




From: Ronald Koh <ronkoh@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 10:46
Subject: Re: Origami inspirations

Julia Palffy wrote:

> While I know that there really are a few people who really are gifted with
> prodigious creativity, my first reaction is to question such claims. I
> should like to ask how different all those 'hundreds of folds' really are
> from each other. Are they really hundreds of unrelated original models, or
> are they dozens of variations on a few original ideas?

Interesting question, Julia. It's something I have been pondering for
quite
sometime: How do we differentiate between a new origami model from
variations of an existing one?

As an example, Chan Ka Leung of Hong Kong designed a series of
anatomically identical greyhounds in different running/coursing
positions.
Will that be one model, or many?

Three of my ornamental goldfish , the tancho oranda, bubble eye and a
reworked blackmoor, were derived from the same basic folds. The tail
conformation for all three are fairly similar. The tancho oranda and the
blackmoor, however, have dorsal fins, while the bubble eye does not; the
tancho oranda has a red cap and a white body; the bubble eye is
mono-coloured and has very pronounced bags under the eyes. The blackmoor
has a more rounded body and protruding eyes. While the basic form may be
similar, the folding steps in the middle and towards the end are
significantly different. So, is that one goldfish and two variations, or
three goldfish?

>From yet another basic form, I derived several species of deer. This is
achieved by making subtle changes to the shape of the body and  pleating
the paper at the back of the
head differently to give me the appropriate numbers of points for
the different antlers and their respective positions for each deer
species.  One model
and multiple variations, or multiple models?

Then there is the other question of 'true originality'.  Often, it is
quite
easy - independently - to come up with origami which are
characteristically simple
and so logical that other folders may or would have discovered the same
design in parallel. And what about models which are broadly similar in
appearence to those of other creators, or derived, with fairly minor
modifications, from the work of other creators?

This has sometimes landed me in a bit of a predicament when someone
asks:
"How many original models have you created?" I tend to sidestep this
question, which more often then not adds to the chagrin of the
questioner.
I have longed hesitated to claim origami that I created as 'mine' if
they are simple enough for others to produce independently, are
too similar in appearance to the work of others, or count some original
models as separate entities
when they could well be considered to be variations of the first.

While I do not doubt that there are prodigious creators whose original
work
- by whatever stringent yardstick we want to employ - runs into the
hundreds, I tend to agree that it is the qualitative aspects that should
matter more, and not the quantitative. Creative folding should not be
hindered
for want of new subject matter. It is one's ability to interpret and
provide
a fresh perspective that really makes the difference, be the subject old
or new.





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 10:50
Subject: Re: OUSA '88 Annual Coll. and The Flapping Bird.

I wrote:

+        Rose w/ leaf and stem (two part model) by Ted Norminton (of
+            Daffodil fame (Daffodil and Stem appear in Jackson's
+            Classic Origami)). John Smith taught me this model a few
+            years ago at an OUSA Convention. I was unable to fathom
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+            them, . Its a pretty "intermediate" model, but like other
             ^^^^^^
+            roses, it takes a few extra bits of detailing before it
+            really shines (curving petals, some rounding of shape,
+            and so forth.).

The part I "underlined" with carets is a cut-n-paste error from another
message I was writing at the same time. Ooops. Sorry!

-D'gou





From: David Phillips <dphillips@RFDINC.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 10:56
Subject: Origami sighting

The issue of Mad Magazine now on newsstands (#385, "Star Bores") has
models of the "Spy vs. Spy" characters in the Letters to the Editor
section.

[ A six-foot shelf of old Mad Magazines -- sign of a misspent youth. Plus,
a six-foot shelf of origami books -- maybe there's hope. ]

  --David





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 11:52
Subject: Creativity criteria (was:RE: Origami inspirations)

I appreciate Ronald's response to my questions about what defines the
originality of a model.

Another criterion I have been wondering about is how to define the common
base, in order to decide which are variations and which are original new
models. Obviously, if the common base in question equals what we usually
call a base (like the Fish Base or the Bird Base, e.g.), then there are
hundreds or thousands of variations and very few original models in
comparison. Therefore the 'common base' I am talking about should be more
developed, more individual, than simply a Fish Base or whichever I started
from.

In my own work, I would consider completely different subjects originating
from the same base as 'originals' (for example, a butterfly was the source
for the judoka I mentioned in my former posting), and similar subjects
originating from the same base as 'variations' (the greyhounds mentioned by
Ronald). But this is a 'working definition', open to discussion if anyone
has a better one.

Apart from that, I have the same hesitations about calling 'mine' a model
so simple someone else might discover it independently, and if I create a
fold based on a model invented by someone else, then I would want to be
sure it looks quite different before calling it mine.

I think the material used for folding a model, or the colour of this
material, are not criteria for the originality of a model, but criteria for
the originality of an interpretation. The originality of a fold should
first and foremost be determined by the way it is folded, shouldn't it?

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 12:49
Subject: Re: Creativity criteria (was:RE: Origami inspirations)

If you fold an animal by making a few folds to Montroll's dog base, is that
original?  If you change Montroll's Pegasus model into a Griffin, is that
original?  If you change the head and make the body crimps different on
Joseph Wu's Armadillo (to form another animal) is that original?  There are
alot of ways to create variations on a fold with only a few extra folds
gleaned in a minute or two but should that be a legitimate claim as in
original model?  Yes you can fold a billion insects from the insect base
but how original is that?  To me the most important question is how was it
folded?  Original is a strong word.  Happy folding :)

David

"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 12:57
Subject: Re: Origami Inspirations

Many original models or many variations on one idea?

My own view is summarised by a story about Picasso.  Near the end of his life
     the art market was flooded with fake Picasso's.  Neither he nor his
     dealers knew which were the fakes and which were genuine.  Hoping to learn
     the extent of the problem a young
 eporter earnestly asked him: 'Mr Picasso, how many original works of art have
     you created in your life?'.  The great man thought at length and solemnly
     replied, 'Two!'.

A creator is special indeed if s/he can create as many as two original works.
     The rest are all fakes.  Right?





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 13:12
Subject: Re: Origami Inspirations

Paul Jackson writes:
A creator is special indeed if s/he can create as many as two original works.
     The rest are all fakes.  Right?

Does that mean all the folders who fold models invented by others are forgers?

And which works did Picasso consider as his two originals?

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 14:15
Subject: Re: How to write an origami book

On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 11:58:08AM +0200, Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
> I'm not sure whether the viereck verlag is still in operation,

It is -- Silke made no allusions at all that she might possibly give it
up when I last met her. Let's not spread any false rumours.

--
Yours, Sebastian <skirsch@t-online.de>

*** Dieses Schreiben wurde mit Hilfe einer Datenverarbeitungsanlage ***
*** erstellt und bedarf keiner Unterschrift.                        ***





From: Carmine Di Chiara <carmine_dichiara@YAHOO.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 15:05
Subject: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

Who's dragon is second from the top on:

http://origami.gr.jp/Etc/conv99Mizuno/kaiju.htm

? It's very nicely done. Are there any diagrams?

On this same topic, I remember seeing another
beautiful 3-headed dragon at the Origami USA's 1998
Convention. I always thought it was John Montroll's
3-headed dragon, but made 3-dimensional somehow. Now
I'm not so certain, and I was wondering if anyone else
had seen it an knew whose it was. When I saw it, it
was sitting on the cashier's desk up on the top floor
where the raffles were kept.

Thanks,

Carmine
===
-------
Carmine Di Chiara
carmine_dichiara@yahoo.com
        Beyond each corner new directions lie in wait.
                - Stanislaw Lec
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com





From: Terrence Rioux <trioux@WHOI.EDU>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 16:32
Subject: OUSA Web Site

Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM> wrote:
>I'd like to second deg's recommendation for The Flapping Bird. Its available
>from Magic Inc. and OUSA (http://www.origami-usa.org/).

I haven't been able to access OUSA's web site for some weeks. Anyone
know what's going on with the site? Have the rebels breached the
ramparts?

Terry Rioux





From: P Bailey <pbailey@OPENCOMINC.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 16:52
Subject: Re: Origami Inspirations

david whitbeck wrote:

> Does that mean that there are people folding not for fun?

Yes and no, there are folks who feel that if they don't develop a new fold at
     least
once a week or several times a week they are losing their gift.  So while they
     do
enjoy what they do their is also some anxiety involved in the creation of new
models.

I hope this clarifies my statement sufficiently for you.

Perry





From: "Kennedy, Mark" <KennedyM@DNB.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 16:54
Subject: David Derudas Models

 >Does David Derudas have any diagrams for his wonderful models?

Many of David's models are published in the CDO convention books. There are
several of his models diagramed in 5th Tantedain Convention Book. If memory
serves me correctly, there are a boomerang, two butterflies, a seagull that
balances on a point and the Cobra. I learned when I was able to attend the
CDO convention last year that the cobra took maaaany hours/days of work.
David did some pleating to form all of the scales of the cobra. I do not
think that I have the patience for that much work. It is a beautiful model.

The Three Headed dragon was diagramed in the 5th convention book. My step
son was taken with a Fantasy character, Bahamut. It has over 200 steps - not
including the inevitable repeats steps 45 - 53 on the other side. If you can
afford it, I recommend get the the convention book now while they are still
available.

Mark Kennedy





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 17:00
Subject: Re: OUSA Web Site

Ahoy Terry!

I've just accessed OUSA's site.  The ramparts have not been breached!
Don't give up until you see the whites of their eyes!

Dorothy





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 17:16
Subject: Re: OUSA Web Site

----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>

> I've just accessed OUSA's site.  The ramparts have not been breached!
> Don't give up until you see the whites of their eyes!

Actually, don't fire 'til you see the whites of their eyes. But I guess if
you're doing origami, when the firing starts, you might as well give up.

All the best - c!!!
everyone accepts "the illusion of reality", but you're crazy if you talk of
"the reality of illusion"
ella-mae@msn.com





From: "K. A. Lundberg" <klundber@MNSINC.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 17:20
Subject: Re: Origami bouquet?

Joel writes:
> I'm thinking of making a small origami bouquet, specifically, a rose
> with a stem, and then some "filler."  Any ideas on what to do for
> filler?

______________________
For a single rose, I normally only add some baby's breath which I make from
1" tracing paper.  I use the small four petal blossom model that can be
found in many publications and attach each to a small length of thin cloth
coated florist wire twisting the end of the wire around the tip a pencil a
time or two to make a center for the blossom.  These I attach in groups of
three to a larger wire (three groups per wire).  While this is not really
baby's breath it does give the right airy spray impression.

I quite often add a floater to the gift.  A butterfly, hummingbird or Anita
Barbour's Dragonfly can be attached to a length of vinyl coated florist wire
that has been corkscrewed around a pencil to resemble a tendril and arranged
to appear to hover above the flower.  Or maybe a snail, caterpillar or
ladybug attached to one of the leaves.

If you can get a copy of Toshie Takahama's Origami Flowers or borrow it from
OUSA's library there are numerous leaf designs in it that can be used as
fillers.

Kalei -- klundber@mnsinc.com
http://www.monumental.com/klundber





From: Doug and Anna Weathers <dougw@RDROP.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 18:12
Subject: Re: Writing about crease patterns

>>This comment relates to all of this thread, and not just Gillian's
>>comments, but
>>does anyone get the impression that an affection for precision tends to
>>follow
>>the practice of origami?
>>
>>Kim

>I think they go hand in hand - I know that most of my hobbies are ones that
>require exactitude, precision, and repetition. Interesting question - does
>anybody else agree?
>
>Gillian

Absolutely not!  I can scarcely stand precision!  Only my love of paper,
beauty and truth lets me use origami to try to train myself to be more
precise.  And repetition irritates me no end.  That's why I keep learning
new things, and have changed hobbies so many times.

More objectively, I scored in the bottom third for detail work on the
ASVAB's.  (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.)  That was years
ago, but I haven't changed much.

So we come back around to an earlier thread.  People like origami for
different reasons, and like different aspects of it.

Anna

Anna Weathers, Portland, Oregon, USA
"In paradox truth."





From: Doug and Anna Weathers <dougw@RDROP.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 18:12
Subject: Re: origami is everywhere!

> how funny in one afternoon to find
>three people folding origami.  Well gee wilikers what was the probability
>of that happening?
>
>
>David

Hard to say.  Probability is very tricky.  The cashier who asked about the
Lang book may have been influenced by the one who folded the models on the
monitor, so those two are not really separate cases.  The other cashier was
probably independent.  So, if we knew that one in a thousand people (just
guessing), does origami, then your chances of meeting two in one afternoon
would have been about one in a million (Pratchett aside:  "It's a million
to one chance, but it just might work.") times the number of people you met
that day.  On the other hand, maybe one in ten people knows enough about
origami to reflect your interest, which you had shown by asking about the
books.  In that case, the probability, to avoid a lot of equations, would
be pretty good, especially spread out over however long you've been
interested in origami.  Who can tell, who can tell.

Ah, the things we don't know.  Since we haven't got figures on origami
bestsellers numbers -- a relatively straight forward measurement -- our
idea what proportion of the population is familiar with or doing origami is
bound to be nebulous as well.  Most people I talk to seem to have done some
at some point, but not be doing any at the moment.  Then a good handful say
they haven't got the patience for it (or some variation on the theme), a
statement which must make sense to them, but doesn't seem to fit me.  My
experience of doing origami doesn't require any patience from me.
Interesting.

The information vacuum leaves room for personal philosophy.  You can look
at a happening like that, and think synchronicity, and messages from the
universe, or think coincidence, and estimate the probability lower.  Or you
can also think, worth considering, or a waste of time for further
conversation!  :)  So I guess I had better not run on any longer!

Anna

Anna Weathers, Portland, Oregon, USA
"In paradox truth."





From: Torsten Drees <torsten.drees@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 18:35
Subject: Re: Kawamura's $ Telephone

Hi,

thanks for your describtions.
You made it possible to me, to fold a telephone.

Torsten





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 20:24
Subject: Re: Writing about crease patterns

>
>Absolutely not!  I can scarcely stand precision!  Only my love of paper,
>beauty and truth lets me use origami to try to train myself to be more
>precise.  And repetition irritates me no end.  That's why I keep learning
>new things, and have changed hobbies so many times.
>
>More objectively, I scored in the bottom third for detail work on the
>ASVAB's.  (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.)  That was years
>ago, but I haven't changed much.
>
>So we come back around to an earlier thread.  People like origami for
>different reasons, and like different aspects of it.
>
>Anna
>
>
>
>
>Anna Weathers, Portland, Oregon, USA
>"In paradox truth."

Finally someone I agree with!  Besides repition need not be the key to a
good fold.  I thought the original purpose of origami was minimalism, a few
folds to suggest an animal (any comments David Lister?).  I myself don't
care so much for exactness as making the animal look natural.  I think the
most striking animals are the ones that are asymmetrically folded or have
different features, i.e. the legs are folded differently, aka Brill.
Yoshizawa is a good example of not exact landmark folding, he has you make
the folds with a pinch of inspiration.

David

"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 20:28
Subject: Re: origami is everywhere!

Thanks Anna an intersesting reply.  I understand why some people say they
are not patient enough: it's not the folding they enjoy it's the actual end
result.  For us it's the folding that's the good stuff so no patience is
needed!  I used to be like that, I wanted the end result.  Now I don't care
and just throw away or give away my final models and can't wait to fold
again!

David

"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: Shalom LeVine <shalom.levine@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 20:30
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

I would also like to know if there are diagrams for any of the models on
that page. I really like the wing spread on the 3 headed dragon!

BTW: I made a Montroll 3 headed dragon with foil backed paper 20"x20"
(haven't tried my hand at wet forlding yet) and managed to round out the
model quite nicely  ( even added a spear shape point to the tail (-: )

Shalom

-----Original Message-----
From: Carmine Di Chiara <carmine_dichiara@YAHOO.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 20:30:44 -0400
Subject: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

>Who's dragon is second from the top on:
>
>http://origami.gr.jp/Etc/conv99Mizuno/kaiju.htm
>
>? It's very nicely done. Are there any diagrams?
>
>On this same topic, I remember seeing another
>beautiful 3-headed dragon at the Origami USA's 1998
>Convention. I always thought it was John Montroll's
>3-headed dragon, but made 3-dimensional somehow. Now
>I'm not so certain, and I was wondering if anyone else
>had seen it an knew whose it was. When I saw it, it
>was sitting on the cashier's desk up on the top floor
>where the raffles were kept.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carmine
>===
>-------
>Carmine Di Chiara
>carmine_dichiara@yahoo.com
>        Beyond each corner new directions lie in wait.
>                - Stanislaw Lec
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 20:37
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

>I would also like to know if there are diagrams for any of the models on
>that page. I really like the wing spread on the 3 headed dragon!
>
>BTW: I made a Montroll 3 headed dragon with foil backed paper 20"x20"
>(haven't tried my hand at wet forlding yet) and managed to round out the
>model quite nicely  ( even added a spear shape point to the tail (-: )
>
>Shalom
>

If you're speaking of the Mythological Creatures one, was the lock easy
with foil backed and did you make it yourself or buy it [paper]?  I ask
this because when I make TFT it's wrinkly!

David

"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: Shalom LeVine <shalom.levine@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 20:41
Subject: Re: David Derudas Models

Mark,

Do you know where/how to order the CDO convention  book(s) ?

TIA,

Shalom

-----Original Message-----
From: Kennedy, Mark <KennedyM@DNB.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 20:41:28 -0400
Subject: David Derudas Models

> >Does David Derudas have any diagrams for his wonderful models?
>
>Many of David's models are published in the CDO convention books. There are
>several of his models diagramed in 5th Tantedain Convention Book. If memory
>serves me correctly, there are a boomerang, two butterflies, a seagull that
>balances on a point and the Cobra. I learned when I was able to attend the
>CDO convention last year that the cobra took maaaany hours/days of work.
>David did some pleating to form all of the scales of the cobra. I do not
>think that I have the patience for that much work. It is a beautiful model.
>
>The Three Headed dragon was diagramed in the 5th convention book. My step
>son was taken with a Fantasy character, Bahamut. It has over 200 steps -
not
>including the inevitable repeats steps 45 - 53 on the other side. If you
can
>afford it, I recommend get the the convention book now while they are still
>available.
>
>Mark Kennedy





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 20:52
Subject: Re: Creativity Criteria

The question as to what constitutes an "original" model
(and, by extension, what does not) may not have an easy
answer. The best answer may well be one alleged to have
been given by someone asked to define pornography: "I
can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it".
While often cited as a classic evasion, this answer may
contain more wisdom than it gets credit for.

The problem with definitions is that they invite counter-
examples. Does adding a new crease to an existing model
mean originality? I think most of us would say that changing
the angle of one of the legs on a Montroll animal does not
make a new model, but what about Philip Shen's simple folding
down of the edges of E. D. Sullivan's "XYZ" to make the
"Omega Star"? For that matter, what about Sullivan's addition
of a single sink (along with hiding flaps) to Robert Neale's
"Six Piece Ornament" (made from waterbomb bases), which
produced the "XYZ" in the first place? And then there's Neale's
ornament itself: no new creases were used at all; instead, he
simply took six examples of the traditional waterbomb base and
put them together to form a new model (and, incidentally, help
pioneer the entirely new area of modular, or "unit" origami).
Traditionally, Neale's ornament has been considered a separate
model from the "XYZ" and "Omega Star", and as for the latter the
second has been usually linked to the first as "The Sullivan-
Shen Omega Star". Are any or all of them truly original, or are
they simply "characteristically simple and so logical that other
folders may or would have discovered the same design in parallel"?

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to this. . . . Would it help
to know in what order they were created? Is it significant that
the "Omega Star" is largely known from the diagrams in "The Flapping
Bird", which instruct the folder to "begin with the 'XYZ'"? Does it
matter that it took more than twenty years for someone to see the
connection between Neale's ornament and the "Omega Star" and to ask
"What happens if we add not one sink, but two?" (this was the origin
of my "Ornamental Omega Star"?

I could add more examples, but I think the point is clear. We say models
are "original" when they seem "new" to us; we say they are variations or
derivatives when we see their connections to other models. As long as
some people can see connections that others don't (whether from familiarity
or genius or both), some models will be seem different ways by different
people (if perception of the connection is limited to the model's creator,
it is likely the model will be considered "completely original"). As with
many other areas of life, as one becomes more familiar with what's out
there one develops an ability to see connections which once were not
apparent. Were they always there, or were they created by the act of
discovery? This is a question goes far beyond origami. . . .

Mike "I think that's about enough for now" Naughton

PS: And until we know for sure what constitutes originality, how will we
know for sure how properly to credit a model? (That's an easy one - just
ask Joseph Wu! ;-) )





From: Shalom LeVine <shalom.levine@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 21:00
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

David,

 I used paper I bought at Central art Supplies on 3rd Ave. NYC. Its a pretty
matte finish gold that comes in sheets approx 20x24" (I used a textured
version of it to make Brill's dragon, also a beautiful model!). the lock was
quite easy (as it was in a smaller model from standard 91/2" AITOH origami
foil backed paper). I have never made my own paper; too much like work for
me (-:, besides, my office is 1 subway stop from Pearl Paints, 2 from
Katie's, 3 from Central art Supplies and 4 from Barnes and Noble's main
store (plus right acroos the park from J&R, who end up getting all the money
I don't spend on origami!!!)

Shalom

-----Original Message-----
From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 21:00:57 -0400
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

>>I would also like to know if there are diagrams for any of the models on
>>that page. I really like the wing spread on the 3 headed dragon!
>>
>>BTW: I made a Montroll 3 headed dragon with foil backed paper 20"x20"
>>(haven't tried my hand at wet forlding yet) and managed to round out the
>>model quite nicely  ( even added a spear shape point to the tail (-: )
>>
>>Shalom
>>
>
>If you're speaking of the Mythological Creatures one, was the lock easy
>with foil backed and did you make it yourself or buy it [paper]?  I ask
>this because when I make TFT it's wrinkly!
>
>David
>
>"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
>far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
>and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: Rosalind F Joyce <fold4wet@JUNO.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 21:11
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

3-headed dragon at cashier ousa con 98 was John's, which I made w/plastic
coated florist foil and 3-D sculpted.  Kinda like wet folding without the
mess.  Ros

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 21:32
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

Rosalind F Joyce wrote:

+3-headed dragon at cashier ousa con 98 was John's, which I made w/plastic
+coated florist foil and 3-D sculpted.  Kinda like wet folding without the
+mess.  Ros

I've gone back and forth as to whether I like folding with foil. Indeed
it is like wet folding (though I don't find my wet folding all that
messy), but the down side is that is very fragile.

The plastic coated florists foil is very nice, but one needs to be
careful not to rub off the coating from too much handling, etc.

-D'gou





From: David Whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 21:34
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

Hi Shalom, I was curious because I, the masochist, used xerox paper to
fold it!  So it took me about five minutes to do the lock, xerox paper
gets thick especially with this model.  Really fun though.  How long did
it take you to fold it.  The reason it took me two and a half hours is
because I spend a lot of time making each fold is crisp and sharp so that
my folds are exact and air doesn't become trapped in the layers making it
thicker.  Happy folding :)

David

On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Shalom LeVine wrote:

> David,
>
>  I used paper I bought at Central art Supplies on 3rd Ave. NYC. Its a pretty
> matte finish gold that comes in sheets approx 20x24" (I used a textured
> version of it to make Brill's dragon, also a beautiful model!). the lock was
> quite easy (as it was in a smaller model from standard 91/2" AITOH origami
> foil backed paper). I have never made my own paper; too much like work for
> me (-:, besides, my office is 1 subway stop from Pearl Paints, 2 from
> Katie's, 3 from Central art Supplies and 4 from Barnes and Noble's main
> store (plus right acroos the park from J&R, who end up getting all the money
> I don't spend on origami!!!)
>
> Shalom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 8:37 PM
> Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.
>
>
> >>I would also like to know if there are diagrams for any of the models on
> >>that page. I really like the wing spread on the 3 headed dragon!
> >>
> >>BTW: I made a Montroll 3 headed dragon with foil backed paper 20"x20"
> >>(haven't tried my hand at wet forlding yet) and managed to round out the
> >>model quite nicely  ( even added a spear shape point to the tail (-: )
> >>
> >>Shalom
> >>
> >
> >If you're speaking of the Mythological Creatures one, was the lock easy
> >with foil backed and did you make it yourself or buy it [paper]?  I ask
> >this because when I make TFT it's wrinkly!
> >
> >David
> >
> >"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
> >far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
> >and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: Carmine Di Chiara <carmine_dichiara@YAHOO.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 21:54
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

Rosalind,

It was a beauty. I'm thinking of taking the same
approach to John Montroll's model very soon.

Regards,

Carmine

--- Rosalind F Joyce <fold4wet@JUNO.COM> wrote:
> 3-headed dragon at cashier ousa con 98 was John's,
> which I made w/plastic
> coated florist foil and 3-D sculpted.  Kinda like
> wet folding without the
> mess.  Ros
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access
> for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>

===
-------
Carmine Di Chiara
carmine_dichiara@yahoo.com
        Beyond each corner new directions lie in wait.
                - Stanislaw Lec
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com





From: Shalom LeVine <shalom.levine@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 21:55
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

David,

 It took me about 1 1/2 hrs to do the large model, but that was my 3rd
attempt (1 aborted and a successful smaller model). I have found foil paper
to vary greatly in fragility; some lose the coloring at the folds and crack
easily at corner joins (as the top of  a waterbomb base) while others don't.
The best foil I have found for large folds has been the matte gold (and
silver) paper I mentioned; I can sharpen creases with no worries and only if
I am forced to refold many times (as in some of John's models) do the corner
joins crack. Thankfully they usually get hidden, or become part of so many
layers (as the bottom of the mouths in the 3 headed dragon) that they're
barely noticable.  It'll get a real workout when I start my 3rd try at his
chess table (Origami Insided Out), I promised my self to make a full chess
set and table; its just too good a challenge to pass up!

Shalom

-----Original Message-----
From: David Whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 21:55:45 -0400
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

>Hi Shalom, I was curious because I, the masochist, used xerox paper to
>fold it!  So it took me about five minutes to do the lock, xerox paper
>gets thick especially with this model.  Really fun though.  How long did
>it take you to fold it.  The reason it took me two and a half hours is
>because I spend a lot of time making each fold is crisp and sharp so that
>my folds are exact and air doesn't become trapped in the layers making it
>thicker.  Happy folding :)
>
>David
>
>On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Shalom LeVine wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>>  I used paper I bought at Central art Supplies on 3rd Ave. NYC. Its a
pretty
>> matte finish gold that comes in sheets approx 20x24" (I used a textured
>> version of it to make Brill's dragon, also a beautiful model!). the lock
was
>> quite easy (as it was in a smaller model from standard 91/2" AITOH
origami
>> foil backed paper). I have never made my own paper; too much like work
for
>> me (-:, besides, my office is 1 subway stop from Pearl Paints, 2 from
>> Katie's, 3 from Central art Supplies and 4 from Barnes and Noble's main
>> store (plus right acroos the park from J&R, who end up getting all the
money
>> I don't spend on origami!!!)
>>
>> Shalom
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
>> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 8:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.
>>
>>
>> >>I would also like to know if there are diagrams for any of the models
on
>> >>that page. I really like the wing spread on the 3 headed dragon!
>> >>
>> >>BTW: I made a Montroll 3 headed dragon with foil backed paper 20"x20"
>> >>(haven't tried my hand at wet forlding yet) and managed to round out
the
>> >>model quite nicely  ( even added a spear shape point to the tail (-: )
>> >>
>> >>Shalom
>> >>
>> >
>> >If you're speaking of the Mythological Creatures one, was the lock easy
>> >with foil backed and did you make it yourself or buy it [paper]?  I ask
>> >this because when I make TFT it's wrinkly!
>> >
>> >David
>> >
>> >"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason
is
>> >far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
>> >and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 22:15
Subject: Re: Good Pegasus

Mark Kennedy indited:

+A good origami model is like good art, it is all subjective. Do you prefer
+Picasso, Matisse, Rembrant or Grandma Moses? Most are considered good
+artist, I like all but one.

I see a difference between "like vs. dislike" and "good vs poor".

Thanks for the detailed answer. As with, say, movie reviews, it helps
me to "calibrate" my tastes to yours.;-)

+it "read" well? I prefer models that take 10 to 15 minutes.  Neale's dragon
+takes about 8 minutes, Montroll's Enthusiast Pegasus about 10-15 minutes,
+Crawford's Unicorn about 10 minutes, and Maekawa's demon about 35-40
+minutes. If it is going to take longer it really has to appeal to me if I do
+it more than a couple of time.

I'm curious about this criteria, as it is a different sort of critera than the
others you mentioned. What size/kind paper do you fold from when trying to
meet those criteria? Do you have the same criteria when you are going to sit
down and fold a model for a exhibit versus "casual" day to day folding? I tend
not to wet fold as often as I would like, because when I do, it is usually a
special occasion, model for a gift, exhibit, etc. where the time spent "after
the diagrams are done" is much greater than the time spent following the
creator's footsteps, so to speak.

+Time to go home. I hope that this helps.

Yes, thank you for taking the time to write it, and post it publicly rather
than as a direct note.

To elaborate a bit on the like/dislike vs. good/poor distinction...

Like/dislike to me is extremely subjective. I know of no way to justify such
things. For example, one's "favorite color" is a like/dislike that does not
seem to be open to any objective anaylsis or modification. Whether or not a
particular origami model captures the spirit of a subject, is. A three winged
eagle is just not good. One can establish criteria of "goodness" that can be
evaluated objectively.

-D'gou





From: David Whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 07 Sep 1999 22:34
Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.

Dedicated!  My three headed dragon I did just once and since I did the
folds without error I was happy that I couldn't improve it.  I want to try
it out of red foil because it would be thin and neat, but not forgiving,
darn!  Here's an idea for the chess board: gold foil, gold one side, white
on the other that would be neat.  Have fun folding!  I need big paper to
tackle that board.

David

On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Shalom LeVine wrote:

> David,
>
>  It took me about 1 1/2 hrs to do the large model, but that was my 3rd
> attempt (1 aborted and a successful smaller model). I have found foil paper
> to vary greatly in fragility; some lose the coloring at the folds and crack
> easily at corner joins (as the top of  a waterbomb base) while others don't.
> The best foil I have found for large folds has been the matte gold (and
> silver) paper I mentioned; I can sharpen creases with no worries and only if
> I am forced to refold many times (as in some of John's models) do the corner
> joins crack. Thankfully they usually get hidden, or become part of so many
> layers (as the bottom of the mouths in the 3 headed dragon) that they're
> barely noticable.  It'll get a real workout when I start my 3rd try at his
> chess table (Origami Insided Out), I promised my self to make a full chess
> set and table; its just too good a challenge to pass up!
>
> Shalom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 9:34 PM
> Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.
>
>
> >Hi Shalom, I was curious because I, the masochist, used xerox paper to
> >fold it!  So it took me about five minutes to do the lock, xerox paper
> >gets thick especially with this model.  Really fun though.  How long did
> >it take you to fold it.  The reason it took me two and a half hours is
> >because I spend a lot of time making each fold is crisp and sharp so that
> >my folds are exact and air doesn't become trapped in the layers making it
> >thicker.  Happy folding :)
> >
> >David
> >
> >On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Shalom LeVine wrote:
> >
> >> David,
> >>
> >>  I used paper I bought at Central art Supplies on 3rd Ave. NYC. Its a
> pretty
> >> matte finish gold that comes in sheets approx 20x24" (I used a textured
> >> version of it to make Brill's dragon, also a beautiful model!). the lock
> was
> >> quite easy (as it was in a smaller model from standard 91/2" AITOH
> origami
> >> foil backed paper). I have never made my own paper; too much like work
> for
> >> me (-:, besides, my office is 1 subway stop from Pearl Paints, 2 from
> >> Katie's, 3 from Central art Supplies and 4 from Barnes and Noble's main
> >> store (plus right acroos the park from J&R, who end up getting all the
> money
> >> I don't spend on origami!!!)
> >>
> >> Shalom
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
> >> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> >> Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 8:37 PM
> >> Subject: Re: 3-headed dragons, Tanteidan photos and other.
> >>
> >>
> >> >>I would also like to know if there are diagrams for any of the models
> on
> >> >>that page. I really like the wing spread on the 3 headed dragon!
> >> >>
> >> >>BTW: I made a Montroll 3 headed dragon with foil backed paper 20"x20"
> >> >>(haven't tried my hand at wet forlding yet) and managed to round out
> the
> >> >>model quite nicely  ( even added a spear shape point to the tail (-: )
> >> >>
> >> >>Shalom
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >If you're speaking of the Mythological Creatures one, was the lock easy
> >> >with foil backed and did you make it yourself or buy it [paper]?  I ask
> >> >this because when I make TFT it's wrinkly!
> >> >
> >> >David
> >> >
> >> >"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason
> is
> >> >far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
> >> >and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 00:32
Subject: Re: Good Pegasus

To Mark Kennedy:

would you mind giving me some times on other models you have folded so I
can compare more with your Montroll pegasus, etc. because I'm interested in
the time difference between the enthusiast and myth. critters because I've
folded myth. critters.  If you've folded it how long did it take?  Or about
any fold in myth critters or north american 'cause I could compare I folded
almost all of them.  Thanks!

David
ps I must be way slow because a three star fold usually takes me 3/4-1 hour
and a four star usually takes me at least two hours.

"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 00:50
Subject: Phillip Shen's address?

Hi all,

OrigamiUSA is trying to locate the e-mail address for Phillip Shen. Does
anyone out there have any information on that? Thanks in advance, Marc





From: Daniela Carboni <rednina@TISCALINET.IT>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 01:54
Subject: Re: Tanteidan convention pics

David wrote

>Does David Derudas have any diagrams for his
>wonderful models?

Have a look at the CDO site, there are a few of them as old "moldels of the
month".

Many models of David were published on the CDO magazine, "Quadrato Magico".

CDO also published a booklet of David's models, that contains interesting
models like the dolphin from a rhombus and two models of seashells from a
1000 Lire bill.

Ciao
        Daniela.

/\_/\        Daniela S. Carboni
 o o     Rocket Scientist & Origamist
= # =    email: rednina@tiscalinet.it





From: Kelly Dunn <Kellydunn@AOL.COM>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 02:36
Subject: Re: Origami Inspirations

To me, it's kind-of like reading a book, you read someone else's ideas and
think of some of your own while you are reading. Your ideas while you are
reading are your own because they come from your own experience. Folding
someone else's models to me is the same type of gift as reading words from
another author, but visually seeing how another person interperates their
world through expression using paper. That it can be diagramed is amazing. A
lot of art can't be, (a painting) so the idea behind it is more lost. And, as
with reading, I think, changing the model as you fold is adding your sight,
visual experience to the folding. I think this is creative and original, and
valuable to understanding in your way how another person sees. But, I think
to author a model you have to write it, like a book, study the subject well
(how it looks to you and means to you), and have something to say about it
with paper that you want to express to other people.
Kelly





From: Penny Groom <penny@SECTOR.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 03:04
Subject: Barnes & Noble Calendar

My friend in Oregon looked in the local Barnes & Noble and they didn't
know about the folding calendar.

Can you give me a reference so she can get them to order some please.
Any information you have would be useful, does it have an ISBN number?
If so could someone tell me what it is.

Thanks

Penny

ps Bristol Convention next week, if you are attending and haven't booked
please let me know as soon as possible.
Penny Groom
Membership Secretary, British Origami Society
BOS Homepage
http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/





From: Douglas Zander <dzander@SOLARIA.SOL.NET>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 03:43
Subject: Origami Collectable Trading Cards!

Earlier today, while I was sitting at a bus stop, I saw someone who had
just purchased several envelopes and boxes of collectable cards.  He was
opening the wrappers and examining the contents.  I could not tell what
game they were from but I assumed they were cards to the MAGIC collectable
card game (or something similar).  Just then I thought, "Why not an
Origami Collectable Card Series?"  That would be cool!  On the front the
cards would have a nice photograph of an origami model and on the back
they would have categories like:

Name of Model:
Author/Creator: (name) or Traditional
Difficulty in Folding: 1 to 10
Recommend Wet Folding?: Yes or No
Recommended Paper Type:
Percent of Shrinkage: __%

Just think, if we could get all the origami authors to agree to have their
model pictured (no diagrams) on a card then we would have several hundred
(or thousand) cards to collect!  We could carry them around in plastic
card containers and trade them at conventions!  How cool is that!
We could also have a special limited edition gold card series; a photograph
of a person connected to origami (a creator or other famous personality).

"I have a Lang Cockoo Clock I'll trade for your Montroll Pegasus."

--
 Douglas Zander                |
 dzander@solaria.sol.net       |
 Shorewood, Wisconsin, USA     |





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 04:35
Subject: Re: Origami Collectable Trading Cards

This sounds like a fun idea! There's another indication I'd want to see on
those cards, however: the title of at least one book or website in which
you can find diagrams for the model.

Then you could sort your cards by: - models I've folded - models I haven't
folded - models I want to fold - too difficult - too easy - recommend for
teaching, etc. (the list of categories is not exhaustive and adaptable to
your own criteria...)

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 04:57
Subject: Re: Origami Collectable Trading Cards

That sound way cool!  Collectables: photos of the model folded by the
creator.  I can just imagine saying something like that to someone who
doesn't fold to get the response "God folds origami!?"

David

"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 05:09
Subject: Animal Origami for the enthused paperfolder

Okay, I now have Animal Origami for the Enthusiast and no have no idea if
enthused is actually a word.  Well anyhow, I was dissapointed.  Every other
Montroll book I have is better than this one.  Before y'all start throwing
rotten apples at me let me expand on that.  Most of the models are 2d and
the 3d like features mostly come from thickness.  What I liked about
Montroll which I found from his later works was his animals were thin
without many layers but I don't see this happening here.  For example I
folded the Antelope and it has many layers with an open back makes it not
look as neat as his other horned ungulates (I now love that word!).  His
crab and brontosaurus are boxes with legs, and it looks like he forgot to
finish the bear!  I know this sounds harsh, but I was a bit dissapointed
since all the other books I have are great (I still don't have origami for
the enthused paper maniac and prehistoric origami for the enthused beyond
control paper maniac).  So now I ask you Montroll fans and anti-Montroll
fans alike what is your opinion of Animal Origami and any comments on my
overt, blatant disgusting attack on one of the most revered origami books
in print by one of the most revered origami authors out there!

David
ps note if you are fuming mad slam your fist into the wall before you flame me.

"Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is
far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies
and even destruction."  --Morris Kline





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 06:05
Subject: Re: Origami Collectable Trading Cards!

Imagine this scene at a convention:

Him:  -Hey, I've got an extra rare super-complex Issei T-rex skeleton! I win
by complexity!
Me:   -Yeah, but look what I've got: One-fold stegosaurus! I win by
efficiency!
Him:  -But... here's my brand new Koh goldfish, published only two weeks ago!
I win by up-to-date-ness!
Me:   -So what! Look at my brand new Gutfeldt kamikaze plane. I created it
just yesterday! So hand 'em over!

Wouldn't it be fun! I might consider collecting these cards ;-)

Matthias





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 06:14
Subject: Re: origami is everywhere!

>===== Original Message From Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> =====
>Thanks Anna an intersesting reply.  I understand why some people say they
>are not patient enough: it's not the folding they enjoy it's the actual end
>result.  For us it's the folding that's the good stuff so no patience is
>needed!  I used to be like that, I wanted the end result.  Now I don't care
>and just throw away or give away my final models and can't wait to fold
>again!

I noticed that for most people in my class, it's the end result that counts.
They don't care about the beauty of a petal fold if it doesn't result in
something they can show off to their friends.

It's a bit depressing that they don't care about the technique involved, but
on the other hand I'm learning to make my models look interesting, so they'll
actually want to fold the models that I want to teach.

Matthias





From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Miguel_A._Mart=EDn_Monje?=" <miguelmartin@TELELINE.ES>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 06:22
Subject: Re: Phillip Shen's address?

Hello, I am Miguel, from the Spanish Origami Society (AEP), I think that the
address of Philip Shen is:

Dr. Philip Shen
Dept. of Religion
Chung Chi College
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Shatin N. T.
Hong - Kong (CHINA)

Too, I send you the address of the Chinese Origami Society, they will know
more about Philip...

CHINESE ORIGAMI SOCIETY
9A, 524 NATHAN RD
Kwoloon
Hong Kong
CHINA

At last, Marc, could you contact with me?, we want to publish a model from
you in our bulletin Pajarita.

Thanks, happy folding.
__________________________________________
                   Miguel
       miguelmartin@teleline.es
               Editor Group
Asociacion Espaqola de Papiroflexia (AEP)
       Spanish Origami Society
   http://www.publynet.com/aep





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: 08 Sep 1999 06:26
Subject: Re: Writing about crease patterns

David Whitbeck wrote the following this morning (GMT)

> Finally someone I agree with!  Besides repetition need not be the key to a
>  good fold.  I thought the original purpose of origami was minimalism, a few
>  folds to suggest an animal (any comments David Lister?).  I myself don't
>  care so much for exactness as making the animal look natural.  I think the
>  most striking animals are the ones that are asymmetrically folded or have
>  different features, i.e. the legs are folded differently, aka Brill.
>  Yoshizawa is a good example of not exact landmark folding, he has you make
>  the folds with a pinch of inspiration.>

Since I am asked to comment, I will.

David is both right and wrong. I will preface my explanation by referring
again to the discussion a few weeks ago about whether origami was an art
form. I firmly expressed the opinion that if the origami contained an element
of creation, the origami was certainly an art. But it could be good art or
poor art.
t
So I will consider David's statement in the light of this.

Approaches to art and styles of art vary enormously and yet they are all art.
If we consider the art form of pictures, painted or drawn, Botticelli is very
different from Rubens who is very different from Degas, who is very different
from Picasso, who is very different from Andy Warhol, who is very different
from Utamaro. It's not merely that they each paint or draw in a different
way. The whole spirit and ethos of their painting is different. Yet they are
all considered to be artists and sometimes great artists..

It is the same with origami. The designer of the Sembzuru Orikata, Michio
Uchiyama, Akira Yoshizawa, Neal Elias, David Brill, Paul Jackson. Tomoko
Fuse, Michael La Fosse, Eric Joisel (and all those others whose names I have
omitted - heaven forgive me) all are great origami artists yet all fold in
different techniques and further, in different styles.

Different approches speak in different ways and say different things. No
single style can say everything, so no style is any more correct or authentic
than any other. This doesn't mean that individually we are not entitled to
our different preferences. Like David Whitbeck, I, personally, am attracted
to minimalism and abstraction, although I can also appreciate naturalistic
origami. Do not forget, however, that because of the nature of folding, all
origami must be an abstraction to a greater or lesser extent.

David also writes that  "the original purpose of origami was minimalism" I'm
not sure what he is referring to here. Does he mean the early ceremonial
folds, the mecho and ocho butterflies and the formal tsutsumi wrappers? If
so, I don't think that the early Japanese folding was intended to be
representational at all. It started by being utilitarian; then it took on
abstract forms and only later did representational forms evolve. Naturalistic
folding did not come until much later. Or is David referring to the early
"Creative Origami", meaning, presumably the work of Akira Yoshizawa? If so,
yes: Yoshizawa's work does tend to minimalism and suggestion, rather than
fiddly detail. But later folders have been much more abstract. But even
Yoshizawa's work varies. Some of his models are more detailed and represent
the detail of the animals he creates more than others.

David Lister.
(one of many Origami Davids!)

Grimsby, England.
DLister891@AOL.com





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: 08 Sep 1999 06:39
Subject: Re: Phillip Shen's address?

Miguel has just written to give an address for Philip Shen's in Hong Kong.
However, a few months ago, Philip left Hong Kong to live permanently in the
United States where he was once a student. I understand that he is now living
in California.

(Of copurse, he could have changed his mind and returned to Hong Kong, but if
he has done this, the news is yet to reach me.

I have an e-mail address for him, but do not feel that I should put it on a
public list without his permission.

David Lister





From: Shalom LeVine <shalom.levine@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 07:24
Subject: Marc Kirschennbaum's Starship Enterprise

Is there a better diagram for this model than the hand drawn ones I found on
the web? I looked on Marc's website, but it's not listed there. I really
want to fold this for a StarTrek fanatic friend, but the hand drawn pages
are almost unreadable!

Shalom





From: Carol Martinson <carolm47@YAHOO.COM>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 07:43
Subject: Re: Barnes & Noble Calendar

I wasn't going to reply to the list, but then I figured there were other people
     out there who also would like the information.

The calendar is called the:

Easy Origami Fold-a-Day Calendar year  2000 (or Easy Origami Calendar 2000 -
     it's listed both ways)

compiled by Margaret Van Sicklen and written by Sarah Van Sicklen

ISBN 1-57939-050-1

Accord Publishing Ltd.
1732 Wazee Street, Suite 202
Denver, CO 80202-1284
U.S.A.
(303) 298-1300

$11.95 US
$17.95 Can

I hope this helps.

Carol Martinson





From: Linda Moses <LMoses9256@AOL.COM>
Date: 08 Sep 1999 07:47
Subject: Re: Barnes & Noble Calendar

Accord Publishing Ltd
Denver, CO

isbn: 1-57939-050-1
