her.
 She picked out a piece of paper, and with the flick of her wrists, in
about 30 seconds, she had created a fishing boat.  All the other girls were
amazed and gave her much praise (they didn't realize how intelligent she
was since she never spoke).  She put the boat on the table, laughed, and
ran off to another activity.  I noted the creation in her chart (since it
was a boat) for her doctors.  I just thought you might find that story
interesting.
>
>I think origami is quite therapeautic, and can be used to help children
and adults to learn how to relax, concentrate, and even communicate, as it
seemed was the case with this young woman.
>
>Thanks for letting me share that!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Julius Kusserow <juku@MATHEMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:34:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Please help me identify an author/designer...
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Tom Hill wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A while back, I was browsing a bookstore, and found in a clearance pile,
> a book titled "20 Origami Designs -- Amazing step - by - step origami
> projects". It says that it was published by "Smithmark Publishers" and
> that it's copyright is "1996 Anness Publishing Limited". It's ISBN is
> 0-7651-9770-7. But, no-where in the book, does it mention an author, or
> a designer for any of it's models.
>
> The book is written in a very impersonal style. The prose is all full of
> things like "This design is easy to make..." and "The design is
> straight-forward..." But nothing like, "This is one of my favorite
> models..." or "I like this one because...". It's as if the book was
> compiled by a computer or something.
>
> Anyway, there's one model in the book. The only serious modular
> construction (there are two other modulars, but they are trivial two
> piece abstract ornaments) is called "Electra". It's made of thirty
> identical units which are basically triangular in shape. The points of
> the units lock inside pockets in the units next to them to form open
> pentagons and triangles. Over-all, the shape is an open ball.
>
> While on vacation, I made this "Electra" out of two inch squares and
> I've hung it in my office. I've had some people comment on it, and I'd
> like to credit the designer, but I have no idea who that would be. Does
> anyone have any ideas?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Fold in Peace,
> Tom
> tomh@groupworks.com
>
Hi all,

I have the book mentioned above I think. The book contains a model "Seal
on a Rock" without credit to the creator.

The model is a brown(depends on paper) seal on a rock(backside of paper).
The model start with quartering a square lengthwise turning white out

Anyone an ideas about the creator.

Thanks in advanvce
        Julius





From: Julius Kusserow <juku@MATHEMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:41:12 +0200
Subject: Comment to "Electra" (was: Please help me identify an
Hi Dave, Hi Tom

the "Electra" was the first modular origami I fold. I fold it several
times with several ideas. One possibility of folding is:

Take 3 different colours, 10 squares of each colour, and you may arrange
these modules in a way that to connetcted modules have always different
coloures. A bit tricky but locks nice

        Julius





From: Richard Kennedy <r.a.kennedy@BHAM.AC.UK>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:02:16 +0100
Subject: Designer question - seal on rock

> I have the book mentioned above I think. The book contains a model "Seal
> on a Rock" without credit to the creator.

Martin Wall, I think.

Richard K
(R.A.Kennedy@bham.ac.uk)





From: Julius Kusserow <juku@MATHEMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:08:39 +0200
Subject: Re: Should a model be signed ?
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Peter Budai wrote:
.
.
.
> I think a signature is something other than drawing an eye (or two). The
> signature tells you the connection of the model and the person who signed it
> but an eye drawn on the model doesn't. A signature is not decoration on the
> model but the eye is.
>
I think  a signature on a model is a connection, as you mention above,
between the model and the person who signed it. If I don't forgot it I
sign models with something like Creator: x.YYY Folder:J.Kusserow. This
seems important to me, espacialy if I'm not the creator(most of the time)
and I give the model to other origami folders, because the memory for
names was  in my experience always bad, and I want credit the creator.
>
.
.
.
> Y? If I unfold the model partially, and write a signature in the inner part,
> it can't be seen, only if you unfold that part. And the one who asked for
> dedication, will know it, and no one else (okay, the dedicator will). So it
> won't hurt anyone's eyes (drawn or not :).
>
.
.
.
> I only sign my models if 'X.Y.' asks me to do, and I always write it inside
> (unless I'm forced by person 'X.Y.' to write on the outside).
>
>
What do you do if the model have no inside ? Many models I give away are
folded from 7.5 cm  x7.5 cm squares and dont have an inside to sign, or to
small to sign, and signing on the outside will destroy the model?
Any help welcome!!

>...

        Julius





From: Tom Hill <tomh@GROUPWORKS.COM>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:53:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Please help me identify an author/designer...
>

Julius,

I haven't had the courage to try that one, mostly since I don't own any really
'nice' paper. I fold almost everything out of used computer printer paper,
which means one side has random stuff printed on it. How hard is it? Can you
give me any pointers? It's a really cool model, isn't it?

I just couldn't believe that there wasn't even an author/editor credited on
the book. It was really strange. And, I didn't notice it until I got it home.

Well, back to programming. Something's got to pay for those origami books!

Fold in peace,
Tom
tomh@groupworks.com

> Hi all,
>
> I have the book mentioned above I think. The book contains a model "Seal
> on a Rock" without credit to the creator.
>
> The model is a brown(depends on paper) seal on a rock(backside of paper).
> The model start with quartering a square lengthwise turning white out
>
> Anyone an ideas about the creator.
>
> Thanks in advanvce
>         Julius





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:26:04 -0400
Subject: Re: New Diagrams (including the X-Wing Fighter)

Joseph, I see the following on your diagram page
http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca/Files/PDF/models.html:

<
"NOTE: These diagrams may be reproduced only for
 personal use, and may not be redistributed or
 republished in any way without the express written
 consent of the diagrammer (who holds the
 copyright) or of the creator."
>

Would the statement (found in the Angled Modular .pdf) "Feel free to make
copies and distribute" constitute written consent? I think it would, just
read together these two statements are a little confusing. But my real
question is this, if the diagrammer is the true copyright holder why would
getting permission from the creator mean anything, wouldn't the copyright
holder be the only one who could give official (as you are suggesting is
needed) permission?

Thanks Joseph for the new diagrams

Good day, Jeff Kerwood





From: Winson Chan <winsonc@SFU.CA>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:36:33 -0700
Subject: New diagrams

Hi Everyone,

I thought it might be time to introduce myself, I've been lurking around this
list for a couple years now.  I'm just another crazy folder who loves boxes,
modulars, and miniatures.  Not much of a folder when it comes to animals, and
other things which I beleive requires an "artistic" touch.

First I want to thank Joseph for introducing me to origami, and encouraging me,
     and telling to get things diagramed putting my diagrams on his web page.

The models I create and diagram are for everyone, so please download the
diagrams, make as many copies as you want and distribute them to whoever you
want.  I beleive origami should be shared.  For models which I did not create,
     but diagrammed (cross-wing fighter, and the kawasaki rose) it more of a
     grey,
From discussions on the list, I think legally I own the right to the diagrams,
but from a ethical point of view, I think the final say should go to the
creator of the model.  I've talked to Wayne Ko (creator of the cross wing
fighter) and he's fine with people making copies and distributing them.

Happy Folding!

--
Winson Chan
Electronic Engineering
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, Canada





From: Gareth Morfill <gmorfill@REDBRICK.COM>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:46:13 -0400
Subject: Re: New Diagrams (including the X-Wing Fighter)

Joseph thanks for putting out the new models.
I spent a very happy evening yesterday perusing the diagram and fiddling
with the angled Modular (Hacky Sack). But the piece de resistance is the
Chess set. Now if I can only find out where I put the diagrams for Kim
Bests chessboard, and figure out the relative paper sizes!!!
Thanks for all that you do for us "folders", it really is appreciated.
I guess the list is SO quiet because everyone is off and folding! :)
Cheers - Gareth

At 11:01 AM 6/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I've placed new diagrams for 5 new models on my website. They are all in
>the PDF format. The models are:
>
>Angled Modular (Hacky Sack) by Winson Chan
>Tower Box by Winson Chan
>Chi-Wing Fighter (you know what it really is) by Wayne Ko
>Birdbase Chess Set by Joseph Wu
>Yuan Bao by Joseph Wu
>
>The URL for these new diagrams is
><http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca/Files/PDF/models.html>. Or you can just
>link to it from my "Diagrams" page.
>
>Enjoy!
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
>t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:02:29 -0700
Subject: Re: New Diagrams (including the X-Wing Fighter)

At 09:26 AM 98/06/23 -0400, you wrote:
>Joseph, I see the following on your diagram page
>http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca/Files/PDF/models.html:
>
>"NOTE: These diagrams may be reproduced only for
> personal use, and may not be redistributed or
> republished in any way without the express written
> consent of the diagrammer (who holds the
> copyright) or of the creator."
>
>Would the statement (found in the Angled Modular .pdf) "Feel free to make
>copies and distribute" constitute written consent? I think it would, just
>read together these two statements are a little confusing. But my real
>question is this, if the diagrammer is the true copyright holder why would
>getting permission from the creator mean anything, wouldn't the copyright
>holder be the only one who could give official (as you are suggesting is
>needed) permission?

The first statement is a blanket statement that I put on all of my diagrams
pages. Of course, if the diagrams themselves say otherwise, then what the
diagrams say supercedes the blanket statement.

>Thanks Joseph for the new diagrams

You're welcome. 8)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: "Bedrick, Scott" <Scott.Bedrick@PFIZER.COM>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:03:18 -0400
Subject: one-piece omega star
Does anyone know who the creator of the one-piece omega start is?  I
want to teach it this weekend at the Convention.

Thanks,

Scott Bedrick





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:08:53 -0400
Subject: Re: New Diagrams (including the X-Wing Fighter)

Gareth Morfill wrote:

> Joseph thanks for putting out the new models.

Hear Hear!

> Thanks for all that you do for us "folders", it really is appreciated.

I'll second that!  Thanks!

> I guess the list is SO quiet because everyone is off and folding! :)

With the OUSA Convention '98 at the end of this week, I suspect a lot of folks
are preparing, travelling, and otherwise "getting ready."  Despite being a
world-wide list, a lot of the regulars are either in the US or going to the
convention...

-D'gou

--
end
<a href="http://www.pgh.net/~dwp">Doug's Fun Page</a>





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:06:32 -0400
Subject: Re: one-piece omega star
>
> Does anyone know who the creator of the one-piece omega start is?  I
> want to teach it this weekend at the Convention.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Bedrick
>
John Montroll, as far as I know.
Atleast it's in one of his books.

--
---
Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
ackerman@dorsai.org
sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





From: Ian McRobbie <Ourldypeac@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:26:04 -0400 (
Subject: Re: one-piece omega star

   The One piece Omega star, if I'm not mistaken (and if the one I know of is
the same one you want) is in John Montroll's "Animal Origami For the
Enthusiast".  It is one of my favorites and is rather simple for an
experienced folder.
                                      -Ian M





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <contract@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:26:44 -0400
Subject: Re: one-piece omega star

At 03:06 PM 6/23/98 -0400, Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know who the creator of the one-piece omega start is?  I
>> want to teach it this weekend at the Convention.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Scott Bedrick
>>
>John Montroll, as far as I know.
>Atleast it's in one of his books.

Yes, John has one in his second book "Animal Origami for the Enthusiast"
(even though an Omega Star is not an animal).

From speaking to Scott Bedrick, he is looking for the creator of the model
that starts out with the 1/16 hem (used for locking the loose edges
together). I learned this model years ago, and was under the impression it
is by Patricia Crawford; would anyone out there be able to confirm this (or
let us know what the proper attribution is)?

Marc
