




From: Rjlang@AOL.COM
Date: 16 Oct 1999 20:26
Subject: [Long] Re: The price of technical virtuosity

> Dave Mitchell wrote:

> > but .... unfortunately [Kawahata's models are] just about the ugliest too!

Paul Jackson responded:
>
> Spot on.  Thank goodness someone has had the courage to state the
> truth!!  I want to see what the response is from those on Origami-L
> who revere only those models with lots of sticky-out bits before
> responding myself.  Let's hope it provokes a lively debate.

Gee, I think you'll have a tough time finding people who revere ONLY those
models with "lots of sticky-out bits." I myself like many different styles of
origami, if they are executed well. At recent exhibitions, I've seen many
models with sticky-out bits that I liked -- a Pangolin by a fellow named
Joisel, a cobra by a guy named Derudas, for example. Lots of folds and edges
showing. At Paris-Origami, I saw some rather nice bowls formed by
cross-pleating, by someone-or-other, that had LOTS of sticky-out bits (the
bowls, not the someone). I rather liked them, but if you're going to argue
that they were ugly because of their sticky-out-ness, well, okay.

But I digress from the original discussion. David's comment about the
ugliness of Kawahata's models was made in response to my comment about the
technical sophistication of their design. It bears saying again that design
structure and final appearance are two completely different attributes of an
origami model: so it is indeed possible for a model to have an incredibly
rich and thought-provoking structure (which many of Kawahata's models do, as
I commented) and yet be, as Dave put it, ugly.

Some models, I would claim, are beautiful only for their design. Many of John
Montroll's models fall in this category: if you look at the finished model
only, you see short, stubby legs, oversized head, and harsh, angular lines.
But if you fold it, you see it's a structural marvel, how the paper is used,
how the layers are stacked, and the intricate and subtle geometric
relationships among the folds. Such a model is to be appreciated for the
design and folding process, not for the finished product. Or, as a Wise
Oracle of Origami once phrased it, "to be properly appreciated, this model
should, at the end of folding, be crumpled up and thrown away!"

But for any model, the visual appeal -- beauty or ugliness -- depends on the
rendition of the folded model. And the assessment has to be made on a folded
model, not from the diagrams, which are, at best, a broad hint on how the
final model looks. In all fairness, many complex models, in particular, are
very difficult to render with any grace. Many of Kawahata's (and let's not
mince words: many of mine) fall in this category. They may not be impossible
to fold, but they may be very difficult to fold well. So if you're looking at
an ugly model, you should ask yourself first: is it ugly because of the
design, or is it ugly because of the folder of the model you're looking at?

At most origami exhibitions, you can usually make this call because the
designer and folder are one and the same; the designer can be expected to
address the claim of "inherent ugliness" by showing his own folded work. If
the designer folded it and it's still ugly, then we can safely say it is an
ugly model.

Or can we? As origami grows, expands, and matures, the current era of the
origami composer-performer as the norm may turn out to be a transient thing.
The evolution of any field of endeavor leads to specialization. Nowadays in
music, the composer is often not the performer. Just as musical performers of
other's works ranging from Sinatra to Domingo are recognized as artists for
their performance, there now begins to be origami artists who are recognized
solely for their superlative renditions of other's designs.

I think our art (or craft, if you prefer) will have reached that level when
there are folders who, it is generally recognized, fold models better than
the model's designer. (Hatori Masao, for one, comes to mind.) When that point
comes, we have to ask the question: if a folded model is ugly, is it because
the design is inherently ugly, or is it because the model is so sophisticated
that the right folder just hasn't come along yet to do it justice?

There's another question we need to ask, too: is the designer simply ahead of
the rest of the origami community (or perhaps, just ahead of those people who
think his/her work is "ugly")? One of the characteristics of many complex
Japanese designs is that the folded edges of the paper form a bold and
intentional part of the visual appearance of the model. These are the
"sticky-out bits" that Paul is so fond of. And they're not laid out in neat,
geometric arrays like the edges in the pangolins, cobras, and  bowls
previously mentioned. They stick out in clusters and bundles, spreading,
coming together, zigging and zagging: they grab your attention. I admit, I
used to look at this style and think: "ugly." But lately, I look at it and
think: "Stravinsky."

That's Stravinsky as in Igor, early 20th-century composer. At the first
performance of "The Rite of Spring," the audience literally rioted over the
harsh, jangly atonality. Now, it's considered a classic. I suspect -- and
only time will tell -- that many of these "ugly" models will come to be
considered classics when origami stylistic appreciation catches up.

The use of complexity and lots of folded edges as a design element is a
particular style. Now, you can embrace or ignore this style, but I think you
have to admit that, in his complex models, Kawahata does it pretty well. His
simpler models I'm less enamored with: lacking the visual lushness that
complexity allows, an unnatural angularity comes through. Or is it just that
they're too subtle for me to appreciate?

There are lots of origami styles, too, so if you don't like this style, try
another. A strong Japanese style is this heavy use of folded edges as a
design element. A more British style (influenced by the good Mr. Brill)
favors much simpler lines and curves. Me, I'm eclectic and like to sample and
mix, sometimes resulting in interesting combinations, while sometimes,
Japanese and British techniques don't mix very well, like boiled sushi.

So that's my take on Kawahatan complexity. To return to Paul's original
challenge, Paul, feel free to skip this response because I revere quite a few
models besides those with sticky-out bits. But since I have consumed quite
enough bandwidth with this missive, I shall leave my discussion of
sticky-out-bit-less origami for another occasion.

Robert J. Lang





From: Jake Crowley <jakecrow@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 1999 20:35
Subject: Re: Trading Diagrams

Hi all,

I am wondering if anyone would be willing to trade some diagrams with me, I
have maybe 10 or 15 origami books, some are japanese and complex (Super
Complex Origami, Origami Fantasy, and Viva Origami) I also have a bunch of
Montroll and Lang books, and a few books on Boxes and Modulars. Im looking
for complex diagrams, maybe some dinosaurs, or anything complex. I would
love to get some new models by trading diagrams, many of my books I have
already used and they just lay around, I would like to make some good use of
them :) If anyone would like to trade with me, please email me. Thanks.

Jake Crowley
jakecrow@hotmail.com

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





From: P Bailey <pbailey@OPENCOMINC.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 1999 20:56
Subject: Re: demanding Web Site visitors

Eric Andersen wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Is it just me, or are other origami Web site owners constantly bombarded
> with requests for diagrams from certain books? I point them to the
> hundreds of diagrams available on the Web, but for some reason this is
> never good enough for them. I got two emails today insisting that I scan
> in diagrams from four or five models from "Origami Fantasy", convert them
> to pdf, and email them out to them, simply because the book is too
> expensive to purchase. I try to explain that this would be illegal, not to
> mention extremely unfair to the author, but they keep writing back! Often
> they send me rude responses, claiming that I am selfish and mean!

No the only ones being selfish were the people making unreasonable
demands, and as for mean, I think they are unaware of just which end of
the club they are holding.  I haven't had anyone go that far from my web
page I did have some one get very abuse to me from usenet and began to
send me disturbing e-mails, I requested they stop, when the persons
involved refused and became more abusive I simply turned the matter over
to their ISP.  Putting up a web page is not an invitation to abuse.
Never let any one tell you that you are being mean or selfish because
you refuse to break a law!

> What can I do to keep these people from getting upset but yet not
> inhibit their enthusiasm?

The best you can do is explain the situation then if that isn't enough
just say "sorry" but I can't help you with that, please don't ask again.

Perry
--
"Each time he shifted gears he did it as if the Moment of Truth
had arrived in a bullfight"
H. Allen Smith "The Pig in the Barber Shop"

http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/           <--Website w/ diagrams!
Icq 23622644





From: Jane Rosemarin <jfrmpls@SPACESTAR.NET>
Date: 16 Oct 1999 23:07
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra [assemble]

The first time I made Five Intersecting Tetrahedra, I used the same
colors that are in Tom's diagrams. I think that saved me.
-Jane





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 03:06
Subject: Re: [NO] Re: Folding the Chestnut

How come you're not roasted to death? I'm glad we didn't get any 30?
     temperatures this summer!!!

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch

__________
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I   There are more possibilities than you imagine.





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 04:06
Subject: Elefantenhaut

Could the German-speaking people on the list enlighten me?

Some time ago, following a discussion on this list about elephant hide
(Elefantehaut) paper, I went to an art supplies shop in Zuerich and asked
to see some. What they showed me was what I would have called parchment
(Pergament) paper. I was surprised, because I was expecting something quite
different. Can you tell me whether this was correct, or is there a
difference between the two qualities of paper but not between their
aspects, or is the name used differently in Germany and in Switzerland?

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch

__________
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I   There are more possibilities than you imagine.





From: Mathias Maul <maulm001@MAIL.UNI-MAINZ.DE>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 06:11
Subject: Anything in Kyoto?

Dear Listers and Listettes,

this year, I will spend a few days around Christmas and New Year in
Ky=F4to and I am wondering if there are any must-sees, must-buys or
must-meets related to origami in the area. So if anyone knows about any
exhibitions, places to buy paper or to meet people, please let me know.

origamically yours,
Mathias.

--=20
linguistics computer science speech recognition  nlp NLP origami INFOCOM
stuttering ballroom tai chi piano  lewis carroll douglas adams tori amos
unix NeXTStep macintosh atari c++ java tex gc3.12:a--s:-U(VHS)X++$t+e*y?
>Unfortunately, there's a radio connected to my brain. Baaa! Baa! Baaaa!





From: Bruce Stephens <bruce@CENDERIS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 08:38
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra [assemble]

Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET> writes:

> Well, I've known about this model for a long time and guess I better
> just buckle down and do it - it always looked interesting but
> everybody say's assembly is such a puzzle. I have read what's with
> Tom Hull's page diagrams. But I'm thinking that maybe some of you
> who have struggled with the assembly (and won ;-) might have some
> specific words of advice (insights) that would make it easier for us
> first timers. Just a little narrative telling us what you figured
> out that allowed you to finally succeed would be great.

No more than Tom gives, I'm afraid.  He mentions the symmetry of the
thing (that every pair of tetrahedra fit together in the same way).

It's much easier to make if you have a completed one in front of you,
so plan on making at least two, and be prepared for the first one to
be slightly messy (as you take things apart and put them back together
again when you realise you've got something slightly wrong).





From: Carol Martinson <carolm47@YAHOO.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 09:20
Subject: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra

Since I don't have access to a color printer, when I first assembled the
     intersecting tetrahedra I was working with black and white diagrams and
     shades of gray.  I used various shades of pinks and purples since I was
     getting no help from colored diagrams.

Assembly was a "bear".  The first two pyramids were no problem, but no matter
     what I did I could not insert the third pyramid.  The first two kept
     flopping about and I could not insert more than one or two spokes of the
     third one in the proper spots.  I f

This model is one that stops people in their tracks when they see it for the
     first time.  I think it would be even more effective in different shades
     of metal colors or one shade of metal colored paper.  For your first one,
     however, I strongly recommend u

Carol Martinson





From: BoyohBoy17@AOL.COM
Date: 17 Oct 1999 10:51
Subject: Dimensions of paper for spiral spring thingy

    On pages 28-29 in Fuse's book _Spirals_, there is a spiral thing which
springs when you squeeze it.  The paper that you start with is A4 trimmed
down to something smaller; however, I can't tell how much it is trimmed by
because it is in Japanese.  Furthermore, I have been told that the paper that
I am using is not A4, but closer to A5.  Is there a combination of folds to
get the correct size of paper (as opposed to measuring)?





From: Kenny1414@AOL.COM
Date: 17 Oct 1999 10:51
Subject: Re: demanding Web Site visitors

In a message dated 10/16/1999 11:20:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Eric writes

> So is it just me?

I don't have a website, but, no, I'm sure it's not just you.
And I don't think there's much you can do about them.

The urge to want something for nothing is pretty much universal,
but the aberration to demand something for nothing is individual,
and you can only hope they'll eventually grow out of it.

You can't reason them out of it, they're not mature enough
to deal with at that level.

Just be polite, use your best judgement, explain, once, why
you won't violate copyright for them, then I guess ignore them.

Eventually, most of them will learn from repeated experience,
how rude they're being. Maybe, sadly, some will never learn.
It can't be helped. Failures happen.

Thanks for bringing up the subject. I haven't checked the
archives to see if this has been discussed in the past
(My fault for being lazy I guess. I'm yielding to a mild
compulsion to answer questions.) I know various forms
of rude behaviour have been discussed before, along with
the laws and ethics of copyrights, attribution, creator's
rights, etc. It might help you feel better to go looking thru
the archives, and reassure yourself that you are not alone.

Remember that the web is being flooded by a lot of
(psychologically and/or chronologically) young people
who are not completely socialized.

I know, when I went thru school, the how and why of
manners and politeness weren't taught very well;
that probably hasn't improved.

So you, and others in your situation, are providing
the youngsters with examples and guidance they
don't get at home and school.

In about ten years, we should be seeing some results.

Hope people are sharing Origami eight thousand years
from now.

Aloha,
Kenneth M. Kawamura





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 11:03
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra [assemble]

> Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET> writes:
>
> > Well, I've known about this model for a long time and guess I better
> > just buckle down and do it - it always looked interesting but
> > everybody say's assembly is such a puzzle. I have read what's with
> > Tom Hull's page diagrams. But I'm thinking that maybe some of you
> > who have struggled with the assembly (and won ;-) might have some
> > specific words of advice (insights) that would make it easier for us
> > first timers. Just a little narrative telling us what you figured
> > out that allowed you to finally succeed would be great.

Let me try this and see if anyone who's has this figrued out wants to fill
in the details.

"Ok, lets lable each of the spokes on each of the 5 tetrahedra (perhaps
using color and number, like redspoke1 - redspoke6). Then let's lable each
point as redpoint123 (where redspoke1, redspoke2 and redspoke3 are joined).
And lastly let's lable each "hole" in the same fashion like redhole145 (the
"hole" formed by redspoke1, readspoke 4 and redspoke5). Now here is how you
assemble the Five Intersecting Tetrahedra:

1) Insert redpoint123 into yellowhole1,4,5
2) [and the the part where you fill in all the details about finishing the
assemble ;-) ]."

This is just an example of the terminology and level of detail that would
really help all generations of folders, current and yet to come ;-).

Thanks, Jeff Kerwood.





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 11:24
Subject: Re: The price of technical virtuosity

david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU> sez

> Does that seem ugly to you?

This is the key point. Beauty (& ugliness) is, as always, in the eye of
the beholder. I understand what Paul means and I also understand what
you mean & you're both right, in your own estimation!

It's like trying to compare a flower with the internal combustion
engine...

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/





From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@EROLS.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 11:26
Subject: Re: Dimensions of paper for spiral spring thingy

That is Jeff Beynon's famous "Spring into Action" model. The cutoff is 2
inch (or 51 mm). The length /width ratio is 1: 1.88 or 1:1.89 (if using
thicker paper) .

Robert Lang diagramed it clearly in his book: Origaimi in Action. It could
be the hardest one in the book.

There is also a web site dedicated to this particular model:
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~wbt/spring/
Have fun!

Sy Chen

-----Original Message-----
From: BoyohBoy17@AOL.COM <BoyohBoy17@AOL.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:26:20 -0400
Subject: Dimensions of paper for spiral spring thingy

>    On pages 28-29 in Fuse's book _Spirals_, there is a spiral thing which
>springs when you squeeze it.  The paper that you start with is A4 trimmed
>down to something smaller; however, I can't tell how much it is trimmed by
>because it is in Japanese.  Furthermore, I have been told that the paper
that
>I am using is not A4, but closer to A5.  Is there a combination of folds to
>get the correct size of paper (as opposed to measuring)?





From: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 13:26
Subject: Apologies: (The Price of Technical Virtuosity)

What was meant to be a private response to David Mitchell's comment
yesterday was mistakenly mailed to the List.

I apologise to everyone for this careless error.

With embarrassment,

Paul Jackson





From: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 13:29
Subject: Re: The price of Technical Virtuosity

By accidentally mailing a private message to the List I accept Ronald
Koh's suggestion that I defend my opinion that much complex origami is
ugly.  This response does not imply complicity with Dave Mitchell's
original comment or argument.  His views may differ from my own.

Firstly, to answer JacAlArt, I *can* fold such models, and sometimes
do.

And secondly, I fully accept that what is beautiful to one person is
ugly to another, and that my opinion is anecdotal, not scientific.

My fundamental objection to many complex models of living creatures is
that they look like a collection of unrelated bits (the 'sticky-out
bits'); the head bit, the fore legs bit, the hind legs bits, the toes
bit, etc.  To resolve the technical problem of how to engineer these
bits from the paper, the creator, it seems, must fold them separately
and resolve each bit separately.  This often results in a model which
has been designed by analysis, not by synthesis -- in other words,
designed as a collection of details, not designed with an overview of
the final form as a totality.  Such models often have surface edges
that go from nowhere to nowhere -- they interrupt the flow of form
from one part to another and serve only to confuse the eye.  There is
no rhythm, no evenness of detail.  They are fundamentally ugly, just
less ugly when well folded.

In complex models of manufactured objects (such as vehicles), my
objection is that paper as a material and origami as a technique
rarely convey the strength or solidity of the final form -- for
example, wheels are often splayed -- and the general effect is
flaccid, as though air had been let out of the form.

Robert Lang is right when he says that the way these models are made
is often a fascinating journey though space and time, and that such a
worthwhile journey can result in final models with a disappointing
form.  If this is accepted, then I don't see the point in taking a
beautiful journey to make an inadequate representation of an animal,
or whatever.  Why not take a beautiful journey to make a beautiful
form?  The sequence is often compromised by the concept of 'the model'
as the goal, so I would argue that if the concept of the model is
dropped, the imagination is free to make sequences and forms of
uncompromised beauty.  Origami is assumed to equate with model making,
whereas I would argue that it should equate with paper folding -- the
two are not the same.  I sometimes think that for creators, the
all-conquering concept of 'the model' is somewhere between a tyranny
and a comfort blanket.

The accumulation of detail as a technical challenge is perfectly valid
as a concept (of course), but in my opinion, such a cold exercise
rarely creates objects of inherent visual beauty.  To me, beauty is a
consequence of the synthesis of form, not the analysis of accumulated
detail.  It is also a unified concept in the mind of the creator
between form and surface.  Surface should not be an afterthought (as
in 'OK, I've created a new model, now what paper would, it look good
in?').  In the very greatest origami sculptures, there is an
indivisible line between form and surface, technique and material, the
folding and the folded.

To be fair, the situation has improved.  Most of the complex pieces
from the 50's, 60's and 70's though important historically, are, to
me, visually illiterate.  With the deeper understanding of geometry
that the increased interest in complex origami has brought, the final
forms of many of todays complex models are more coherent than
before...but in my opinion there is still a long way to go.

A final thought.  Over the years at Conventions and Festivals in many
countries I've put forward my supposedly controversial 'most complex
origami is ugly' thesis, and have found much more support than some
subscribers to this List might believe.  There are many of us out
there who prefer beauty-for-the-sake-of-it to
complexity-for-the-sake-of-it.

Maybe we should start a parallel List to talk about the work of
Correia (the most important creative folder after Yoshizawa?),
Floderer, Joisel, Baretto and others!

Paul Jackson





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 14:24
Subject: Re: demanding Web Site visitors

Oh wait here we go just reply: "You mean you can't reverse engineer it from
the photo?  Hah!  You amuse me."

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 14:24
Subject: Re: The price of technical virtuosity

>david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU> sez
>
>> Does that seem ugly to you?
>
>This is the key point. Beauty (& ugliness) is, as always, in the eye of
>the beholder. I understand what Paul means and I also understand what
>you mean & you're both right, in your own estimation!
>
>It's like trying to compare a flower with the internal combustion
>engine...
>
>all the best,
>
>Nick Robinson
>
>email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
>homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
>BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/

That's the first analogy I've heard all week that I like!

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 14:35
Subject: Re: The price of Technical Virtuosity

A cold exercise?  Ouch!  I must disagree with the design and folding of
complex models as merely technical.  Increasing the complexity in the model
is a work of imagination to decide how far should this model go and those
extra details puts a stamp on the model to make it unique.  For instance
(since I'm obsessed with pegasus) every other folder and their third cousin
has designed a Pegasus but the depth of the fold and how the mane is folded
or the wings are crimped, the tail curved makes them different it wouldn't
even matter if they all started from the bird base.  You could say to Monet
that all those colors he used are too complex and I'm sure he would laugh
at you.  Complex origami versus other forms is a matter of different ways
to express your imagination for different purposes.  There is no one branch
in origami that is superior to the others.  They all seek different ways to
express the subject the paper and all should be respected.  I myself have
come to realize that I have unfairly modular origami for simply not truly
understanding it.

David





From: Stephen Canon <Stephen_Canon@BROWN.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 15:24
Subject: Assembling the FIT

One simple suggestion -

Start big.  I folded my first one out of 8.5" x 8.5" paper, cut down from
the letter size cover sheets that my printer in the office produces...
They were all the same color, but working at that scale makes it much
easier to see what's going on.

After the first few, they become much easier.  I recently folded one that's
1.5" on a side for a friend of mine.  I'm also trying to fold one out of
steel, but I really wouldn't recommend that until you have a very good
grasp on how things fit together.

-Stephen Canon





From: Rob Hudson <FashFold@AOL.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 17:46
Subject: Not so Amazing Origami Story

All right, all right,

So there I was, pleased as punch that the GRAND MASTER of Origami was sitting
in my john, doing his thing.  That was four days ago, and he REFUSES to
leave.  Apparently he has folded several rare species of animal out of the
toilet paper, and doesn't want anyone to purloin his designs.  Out of respect
for the arts, I haven't yet called the police.

Can ANYONE help??? I've filled my flower pots already, and have already been
told by the neighbor that I am no longer permitted in his bathroom.

Rob





From: Eric Andersen <ema@NETSPACE.ORG>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 18:58
Subject: Re: demanding Web Site visitors

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, david whitbeck wrote:

>Oh wait here we go just reply: "You mean you can't reverse engineer it from
>the photo?  Hah!  You amuse me."

I love it! I can't wait to use it...

-Eric :-P
origami@paperfolding.com

/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
\   Eric Andersen                                       /
/    Mathematics, Music             ~  ~ __o            \
\     and Origami                 ~  ~ _-\<'_           /
/      ema@netspace.org        ~    ~ (_)/ (_)          \
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
         *** http://www.paperfolding.com ***





From: Eric Andersen <ema@NETSPACE.ORG>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 19:08
Subject: folding bath towels?

Hi all,
Although I can usually answer most questions people pose to me through my
Web site, I am stumped by a recent one: where can I learn folds for
bathroom towels? This person is a housecleaner and would like to impress
her clients with towel folds. Do such things exist? I've seen towels
folded diagonally and placed over horizontally-folded towels to create a
nice effect, but that's about it. Any ideas on this?

-Eric :-P
origami@paperfolding.com

/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
\   Eric Andersen                                       /
/    Mathematics, Music             ~  ~ __o            \
\     and Origami                 ~  ~ _-\<'_           /
/      ema@netspace.org        ~    ~ (_)/ (_)          \
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
         *** http://www.paperfolding.com ***





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 19:40
Subject: Re: Not so Amazing Origami Story

Rob, do what I did when the GRAND DOYENNE OF UNIT ORIGAMI ensconced
herself in my jane last year for one month!  She was working on a new
book and just got a little carried away.

Not wanting to take any precipitous action that might stifle her
creativity, I hit upon the idea of inviting the press to my home to
interview my famous guest.  The GRAND DOYENNE thoughtfully emerged just
in time for her press conference.  And in appreciation for my stoic
patience, she dedicated her book to me!

Dorothy-san





From: Rachel Katz <mandrk@MAIL.PB.NET>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 21:29
Subject: Origami wins again!

Congratulations to Katrin and Yurii Shumakovs the creators of Oriland. They
have just been named FINALISTS in the ThinkQuest competition. Over 500 teams
from around the world entered. They've won a trip to Los Angeles near the end
of November where the top awards will be announced.

For those of you who haven't taken a "Travel to Oriland" you can get there
directly from:

http://library.advanced.org/27152/index.htm

In a little over two months, this site has had almost 1.35 MILLION hits! The
exposure for origami in sheer numbers is amazing; and the quality of their work
is equally awe inspiring.

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





From: Jane Rosemarin <jfrmpls@SPACESTAR.NET>
Date: 17 Oct 1999 22:13
Subject: Using tape

Carol Martinson wrote about assembling Five Intersecting Tetrahedra:

> I finally resorted to using removable tape, taping the first two pyramids
>together, inserting the third and using a couple pieces of tape while
>constructing it. . . .  It's not exactly a purist's solution, but it worked.

I recalled my own use of tape 9the tiny square in the inside center) in
teaching the Kawasaki Spiral Snail Shell at the OUSA convention, and I
began to wonder if living within a short distance of 3M headquarters has
anything to do with the way Carol and I think.

-Jane, in Minnesota, but not of Minnesota





From: DORIGAMI@AOL.COM
Date: 18 Oct 1999 00:27
Subject: Re: Amazing origami story

Rob, did you get my E-mail about the pigs.....not rushing you, just
wondering....





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 01:09
Subject: Re: Using tape

Why was the tape used again?  I forgot what you said about it before.  Now
my prefered way to fold is to wet fold it from xerox paper.  I am guilty of
using a clothespin on the end (not the spiral, the base) so that the four
points dry on each other and don't spread.

David





From: "Chamberlain, Clare" <Clare.Chamberlain@HEALTH.WA.GOV.AU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 01:23
Subject: kyoto

 Mathias Maul wrote:this year, I will spend a few days around Christmas and
New Year in Kyoto.......

I am sure someone has the address of Momotani sensei, who lives in Osaka,
only a relatively short train ride form Kyoto.  Kyoto has loads of
attractions (my favourite being the 'live' film set where they make samurai
movies, and you can actually see them being made) although there is some of
that ancient cultural stuff too ;-)  I never found much in the way of books,
although there must be some paper places.  There are many sites in Japan
famous for their paper - you may wish to check them out if you have
ravelling time, but Kyoto is mostly famous for its ancient buildings and
cloth, and terrible food! (according to Japanese).  And remember, if you
tell most Japanese you do origami, they will think you quite strange and
then ask if you can fold a crane!

Speaking of which, another strong reminder - the keepers of the Memorial
Peace Park in Hiroshima would prefer people do NOT send cranes to them as
they have great problems with disposal.  DO send a single crane, with photo
of the rest, explaining where you have put it (eg local peace memorial) and
whole the folders were.  This not only helps them , but spreads the message
of peace to more people.

Clare - who finally is taking off her jumper once it hits 30 - it's not hot
until it gets past 40 here!!





From: Vicky Avery <vavery@WENET.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 01:24
Subject: Re: folding bath towels?

I have a vague recollection of seeing an article (maybe in Japanese -
perhaps ORU) of a fellow who folded the guest towels at a hotel or cruise
ship or...?  anyways I think you can suggested looking at napkin folding
books for ideas.

Vicky Mihara Avery

Eric Andersen wrote:

> Hi all,
> Although I can usually answer most questions people pose to me through my
> Web site, I am stumped by a recent one: where can I learn folds for
> bathroom towels? This person is a housecleaner and would like to impress
> her clients with towel folds. Do such things exist? I've seen towels
> folded diagonally and placed over horizontally-folded towels to create a
> nice effect, but that's about it. Any ideas on this?





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 02:44
Subject: Grey the Alien

Well I've been having fun folding Grey the Alien (or should I saw "Glay the
Alien) and I can't make him stand!  Any suggestions?  Right now I have him
standing inbetween two Fuse boxes which are keeping him from tipping over.

David





From: Mark Plant <mplant@UK.ORACLE.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 04:00
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra [assemble]

Jeff

I have built the Five Intersecting Tetrahedra (F.I.T.) a few times now.

The main problem I encountered with the instructions was that the perspective
on the diagrams is wrong, so it is hard to match what you have in your hands
with what is in the picture. All you can really do is keep at it. I found
that if you build an F.I.T. using the same colours as in the instructions, it
is a whole lot easier. Once you have a complete properly constructed one,
building others by copying that one is easier than trying to use the
diagrams.

Use 'firm' paper. I found foil and Kraftskin work well. Ordinary Origami
paper (the colour/white stuff) is a bit flimsy, until you have put a few of
these babies together with the firmer papers.

Start with big paper. My first effort was using 10-inch foil-backed paper,
and that made dealing with the mechanics of the corner locks much easier.
Foil seems to slide into place well, and also holds better when the lock is
applied. I have now 'graduated' onto smaller units, but would have given up
if I had started with that.

Build ALL 30 strut units first. I found if I had all the bits ready, I was
much less likely to 'lose my place' during construction.

I found that although the multi-coloured F.I.T's look good, one made from a
single colour is totally stunning. I made a pink one for my daughter (who
loves Barbie) out of foil to hang in her room, and she was thrilled. I am now
experimenting with other colours. I think a matt black one would be very
cool. I recently saw a development of the model, where fancy finials had been
incorporated into the points - very nice.

Keep at it - a completed F.I.T. is well worth the effort.

Jeff Kerwood wrote:

> Well, I've known about this model for a long time and guess I better just
> buckle down and do it - it always looked interesting but everybody say's
> assembly is such a puzzle. I have read what's with Tom Hull's page
> diagrams. But I'm thinking that maybe some of you who have struggled with
> the assembly (and won ;-) might have some specific words of advice
> (insights) that would make it easier for us first timers. Just a little
> narrative telling us what you figured out that allowed you to finally
> succeed would be great.
>
> Thanks to whoever takes the time to offer their wisdom :-).
>
> Jeff Kerwood.





From: Papa Joe <papajoe@CHORUS.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 04:14
Subject: Origami show

Hello,

If any of you don't know Madison Wisconsin is now hosting a origami show put
on by
Ruthanne Bessman. "The Magic Of Origami" is free at the Wisconsin Memorial
Union
through the end of october. A public reception will be held on oct. 29, the
last weekend
of the show, from 7-9 pm. in the main lounge of the Memorial Union.

If you don't know who Ruthanne Bessman is she was a founder of Origami USA
in New York city.
She was also an invited guest at the Nippon Origami Association convention
in japan in 1990, 1991 and 1993, and participated in the B.O.S. convention
in londen in 1992. Since 1987 her work has been displayed internationally at
the Origami World Exhibition in japan and nationally in New York city , the
Southeastern Origami Festival in Charlotte, North Carolina and at gallerys
in Madison Wisconsin.

Some of the things on display are Roses in vase, T-rex skeleton, many
dinasaurs, boxes, money folds (some I have not seen), quiltings, Life size
parrot, a group of frogs in concert (conductor,singers,musicians,etc on
lilly pads... very nice), Traditonal folds, unit origami, three headed
dragons, lizards, and many more too numerous to list.

I have nothing to do with this show but have attended and taken many
pictures.
If anyone is interested in seeing them or hosting them on there web site let
me know.  Also if anyone has any questions or needs directions to this show
I am willing to help and have the ability to generate maps.

looking foward to meeting Ruthanne.....

Joe Gilardi    papajoe@chorus.net





From: Papa Joe <papajoe@CHORUS.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 04:25
Subject: Five Intersecting Tetrahedra

B.T.W

 I also have photos of the "Five Intersecting Tetrahedra" made with money
from the origami show in Madison Wi.

(Folded by Ruthanne Bessman.)

Joe





From: Julius Kusserow <juku@MATHEMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 05:49
Subject: Re: Anything in Kyoto?

Hi  Mathias Maul

> this year, I will spend a few days around Christmas and New Year in
> Ky=F4to and I am wondering if there are any must-sees, must-buys or
> must-meets related to origami in the area. So if anyone knows about any
> exhibitions, places to buy paper or to meet people, please let me know.
One of the thinks to look are the paperdoors of nijou castle and some
great temples. It's not really origami, but beautyfull paper. I thing
there is a reqular Origami-Meeting in Kyoto. If you really interessted in,
I can give you the adress/telephonenumber of the Youth-Hostel I stayed,
which pointed me toward this meeting.

Don't forget visiting the Station!!!!!!111

Yours,
=09Julius





From: Julius Kusserow <juku@MATHEMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 05:55
Subject: Re: Elefantenhaut

> Could the German-speaking people on the list enlighten me?
>
> Some time ago, following a discussion on this list about elephant hide
> (Elefantehaut) paper, I went to an art supplies shop in Zuerich and asked
> to see some. What they showed me was what I would have called parchment
> (Pergament) paper. I was surprised, because I was expecting something quite
> different. Can you tell me whether this was correct, or is there a
> difference between the two qualities of paper but not between their
> aspects, or is the name used differently in Germany and in Switzerland?
>
> Julia Palffy
In Germany 'Elefantenhaut' Elephant hide, is a very durable paper, which
don't lose fiber if it get wet. It seems perfect for wetfolding, exept for
its thinckness. It comes in many colors and I usually buy it in copyshops.
'Pergament'perchmentpaper is of the same thickness, more softly and loses
fibers if it get wet.

Hopes that helps
        Julius





From: Ronald Koh <ronkoh@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 07:09
Subject: The Price of Technical Virtuosity

It is clear that I am not in the same intellectual league as Paul
Jackson, nor have I acquired comparable skills in the English language
or as much exposure to the different schools of thought and trends in
origami. I can and do understand and appreciate Paul's stand and where
he is coming from. However, in my simple minded way, I seem to be
somewhat incapable of understanding the following statements:

1. Why not take a beautiful journey to make a beautiful form?

2. The sequence is often compromised by the concept of 'the model'  as
the goal, so I would argue that if the concept of the model is dropped,
the imagination is free to make sequences and forms of uncompromised
beauty.

3. Origami is assumed to equate with model making, whereas I would argue
that it should equate with paper folding - the two are not the same.

It would be nice, Paul, if you could share with us:

1 Your interpretations of 'a beautiful form' and 'forms of uncompromised
beauty', with specific examples if possible.

2 How does the absence of clear goals and setting the imagination free
able to yield  origami of uncompromised beauty? Exactly what kind of
origami are you referring to?

3 What is your interpretation of the term 'paper folding'?

The fundamental objection, as I understand it, is not necessarily
applicable only to complex models. It appears to be equally applicable
to a plethoria of other simple and intermediate non-modular models,
including the traditional crane and flapping bird with their
'sticky-out' hunchbacks. If all of us were to take this view, what would
we be left with? Will origami as an artform or craft be better off
without these 'ugly' models? Does the appeal of origami to its
practitioners and observers rest solely on the form and visual impact of
the end product? If so, why do we bother with an artform/craft which
generally restricts us only to folding as a means of construction?
(Okay, some people do cut, glue, staple,  paint, etc. etc).  If form and
visual impact are the only aspects that matter, we might as well remove
all self-imposed restrictions and do something akin to paper mache
instead.

A significant attraction of  origami is the challenges that it presents,
i.e. the ability to derive an endless line of diverse models just by
folding paper, and the ability to derive models of varying degrees of
beauty within the restrictions of the artform/craft. Yes - varying
degrees of beauty.

The term 'ugly' suggests senses of hopelessness and rejection to me. So
what do we do with models that are 'ugly' or 'less ugly'?  Are we
supposed to reject them outright? What do we gain from this? Or do we
take a closer look to find whatever beauty there is within, and try to
find alternative ways to make the less attractive aspects better? Is
this not how origami has progressed so far?

Origami is not perfect; nothing is. Perhaps some forms of origami are
being subjected to too high a level of critique without due
consideration of the limitations of the artform/craft. We may be looking
for perfection where it does not exist.

Having said that, I shall now get back to diagramming more ugly clumps
of paper with disjointed 'sticky-out' pieces. :o)

Cheers

Ron Koh





From: Dave Mitchell <davemitchell@MIZUSHOBAI.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 07:13
Subject: Re: The price of technical virtuosity

Well - as one liners go 'and just about the ugliest too!' must be up there
with the best, but it was worth it to get those detailed responses from
Robert Lang and Paul Jackson - both of which I have printed out for my
library files and to think about in detail, and I don't do that with many
messages off this list.

Ronald Koh wanted to know my criteria for thinking Kawahata's models are
ugly. A fair question. Here they are:

1, Ignorance: I haven't seen all of his work by any means. My opinion is
based on what I have seen.

2, Background: Kawahata is only one of a number of Japanese folders
associated with JOAS who seem to work together in a friendly rivalry of the
kind that inspired Dave Brill, Martin Wall, Max Hulme and others to new
creative heights in the 70's. I don't know what the significance of the
change from Origami Tanteidan to JOAS is, but the significance of
Tanteidan - the Detecvtives - I understand, was that, instead of working
separately, creative folders would pool their ideas and techniques and
consciously stand on each others shoulders to push creative ideas to their
limits.

3, Comparative Origami Anatomy: Let's take, for example, the Dragonfly that
has been serialised in British Origami (and mercifully concluded in the
October edition just out.) It seems to me that the outstanding technical
feature of this model is the striped colour changes along the tail. I guess
that Kawahata designed the whole model around this idea. This type of
diagonal colour change has previously been used in a number of models by
Tanteidan creators - Issei Yoshino's Fish Skeleton and Hideo Komatsu's Tiger
spring immediately to mind.

(Incidentally - on seeing a model of that Tiger displayed on the BOS model
table (extremely well-folded by Rick Beech)  a close friend who will remain
un-named for reasons of his health and safety remarked to me 'We're going to
have to call him Hideous Komatsu now!' Unfair, I know but ... he had a
point.)

Or take Kawahata's Camel as another example. The hump is formed by an
interesting collapse - bur it's one that I'm sure I've seen elsewhere. Could
it be that Kawahata has thought - Ah, I can use that move to make the hump
of a camel - and built the rest of the model around it?

4, Intention: I don't know Kawahata - and I'm quite happy to be corrected by
folk who do - but I doubt that his intention in designing an origami model
is to produce a thing of beauty. I think he's pushing the technical
boundaries as hard as he can - which is a different thing entirely. Of
course, sometimes technical virtuosity and beauty of form will co-incide -
but in origami this mostly seems to happen at the point where the 'new
technology' has been absorbed into the standard vocabulary.

5, Personal taste.

Dave Mitchell





From: Andrew Daw <andrewd@REDAC.CO.UK>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 08:08
Subject: Re: The price of technical virtuosity

So which one do you think has the most 'Sticky out bits' ?

> It's like trying to compare a flower with the internal combustion
> engine...
>
> all the best,
>
> Nick Robinson

No seriously, beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. Although some complex
models can look somewhat like a collection of bits (paper equivalent of
Frankenstein's Monster ?), there are others do have both a structural and visual
beauty to them. I think Robert Lange gave a very good reply on this topic and
it would be hard to top that.
 I've been drooling over the picture of Kawataha's Dragonfly in the BOS
newsletter for some time now (Ooo rounded eyes, a frons [front part to head],
segmented body, and ovipositor too. Did someone mention a stripy tail ? Now
if only the length of the legs were proportional. i.e. rear legs longer than
the front) . The final instalment has just recently arrived and I can't wait
to find some time to complete it. I applaud both Rick Beach and BOS for
publishing it.  It is only one of six models (or should I say one-third ?)
in the latest issue, and I think that the ratio of simple, to intermediate to
complex is at a sensible level.  Not publishing any complex diagrams at all is
only going to deny a small, yet significant, number of complex folders the
outlet
that they desire.

I look forward to the next round of instalments with anticipation.





From: Andrew Daw <andrewd@REDAC.CO.UK>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 08:18
Subject: Re: Complex vs. Intermediate folders

Most of the complex models I fold take several hours to fold. I expect
this will take much longer if taught at a convention where, as you say
you are not aware of the 'road ahead'.  I guess this too will be the
reason that there are not many (if any) complex models taught.
Why spend the whole weekend making just one model (that you wouldn't
remember how to make without diagrams) when you can learn several simple
or intermediate models in the same time ?

Don't judge the popularity of Complex models from the demand at conventions.

Now who DOESN'T want the diagrams to that little 'Devil' from
'Viva Origami' eh ? ;o)

I we were all the same the world would be a boring place.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Origami Mailing List [mailto:Origami@MIT.Edu]On Behalf Of Carol
> Martinson
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 8:26 PM
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: Complex vs. Intermediate folders
<SNIP>
> I also know from personal experience that it can be
> draining to teach a complex model and be sure that
> everyone comes out with a decent looking result, so if
> the teacher is conscientous, they may choose to teach
> something a little less challenging in order to be
> sure everyone is successful.  I don't think you can
> necessarily judge the number of comples folders at an
> OUSA convention by the number of classes given and the
> how full they are.
>
> Carol Martinson





From: Rob Hudson <FashFold@AOL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 09:16
Subject: Re: Amazing origami story

Yes, and I am happy to announce that they are IN THE MAIL!  Let me know when
they arrive.

Rob





From: Scott Cramer <scram@LANDMARKNET.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 10:35
Subject: Re: folding bath towels?

Eric Anderson wonders:

>This person is a housecleaner and would like to impress
>her clients with towel folds. Do such things exist?

    There are several good books on the subject of napkin folding, I'm sure
that some of the folds would lend themselves to guest towels.

    On those rare occasions when I've been in a house with such amenities as
nicely presented guest towels, I end up drying my hands on my pants rather
than disturbing the carefully arranged display. If an element of artistry
were added to such a display, it might just remain there indefinitely. Worth
the price of a book! But if someone would scan such a book into their
website...

Scott scram@landmarknet.net
Littleton, NH USA





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 11:02
Subject: Re: folding bath towels?

Scott scram@landmarknet.net wrote:
>than disturbing the carefully arranged display. If an element of artistry
>were added to such a display, it might just remain there indefinitely. Worth
>the price of a book! But if someone would scan such a book into their
>website...

Nasty, nasty, nasty! Suggesting to scan books and putting them online, and
that after all our copyright threads <g>.

However, there are quite a few websites with napkin folds on them. I got a
long list when I searched for "napkin fold" at www.hotbot.com!

Matthias





From: Howard Portugal <howardp@FAST.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 11:02
Subject: Montroll's Spotted Giraffe

Hi all,

I'm folding Montroll's Spotted Giraffe, from African Animals in Origami, for
a friend. I've done this model before, but unless I fold it out of tissue
foil, the neck gets thick, unmanageable, and kind of ugly. Do any of you
have any suggestions as to how to minimize the thickness. I've thought about
just using thinner paper, but am concerned that the model won't support
itself.

Thanks,

Howard





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 11:25
Subject: Re: Grey the Alien

David Whitbeck indited/inquired:

> Well I've been having fun folding Grey the Alien (or should I saw "Glay the
> Alien) and I can't make him stand!  Any suggestions?  Right now I have him
> standing inbetween two Fuse boxes which are keeping him from tipping over.

I never bothered to make it stand, even the smaller ones I made were too much
like sails that would pick up the slightest breeze, to be bothered with
anchoring it.

Have you figured out how to precrease it to avoid the nasty
thirds-by-eye-ball-or-extra-creases yet?

The model can be varied to use more paper for the head and less for the body,
pretty trivially, the interconnectedness is continuous, though I haven't
pushed it to either extreme.

For those curious about the model, I have some photos of it on my web page:
        http://www.pgh.net/~dwp/origami/Origami.html
Click on The Grey Alien link.

-D'gou





From: Leigh Halford <Leigh451@AOL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 11:52
Subject: Beauty

My 1962 Veag Glod Seal engine in my Morris Minor is beautiful...and it has
lots of sticky out things....and technically it is fairly simple!
Leigh
http://hometown.aol.com/origami451/index.html

ps Phils R2D2 is a dead nice fold!!!





From: Doug and Anna Weathers <dougw@RDROP.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 12:15
Subject: Re: The price of Technical Virtuosity

>Maybe we should start a parallel List to talk about the work of
>Correia (the most important creative folder after Yoshizawa?),
>Floderer, Joisel, Baretto and others!
>
>Paul Jackson

Fortunately, a mailing list can support multiple parallel subjects.  I'd be
glad to hear more about the folders/creators listed above -- all I've seen
are a few Joisel models.  Are they published (paper or web) anywhere so we
could get a look.

I do find many of the more complex models not to my taste.  They can seem
harsh, angular, inelegant, even when folded to display standards, as for
the ORCA exhibition, or the better web sites.  My reaction is more -- it's
amazing that they could do that -- than wow, is that beautiful.

But then, on the whole, I prefer origami of flowers, geometric forms,
vases, boxes, and so on -- models, that if real, wouldn't move.

Anna

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





From: Doug and Anna Weathers <dougw@RDROP.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 12:15
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra [assemble]

I had a great time making the Five intersecting tetrahedra.  One hint, to
add to the many others here -- I marked one corner each of the second and
third tetrahedra temporarily with paper clips, so that if I turned the
model around, I could rediscover my original orientation quickly.

Anna

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





From: Scott Cramer <scram@LANDMARKNET.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 12:31
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra [assemble]

Jeff Kerwood posted:

>But I'm thinking that maybe some of you who have struggled with
>the assembly (and won ;-) might have some specific words of advice
>(insights) that would make it easier for us first timers.

    Our folding group made one of these at our first meeting, and it didn't
take all that long. With several pair of hands to keep things in place, and
observers from all sides to check on the "point of one tetrahedron through
the hole of the other" criterion, we were able to make one in less than an
hour.
    I suppose that having a finished model in front of us didn't hurt any,
either, but the colors didn't match the one we were building, so there was
some disadvantage there.

    So I guess my advice is to:

            1. Get a group of origami aficionados (mostly math teachers) to
help you
            2. Make a finished model to work from before you start

    You're welcome!

Scott scram@landmarknet.net
Littleton, NH USA





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 12:44
Subject: Re: Grey the Alien

Well since nothing terribly bad happens with the eye trick I've kept it.
It's delicate folding the eyes to make all four of those valley folds meet
with the right symmetries for it to work though.  That's one fun fold!

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 12:46
Subject: Re: The price of Technical Virtuosity

Isn't Yoshizawa the "anti-sticky out bits" guy?

David





From: Rob Hudson <FashFold@AOL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 12:55
Subject: Re: The price of Technical Virtuosity

In a message dated 10/18/99, 12:46:37 PM, ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU writes:
<<Isn't Yoshizawa the "anti-sticky out bits" guy?
>>

Actually, I call tell you first-hand that he is NOT.

Rob
