




From: Ronald Koh <ronkoh@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 20:14
Subject: Re: [Long] The Price of Technical Virtuosity

Doug Philips wrote:
>
> Ronald Koh indited:
>
> +he is coming from. However, in my simple minded way, I seem to be
> +somewhat incapable of understanding the following statements:
>
> I don't think I can help on these, without more information about why
> they are incomprehensible

The areas I do not understand, or perhaps merely wanted Paul to be more
specific about, were provided a few lines below the quoted phrase in my
earlier posting, viz:

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'?

 (they made sense to me, (snip).

Good! Perhaps you could share what you understand of the three areas
mentioned? :o)

> 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.
>
> Ah, but as you note, it is the restrictions which make it interesting!

So, form and visual impact are not the only aspects that matter? That is
the 'beauty' of it!

> How can you create beauty under those restrictions? (And I'd take
> Beauty in the larger sense, not restricted to "nice" or "good").

We seem to have different interpretations on what 'beauty' (or
'beautiful') means. I see it in the broader sense. The Concise Oxford
Dictionary has a number interpretations, e.g. delighting the eye or ear;
gratifying any taste; morally or intellectually impressive; combination
of qualities as shape, proportion, colour, in human face or form, or in
other objects, that delights the sight; .... the particular point that
gives satisfaction; etc, etc.

Do we need to obliterate any consideration of artistic merit of the
final
> result simply because we have imposed constraints upon the process?

No we don't. We should however consider artistic merit within the
context of the imposed constraints. e.g. we should not expect a stone or
bronze sculpture of a living form to be presented in full colour, if the
imposed constraints include painting or any form of added colouration.

+The term 'ugly' suggests senses of hopelessness and rejection to me.

(snip) .... then ugly is not a rejection in the crass sense, but one of
avoiding skill-less-ness.

Agreed that there may be diverse meanings. The same dictionary provides
these as some of the interpretations: unpleasing or repulsive to sight;
discreditable; threatening; unpromising; vile, etc, etc. These suggest
some degree of hopelessness and rejection at least, no?

 Those "ugly" models may be necessary in a developmental sense, but they
are not the kinds of models one would
> choose to exhibit as the acme of the art

And who among us is eminently qualified to make such judgement calls? A
lot of 'ugly' origami is being exhibited worldwide.

> 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.
>
> I don't get that sense at all. (snip) critique has been long
> overdue (snip) where every effort is
> praised in hopes of encouraging the folder, to an extent where (I have
> at least) felt the praisee knows that the model (as folded) isn't
> worthy of the praise it receives.

I may have come across unclearly in my original posting. What I meant by
too high a level of critique was that while we should point out the
improvable weaknesses in a model, we should not be harping on areas of
weakness which, because of the limitations (i.e. paper as a medium, no
cutting, folding only, etc) of the artform/craft, we can't do a thing
about - for the present, at least.

And similarly, if false praise be the only way to sustain this
pastime/craft/art/etc then it is
> on very suspect ground.

I fully agree. But this is the weakness of man, not this
pastime/craft/art/etc. There are ways in which criticism can be provided
in a constructive, pleasant and more acceptable way. I suggest that
ascribing negative connotations isn't one of them :o).





From: BoyohBoy17@AOL.COM
Date: 19 Oct 1999 20:21
Subject: Re: The Origami Man

    It can get worse.
        Stuart, a.k.a. the Origami Geezer





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 20:23
Subject: Re: A Reply to Ronald Koh

Now I better understand what was meant in the original email about abstract
models.  That sounds exciting and well worth diving in to.  In those models
the diagrams might be worth more than a photo of the completed model.  I
can imagine a day in the future where there was an origami exhibit
featuring diagrams of abstract models.

David





From: Deg Farrelly <DEG.FARRELLY@ASU.EDU>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 20:42
Subject: Origami Candle

Pat wrote:

<<
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:42:14 -0400
From:    PErick3491@AOL.COM
Subject: BELLS

Hello, everybody,
Does anyone know of a good, three-dimensional fold for a candle--the kind
with a handle on it?  Thanks. Pat
>>

David Shall has a wonderful model of a handled candlestick with candle.  It
is diagrammed but unpublished.  I taught this model at the OUSA convention 2
years ago (or so) and with David's permission distributed copies of the
diagram to those in the class.

He is very sharing with his work... if you write him and ask, he most likely
will send you a diagram.

PLEASE do not ask others who have copies of the diagram to copy it for you!
When I have asked David about sending diagrams of his models to others who
have inquired about them he has always responded that they should contact
him  personally.

deg farrelly
Phoenix, Arizona





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 21:30
Subject: Re: Converting Newcomers to origami (was: Re: The Price of Technical

Utilitarian and decorative origami might lure newcomers into the fold.
Also simple animated models.

Here is what Lillian Oppenheimer said upon folding her first model, a
flapping bird:

"To take a little piece of paper and turn it into a work of art threw me
into such a rhapsody."

Dorothy





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 22:12
Subject: Re: Origami Candle

deg farrelly indited:

+He is very sharing with his work... if you write him and ask, he most likely
+will send you a diagram.
+
+PLEASE do not ask others who have copies of the diagram to copy it for you!
+When I have asked David about sending diagrams of his models to others who
+have inquired about them he has always responded that they should contact
+him  personally.

I wonder, is that why he stopped having his diagrams published by OUSA 10
years ago? It seems that 1989 is the last year that he appears in the model
index...

(Yes,I could ask him myself, but without an email address, I'm not that
curious to dig up a snail mail one. Oh the spoiling of convenience and
technology ;-) ).

Given his brother's involvement with OUSA, it is odd indeed.

But they are his models to do with as he desires!

-D'gou





From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@EROLS.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 22:37
Subject: Re: [NO] Paint doesn't do it for me

Sorry for the wrong information. At least my paint program for win95 and NT
4.0 does not support gif read/write. I recall someone does some survey about
screen resolution. Gif file should not be so big. It makes no sense to have
big 1000x1000 gif file. Please consider its printing purpose. You got the
solution to crop image using selection move and attribute change using Paint
application only. This should be enough to suit your need.

If you don't want to try shareware paintshop pro. IrfanView is an
alternative. It is free and slim! You can do cropping using click and drag
even with image larger than your screen. Good luck and "fun" for
diagramming.

Sy Chen

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Donna & Robin <robin@RGLYNN.KEME.CO.UK>
    To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
    Date: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 7:53 PM
    Subject: [NO] Paint doesn't do it for me

    It's quite right that paint can load and save gifs. It still doesn't
help much because I cannot fit the whole image on the screen, and thought
you can zoom in, you can't zoom out to see the whole image. I did change my
screen resolution to 1600x1200 and that just about displayed the whole
image, but it's a bit of a strain on my poor eyes! Even then there is no
'crop' option. If I select the part of the image I want and choose 'copy to'
then it doesn't give the option to save to a gif file! The only way would be
to move the selection to the top left and change the image attributes.

    I will look into Paintshop Pro as an option, but I think it may be a
case of overkill for what I want. And I believe the registration fee for the
shareware is quite high. Version 6 was 99 dollars.





From: John Chambers <jchamber@CRL.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 23:19
Subject: Re: [NO] gif editors

I recommend Irfanview, freeware for home use & works with GIF, jpeg,
bmp, and many more formats.

available at:
http://stud1.tuwien.ac.at/~e9227474/

> Donna & Robin wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of a cheap of even free bit of PC software that will
> let me crop gif files? I don't need a full-blown graphics package for
> hundreds of pounds, I only want to reduce the borders on the gif files
> that VISIO generates (I do all my diagrams using VISIO).
>
> Thanks for your attention,
> Robin Glynn.





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 00:37
Subject: Re: Converting Newcomers to origami (was: Re: The Price of Technical

When I wrote:

"Here is what Lillian Oppenheimer said upon folding her first model, a
flapping bird:   'To take a little piece of paper and turn it into a
work of art threw me into such a rhapsody'",

I incorrectly attributed the time of this quote.  The quote originated
sometime in the 1980's during a videotaped interview of Lillian by
Allynn Gooen ("The Balloon Man").  Lillian was describing the immense
joy she felt when she folded her first flapping bird.

Dorothy





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 02:51
Subject: Re: The price of technical virtuosity

At 12:11 99/10/18 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>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.

I recently had the chance to chat with Kawahata quite extensively about his
design. He seems to work in the same way that I try to work. He identifies
certain key features that he wants to represent in his models and then finds
ways of achieving that representation. Often, that means using innovative
techniques that have come from others. But he does come up with novel uses
of those techniques. For example, his much praised dimetrodon is based on
the mane of Yoshino's horse.

An idea of what I mean by choosing key features can be found in his latest
pteranodon model. It is the fourth design of a pteranodon that he has done.
In the past, he has done models that have they key features of a pteranodon:
head (with beak, crest, and eyes), wings (with claws), body, legs, and tail.
His earlier renditions were loosely based on a bird-base structure,
resulting in thick wings. Refinements brought about more claws on the wings,
and on the feet. But in his latest design, he has focussed on the fact that
the pteranodons wings are formed of a single skin membrane...very thin. And
he's achieved that goal, producing a model with wings that are a single
layer of paper thick. All of the other features are reproduced as well (with
the exception of multiple claws on the wings, since that would have added
thickness).

All of this sounds very involved and technical, and he would agree. As he
folded this model during a public demonstration (while I tried very hard to
keep up and translate for him), he used the word "komakai" several times to
describe parts of the folding sequence. The word means "detailed", but in
the context he used, I translated it "picky" and "frustrating". But to say
that he has no intention of producing a thing of beauty is to be grossly
unfair to him. Kawahata did not seem to be all that interested in "pushing
the technical boundaries" at all. As I've already pointed out, he freely
uses techniques developed by those who do push the technical boundaries to
achieve the desired effect, but it is that desired effect that is paramount.
Is that not art? One would also have to argue that people who paint from
life are not artists either.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 02:56
Subject: Re: [NO] gif editors

Donna & Robin <robin@RGLYNN.KEME.CO.UK> sez

>    Does anyone know of a cheap of even free bit of PC software that
>    will let me crop gif files?

Paint Shop Pro is not free, but it's down to your conscience to register
it & it'll keep working anyway! It's as good as the best pro
packages....

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: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 03:08
Subject: Re: [NO] Paint doesn't do it for me

>===== Original Message From Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> =====
>I will look into Paintshop Pro as an option, but I think it may be a case of
overkill for what I want. And I believe the registration fee for the shareware
is quite high. Version 6 was 99 dollars.

Hey, this goes nicely with the 'demanding website visitors' thread. In the
real world, you rarely get something for nothing. Arachnophilia, Irfanview,
and other  outstanding Freeware- Programs are no exception to the rule. You
just don't pay the price with money.

Matthias





From: Maxim Candries <Maxim.Candries@NCL.AC.UK>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 06:16
Subject: Re: Wet behind the ears

> If you get the paper too wet or want to dry the model a bit, "band" the model
> to the shape you want it to stay, and microwave it for small increments of
> time on low heat....watch out for hotspots in the microwave so as not to
> scorch the paper.
>

That's a great idea! Although people who don't know what you are doing and see
     you
microwaving a rat may find it a bit macabre :-)

Maxim





From: Julius Kusserow <juku@MATHEMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 07:13
Subject: Re: FW: Question about Map Folding

Hi
in Germany and I thing a least a few other eurpean countrys the FALK
company sells maps which have the same handling as discribed. But the
making requires cutting in addition to folding.

You fold in West East direction valley(1)-valley precrease(2)-
mountain(3) until the map ends like this

North
 (2|
   | /1
   |/ |
 (3/  |
      |
      2  1
      | /|
      |/ |
      3  |

South

Then you fold valley -mountain -valley- mountain... in north south
direction. Then you cut between 3-1 and 3-2 long the north south creases.
If you have good measurements it is possible to see any part of the map
going up/down by creasing the flaps up/down. And going left/right like in
a book and the open the flap which u looked before.

Hope you understand it at least a bit.
        Julius





From: Ronald Koh <ronkoh@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 09:17
Subject: Re: Sticky-out piece? [was The Price of Technical Virtuosity]

... one with the sticky-out piece coming out the rear end? Whatcha
talkin'
'bout, Mathias? :o)

Ron Koh
(Hands clasped behind, innocently gazing at the stars, whistling no
particular tune)

Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
>
> >===== Original Message From Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> =====
> >Having said that, I shall now get back to diagramming more ugly clumps
> >of paper with disjointed 'sticky-out' pieces. :o)
>
> Please do! I'm especially curious to see the one with the sticky-out piece
> coming out the rear end <g>.
>
> Matthias





From: Ronald Koh <ronkoh@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 09:17
Subject: Re: The price of Technical Virtuosity

I have to agree with Rob. He is responsible for at least one ugly clump
of paper with eight (or ten, I can't remember) sticky-out bits from a
double-blintzed frog (or bird) base.

I think it's called Crap. (Sorry, I mean a Crab) :o).

Rob Hudson wrote:
>
> 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





From: Ronald Koh <ronkoh@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 09:17
Subject: Re: The price of technical virtuosity

Dave Mitchell wrote:

> 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.

Now you can add Joseph Wu's response to your collection.

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

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! You flayed the man (okay, his origami) without adequate
review of the evidence!

 (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.)

Foul! Whatever your friend thinks of Komatsu's tiger (or Komatsu), it's
not Kawahata's fault. Your one-liner was about Kawahata's origami being
about the ugliest, remember?
>
> 5, Personal taste.

Which you are fully entitled to, and I respect. :o)

Ron Koh.





From: Edith Kort <ekort@MCLS.ROCHESTER.LIB.NY.US>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 09:23
Subject: Kawahata's Design

Last night I had the honor and pleasure of meeting and folding with
Kawahata.  Three works of his were on display that he folded yesterday.
Rather than compare and contrast different renditions, I will say that
his three folded models on display were works of art. Seeing his models
up-close and in real life was like viewing great paintings.  If Monet or
Renoir wrote a book and drew diagrams of how they painted, and we
followed the instructions in those books, most of us would find the work
frustrating and still not have paintings of the same 'beauty.'

I will also surmise, that this was not the first time he folded these
models.  Origami, as with almost anything else, changes and improves
with practice and repetition.  I think it is unrealistic for many of us
to expect to follow the diagrams in a book of more than elementary level
and have the resulting model look like the full color photo in the book.
I often tell students that they cannot expect to play a Beethoven sonata
the first time they pick up the music for it.  So it is with Origami and
many other activities.

I will at this point add that I am not much of an animal folder.  Most
of my animals come out looking 'bunchy.'  The animals that Kawahata had
on display were sculptured works of art.  I was told that it took him
all day to fold the three models, and it showed.

I think we should couch our criticism of works in terms of what we like,
what we admire, and what we can and cannot fold, rather than say that
someone's work is bad or good.  I admire Kawahata's work very much.  I
like his animals; I don't like his bugs (although I admire them).  I
cannot fold many of his things.
--
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Edith Kort
  Rochester Origami Club, NY
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            Before you can be eccentric
      You must know where the circle is





From: Darren Karp <info@APPLICATION.CO.UK>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 09:27
Subject: Cuckoo Clock

Has anyone attempted Robert J. Lang's Cuckoo Clock from his book?

If so please help!....I am stock on section 19. Which basically
reads...'Unfold the hidden paper,etc.' if I do this it will destroy the
model due to reverse folds put in in step 18!!

HELPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!

Darren Karp





From: Darren Karp <info@APPLICATION.CO.UK>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 10:12
Subject: Re: Kawahata's Design

Edith,

I don't suppose you know of any tuition available in Origami in London,
UK do you ?

Darren

Edith Kort wrote:
>
> Last night I had the honor and pleasure of meeting and folding with
> Kawahata.  Three works of his were on display that he folded yesterday.
> Rather than compare and contrast different renditions, I will say that
> his three folded models on display were works of art. Seeing his models
> up-close and in real life was like viewing great paintings.  If Monet or
> Renoir wrote a book and drew diagrams of how they painted, and we
> followed the instructions in those books, most of us would find the work
> frustrating and still not have paintings of the same 'beauty.'
>
> I will also surmise, that this was not the first time he folded these
> models.  Origami, as with almost anything else, changes and improves
> with practice and repetition.  I think it is unrealistic for many of us
> to expect to follow the diagrams in a book of more than elementary level
> and have the resulting model look like the full color photo in the book.
> I often tell students that they cannot expect to play a Beethoven sonata
> the first time they pick up the music for it.  So it is with Origami and
> many other activities.
>
> I will at this point add that I am not much of an animal folder.  Most
> of my animals come out looking 'bunchy.'  The animals that Kawahata had
> on display were sculptured works of art.  I was told that it took him
> all day to fold the three models, and it showed.
>
> I think we should couch our criticism of works in terms of what we like,
> what we admire, and what we can and cannot fold, rather than say that
> someone's work is bad or good.  I admire Kawahata's work very much.  I
> like his animals; I don't like his bugs (although I admire them).  I
> cannot fold many of his things.
> --
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   Edith Kort
>   Rochester Origami Club, NY
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             Before you can be eccentric
>       You must know where the circle is





From: Katharina Grif <katharina.grif@UIBK.AC.AT>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 10:12
Subject: folded tzuru in Shunga picture

Hi all!
Recently i looked through the book of Shunga collection pictures.
Surpisingly for me in one of Kitagawa Utamara's Shunga picture from three
volume band Ehon takaraguchi, dated 1800, i recognized a very nice painted
tzuru, folded from white paper. There were some other subjects painted in
the picture ( on the floor near two heroes of this picture), such as a
mucical instrumen, book and a paintbrush.  Traditionally the four virtues
were allegorical represented  kinds of arts, such as painting, music,
kalligraphy and poetry.
I am interesting, if the folded tzuru represented  there an origami as a
kind of art ?

with best wishes, Katharina :)





From: Thomas C Hull <tch@ABYSS.MERRIMACK.EDU>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 10:51
Subject: Re: FW: Question about Map Folding

Hello people!

I received the same email from Shannon Roberts a while ago about
the map-folding problem.  I was so surprised that I had never
heard of this problem before!

I did come up with a solution that doesn't involve cuts.  So
if you are working on your own solution and don't want
suggestions, READ NO FURTHER!!

All I did was use the base to the "classic" sea-urchin, a la
Lang, Meguro, Birkeland, and probably others.  This is
the ultimate model with LOTS of "sticky out bits",
only for the map fold you don't narrow down the "points" to make
them skinny.  Rather, you leave the "waterbomb base grid"
as it is, collapsed together into a flat square.  (Here I'm
assuming that the map I started with is square.  All the
creases you need to do this are horizontal and vertical mountains
and diagonal valleys in a big grid.  Se the sea urchin is "Origami
Sea Life" by Lang & Montroll.)  This model
allows you to manipulate the folds so as to expose
any section of the paper that you want.  It does take some getting
used to, especially if you fold a very "fine" grid.  But
a 4 x 4 works pretty well, and I think this would be a practical
size for most maps.

I know that was probably very mysterious for those who haven't
studied the classic sea urchin.  But give it a try!  Try a 3 x 3
grid first and see how that works.

Later,

----- Tom "veeeery spoooooky" Hull
      thull@merrimack.edu





From: Rob Hudson <FashFold@AOL.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 15:50
Subject: Re: Arch form (WAS: A Reply to Ronald Koh)

In a message dated 10/20/99, 3:18:03 PM, ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU writes:
<<OK, I tried it both ways.  And to tell you the truth I like i better
with the extra crease.
-->>
Me too. I prefer the extra crease to the extra flap.





From: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 16:01
Subject: Re: Thoki Yenn's Abstract Form

Dear Thoki,

A public 'thank you' for taking the trouble to put your beautiful
piece onto the web site for us all to enjoy.  Do you have any other
abstracts?

Paul Jackson





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 16:13
Subject: Dinosaur models

Inspired by the BBC program 'Walking with Dinosaurs', I've been busy. It's
inspired some of the best designs that I've ever come up with. Regardless of
the scientific accuracy, it's still a visually stunning program ( and now
I've bought the video).

I've flat scanned four of my display models; A Triceratops, A T-rex, An
Allosaurus and a Deinonycus. These are on the 'Whats new' section of my web
page. If I get enough positive feedback I'll try and get the diagrams for
them on ASAP. Mind you, they are all rather complex and will take a while to
do. The Allosaur is already diagrammed on the page, although the arms and
legs are folded differently.

Enjoy,
Stephen

www.geocities.com/athens/academy/4800

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





From: Maxim Candries <Maxim.Candries@NCL.AC.UK>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 17:18
Subject: Re: folded tzuru in Shunga picture

Hi Katharina,

I don't know the answer to your question, but you may like this print from
Utamaro (ca. 1789):
http://www.students.ncl.ac.uk/maxim.candries/origami.html
featuring the crane bird.

However, you may check out some websites on Utamaro, or Ukiyo-e:
e.g.:
http://www.trussel.com/f_uki.htm
http://www.bahnhof.se/~secutor/ukiyo-e/

or even post your question to the Ukiyo-e Q&A:
http://www.bahnhof.se/~secutor/wwwboard/wwwboard.html

Best Wishes,
Maxim

Katharina Grif wrote:

> Hi all!
> Recently i looked through the book of Shunga collection pictures.
> Surpisingly for me in one of Kitagawa Utamara's Shunga picture from three
> volume band Ehon takaraguchi, dated 1800, i recognized a very nice painted
> tzuru, folded from white paper. There were some other subjects painted in
> the picture ( on the floor near two heroes of this picture), such as a
> mucical instrumen, book and a paintbrush.  Traditionally the four virtues
> were allegorical represented  kinds of arts, such as painting, music,
> kalligraphy and poetry.
> I am interesting, if the folded tzuru represented  there an origami as a
> kind of art ?
>
> with best wishes, Katharina :)





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 17:20
Subject: Really LONG: Re: [Long] The Price of Technical Virtuosity

Since Paul has answered, at least in part, I'll refrain from muddying the
waters further, at least for a while, regarding my
understanding/interpretation of what he was trying to say. ;-)

Ronald Koh wrote:

+So, form and visual impact are not the only aspects that matter? That is
+the 'beauty' of it!

Perhaps we are in agreement here, though I'm not sure. They aren't the
only aspects that matter, but they shouldn't be diminished because of any
imposed constraints either.

+We seem to have different interpretations on what 'beauty' (or
+'beautiful') means. I see it in the broader sense. The Concise Oxford
+Dictionary has a number interpretations...

Are you saying your definition is broader than the COD's defintion, or that
you are taking their definition as yours? (or ... ??)

+Agreed that there may be diverse meanings. The same dictionary provides
+these as some of the interpretations: unpleasing or repulsive to sight;
...

Perhaps, but my definition of Beauty wouldn't discount something simply
because it was repulsive. For example: If the subject being portrayed
is repulsive, then an artistic rendition of that subject which is not
true to that repulsiveness would be an ugly rendition, while one that
_is_ true to that repulsiveness would be a beautiful rendition.  The
confusion is between the art/representation of the subject, and of the
subject itself (i.e. a beautifully done model of something ugly). In
some cases art is the subject, or its own subject, or ... but lets
set those aside as they generally only introduce more confusion. ;-)

+ Those "ugly" models may be necessary in a developmental sense, but they
+are not the kinds of models one would
+> choose to exhibit as the acme of the art
+
+And who among us is eminently qualified to make such judgement calls? A
+lot of 'ugly' origami is being exhibited worldwide.

What does qualified mean?

A three legged giraffe origami model (to pick a recent example) has
certain strikes against it, but could well have so many other excellent
features that you'd be inclined to call it beautiful. But could you
call it _as beautiful as_ a four legged model with all the same
excellent qualities as the first? There is a big difference between
mere proclamations of "A is better than B" and a reasoned analysis of
the difference between A and B. Because there may exist subjective
preferences doesn't disqualify the objective reasoning one might apply.

If I say "Well, that dinosaur that Ronald folded is ugly" you might
question my qualifications/reasons. If I said "That dinosaur that
Ronald folded is ugly because is not hot pink, and we all know that
dinosaurs were hot pink!" then what do you think? You think my criteria
(color) is not the same as yours, and you may agree or disagree. If I
say "That bird Ronald folded is ugly because it has three wings" you
are again presented with a justification for the judgement call. You
could explain that strict representation of that particular feature was
not your goal, rather your goal was use that misrepresentation to a
particular effect... And so on.

As to the exhibition of ugly origami... Perhaps it is not the goal of
all exhibitions, perhaps even of any exhibitions, to be showcases for
the acme of the art form? Exhibitions have multitudes of goals, and I
can think of none that I have heard about whose primary goal was to
show only the best of the art form. As a reminder, you yourself
mentioned a continuum of "beauty", but I feel we've fallen into a
binary set of extremes...

+I may have come across unclearly in my original posting. What I meant by
+too high a level of critique was that while we should point out the
+improvable weaknesses in a model, we should not be harping on areas of
+weakness which, because of the limitations (i.e. paper as a medium, no
+cutting, folding only, etc) of the artform/craft, we can't do a thing
+about - for the present, at least.

Ah, I see. Fair enough. I would add, however, that there are the hard
limits imposed by the constraints, and there are the softer limits
imposed by our incomplete knowledge and exploration of the art forms'
techniques.

Generally I'm extremely skeptical about forgiving a "weakness" that
isn't due to one of the hard/extreme limitations. Whether or not one
knows how to overcome the temporary limitations is irrelevant. And
determining whether a limitation is hard or soft is not always obvious
either...

Perhaps others on this list might indulge in a history of origami
models that exhibit both sides of the paper, and if/whether Montroll's
Origami Inside Out was as key to those endeavors as his Prehistoric
Origami was in that field. At one point in the past, perhaps before
Origami Inside Out was known/published, one might have said: Oh, yes,
that is a <x>, but never mind the fact that it doesn't have proper
spots/stripes/etc.... That 'missing-ness' of stripes is not an inherent
limit of the techniques of origami, of its imposed constraints, but was
at one time an unexplored area, a limitation of exploration as it
were.  It still would have been fair to "ding" a model as missing that
improvement _even if_ the method for adding that improvement were not
known at that particular point in time..

How and even if, such criticisms/comments are to be expressed is an entirely
separate matter. ;-)

-D'gou





From: "Deborah P. Van Treuren" <deborahv@N-JCENTER.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 18:16
Subject: Origami Siting

Ruth Bessman has a wonderful exhibit at the student union on the
University of Wisconsin campus in Madison, WI. Beautifully executed
dragons, dolls and other interesting models. Anyone interested in this
show? It runs for a couple of more weeks...started the 16th of October..
Deb Van Treuren





From: Douglas Zander <dzander@SOLARIA.SOL.NET>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 18:25
Subject: Re: Origami Siting

yes, I will be going to see it proly on the 29th when the public reception
is being held.  papajoe (sorry, forgot his real name) made a similar
announcement earlier this week.  Maybe everyone who is going from this
list should wear little nametags with an "@" symbol on it?  :-)
We could hold a mini convention???  :-)

>
> Ruth Bessman has a wonderful exhibit at the student union on the
> University of Wisconsin campus in Madison, WI. Beautifully executed
> dragons, dolls and other interesting models. Anyone interested in this
> show? It runs for a couple of more weeks...started the 16th of October..
> Deb Van Treuren
>
>
>

--
 Douglas Zander                |  Watch "FarScape" on the SciFi Channel
 dzander@solaria.sol.net       |  Fridays 7:00pm Central
 Shorewood, Wisconsin, USA     |





From: Bruce Stephens <bruce@CENDERIS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 18:40
Subject: London (was Re: Kawahata's Design)

Darren Karp <info@APPLICATION.CO.UK> writes:

> I don't suppose you know of any tuition available in Origami in
> London, UK do you ?

I'm sure I read of a couple of evening classes in origami.  (I suspect
they don't include Kawahata models, however.)

Nick's BOS website is probably a better place to look: there are
regular mini-meetings in London (which I haven't been to in months, to
my shame) and in places reasonably easily reachable from London.
(Again, however, if you want to learn how to make Kawahata's models,
you're probably largely on your own.)





From: Bruce Stephens <bruce@CENDERIS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 18:40
Subject: Re: A Reply to Ronald Koh

Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM> writes:

[...]

> 1 To concentrate only on the sequence, eliminating the concept of
> the final model.  Maybe we start with an unfolded paper square and
> finish with an unfolded square, having performed an exquisite paper
> ballet of reverses, pivots, colour-changes, etc.  Or perhaps find a
> wondrous 'scenic route' from a Waterbomb Base to a Preliminary Base.
> In this way, origami becomes a pure, uncompromised sensual
> performance, purely for the person folding.  I'd love to see our
> technical maestros turn their great talents to this concept of a
> 'scenic route paper ballet'.  The climax -- as Robert Lang suggested
> -- would be to screw up the paper at the end!

Yes, I'd love to see that, too.  I very much hope someone (someone
with ability, of course---not me) tries this.  Or perhaps two or three
people (perhaps it would be nice to have two or three sections to the
performance with different rhythms, but using similar themes).

With a suitably geometric theme, presumably the final sheet might have
pretty creases, too.  Or perhaps it might have surprising areas of
uncreased paper.  Or perhaps, after going through a sequence of
naturally curved abstract shapes, the final creased pattern might be
unexpectedly regular and geomtric.  (Not that that would make the
result a suitable model for display, but it might make watching a
performance more fun.  Or at least not a complete waste of time.)





From: collin weber <coljwebwhs@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 19:17
Subject: origami chat

Evryone be sure to come to the yahoo origami club chat on Tuesday nights.  I
love chatting with other folders.  I hope to talk to you there

Thanks

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





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 21:09
Subject: Re: [NO] Paint doesn't do it for me

Matthias wrote:
>> I will look into Paintshop Pro as an option, but I think it may be a case of
>> overkill for what I want. And I believe the registration fee for the
shareware
>> is quite high. Version 6 was 99 dollars.

> Hey, this goes nicely with the 'demanding website visitors' thread. In the
> real world, you rarely get something for nothing . . .

I agree. I have recently tried using PaintShop Pro version 6, and it offers
much, much more than the "typical" $19 shareware programs I am used to. At
$99 US, I think it is a bargain -- after all, what is the alternative? On
one hand, you have all the programs that "don't do what I want" (gee. . .
I wonder why. . . ?), and on the other you have "professional" programs that
cost 3, 4, or 5 times as much.

But don't get me wrong -- I'd really like someone out there to create a
shareware program that works as well as CorelDraw and only costs $5 to
register. Really I would! Just don't make the registration reminder too
annoying (better still, allow me to turn it off entirely!). I'm a very
honest guy, so you'll get your money eventually. . . .

Mike "do I hear a low bid?" Naughton





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 21:09
Subject: Re: A Reply to Ronald Koh

Paul Jackson wrote:
> 3  To create a paper ballet of interest and beauty that leads not to a
> recognisable model, but to an abstract form of beauty, that emerges as
> a natural, uncompromised consequence of the sequence.  . . .
> The Chinese Junk is a better known example -- an amazing
> scenic route sequence, thrilling climax and a near-abstract final form
> that maybe kind-of resembles a Junk.  Perfection!

Another example might be Maekawa's Dragon that he taught at the 1998
OUSA convention. A bit sylized, but every crease has a mark (no "fiddling"
at the end), and the result is quite impressive.

And how about the "traditional" crane? Or Neale's Dragon? Or Montroll's
Stinkbug?

Mike "I bet there's even more out there" Naughton





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 21:09
Subject: Re: A Reply to Ronald Koh (2)

Paul Jackson wrote:
> 1  To concentrate only on the sequence, eliminating the concept of the
> final model.  . . .  Or perhaps find a wondrous
> 'scenic route' from a Waterbomb Base to a Preliminary Base

It's not quite the same thing, but my "Continuum" uses the notion of
a "path" from one model to the next. It shows the relationship (through
minute variations) among a cube made out of blintz bases, my "Multi-Ball"
(a specific instance of which was invented by Robert Neale), Neale's
"Six Piece Ornament", Sullivan's "XYZ" (basis for Shen's "Omega Star"),
and my "Ornamental Omega Star", among other models. I suppose it eliminates
the concept of the final model not by saying there is none but by saying
there are dozens (if not hundreds. . . .)

Mike "but nobody cares about modulars" Naughton





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 23:11
Subject: Re: A Reply to Ronald Koh

>Paul Jackson wrote:
>> 3  To create a paper ballet of interest and beauty that leads not to a
>> recognisable model, but to an abstract form of beauty, that emerges as
>> a natural, uncompromised consequence of the sequence.  . . .
>> The Chinese Junk is a better known example -- an amazing
>> scenic route sequence, thrilling climax and a near-abstract final form
>> that maybe kind-of resembles a Junk.  Perfection!
>
>Another example might be Maekawa's Dragon that he taught at the 1998
>OUSA convention. A bit sylized, but every crease has a mark (no "fiddling"
>at the end), and the result is quite impressive.
>
>And how about the "traditional" crane? Or Neale's Dragon? Or Montroll's
>Stinkbug?
>
>Mike "I bet there's even more out there" Naughton

Wait you guys talked about what do we mean by beauty but an equally
important question is what do we call abstract?  Where do we draw the line?
Do we include the junk but not the crane?  Or do we include both but not
oh for example Montroll's dragon?

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 20 Oct 1999 23:19
Subject: Re: Wet behind the ears

>Rob Hudson wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> I'm finally here with a serious question, now that I've been flapping my
>> fingers more than my gums.  I attempted wet-folding for the first time last
>> night with elephant-hide paper with less-than-stunning results.
>>
>
>Don't believe all these guys Robert they're all pulling your leg.
>Shame on you all for deceiving poor trusting Robbie.  But really,
>it should have been obvious.  Just think about it, it's called
>WET folding and they're telling you to just get the paper damp?
>Get real!
>

I think that you're misleading Rob Kim!  Wet folding encompasses a whole
spectrum of possibilities.  On one side you take real thick, perhaps
leathery paper and make it soaking wet like was suggested here.  On the
other side you take a light paper which would be ideal for dry folding and
you make it damp.  The effect of the latter is to make the paper soft which
makes it easier to do 3d sculpting and sink folds, the paper ceases to
fight in a way.  The former option is just as good but the amount of water
you add is dependent upon the kind of paper you have.  Where you end up on
the spectrum depends on the paper you use.  Thin, soft paper should only
use a little bit of water while watercolor paper would obviously need alot
more.  So Rob it all depends on the paper you're using.  I like to
experiment with different amounts of water until I find one that works
best.

David





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 00:25
Subject: Re: Wet behind the ears

At 20:21 99/10/20 -0700, David Whitbeck wrote:
>I think that you're misleading Rob Kim!

Actually, David, Kim was just pulling Rob's (and all of our) leg. Note the
last sentence in his message...

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: "Chamberlain, Clare" <Clare.Chamberlain@HEALTH.WA.GOV.AU>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 00:27
Subject: Thoki Yenns's Abstract Form

Dearest Thoki

I am now in love with you and your folds - sorry Paul ;-)

Did you realise that if you turn your model over 90 degrees, you have a
dynamic model of a sail boat leaning into the wind - I feel this would be an
appropriate mascot model for Perth (when the group gets going)as it claims
to be the world's most windy (as well as isolated) capital city!

Clare, the humble but still pretty fantastic folder of the South





From: Michael Janssen-Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 00:47
Subject: Re: Wet behind the ears

I have recently started experimenting with wet-folding also, and have
found it nowhere near as scary as I always thought.

My first project was to fold some of Fuse's masks from a large sheet of
Canson paper (50-odd cm). As most of these models start with a traditional
base (fish, bird etc), I started by just wetting the crease pattern for
these bases (both sides) and then folding the base. This helped with
keeping the paper square. I then sprayed and wiped the whole model inside
and out before completing the rest of the folding. I was very happy with
the result.

I also found that it wasn't necessary to know the model inside out before
I began - not sure if this is due to complexity (or lack of) of model, or
that the canson paper was particularly forgiving in holding moisture (or
re-wetting).

regards

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Michael Janssen-Gibson                 e-mail: mig@isd.canberra.edu.au
Applied Science
ISD, Library                   phone/voice mail: +61 6 (06)  201 5665
University of Canberra
PO Box 1 Belconnen, ACT 2616





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 00:55
Subject: Re: A Reply to Ronald Koh

At 08:13 PM 10/20/99 -0700, david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>  wrote:

>Wait you guys talked about what do we mean by beauty but an equally
>important question is what do we call abstract?

If you ask me, I think all origami by nature is abstarct (with the notable
exception of geometric works). However, some works strive to me more
representational, but the artistic contrants of the medium make this an
unattainable goal. This is a good thing. I f I wanted a realistic dog, I
would just buy one. If I wanted to get a sence of what the essense of a dog
is to a particualr artist, the constraints of origami provide for an
excellent distillation medium.

Marc

http://marckrsh.home.pipeline.com





From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@EROLS.COM>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 01:05
Subject: Diagram (Re: The price of technical vrtuosity)

OK. OK. I still don't know what beauty and beast are. I know why I HATE
complex (should I said detailed) model. It takes FOREVER to fold and forever
to diagram. I must admit!  it's beyond my folding skill.  It's my execuse to
design plain 2D thing.

Now I have my favorite model ready for download. It is one of my favorite 2D
designs - "Sunrise". It can be called sunset (depending on the eye of the
beholder). Just use regular kami to start.

http://users.erols.com/sychen1/Diagram/SunRise.pdf
You will see what I mean once you finished it. Have fun for the sake of
beauty and beast.
It's my bed time now. Good night.

Sy Chen

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Cramer <scram@LANDMARKNET.NET>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:05:50 -0400
Subject: Re: The price of technical vrtuosity

>    It is truly a privilege to be able to listen to the artists on the
>list debate the meaning of beauty and art. Forums like this are the real
>revolution in the information age.





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 01:29
Subject: Re: Wet behind the ears

Oh my god I've been doing so much physics that I can't comprehend a joke!
Agghhhh!!!!!!  Those integrals are driving me insane!!!!!

David





From: Michael Janssen-Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 02:07
Subject: Re: Converting Newcomers to origami (was: Re: The Price of Technical

> Robin Glynn indited:

> What would be most likely to convert a newcomer to paper folding?

Sometimes I get the feeling that newcomers to origami need to have the
correct "gene" before they are attracted to actually wanting to folding
something for themselves, rather than just "oohing" and "aaahing" over
folded models.

Until recently I had some high "wow factor" models displayed on my desk at
work, including Kawahata's pegasus, Joisel's  un rat, a Maekawa devil etc.
All of these elicited much excitement among staff, but rarely was one
interested in actually learning to fold (gentle offers of attending our
folding group meetings were made). Most interest has come from the
children of co-workers, who hear about the models I make and want to
see/learn. Am I coming across some of that "adults think everything is too
hard" syndrome Doug mentioned in a recent post?.

The question is often posed to this list "how did you become interested in
origami?" - would it be a fair assumption that most people become
interested at a younger age, maybe/maybe not put it aside for a number of
years, and returned with a passion at a later date? I would be happy to
hear contrary stories.

Doug and David both mentioned that modular origami seemed to elicit a
great deal of interest in their workplace, and having had similar
experiences with my wife's workmates I would concur. I wonder if this is
correlated to the type of work these people do, and the type of minds
these jobs attract. My wife works with the bureau of statistics, while I
work in a library. Compared to the reaction my wife received, the couple
of modulars I have at work have gone all but un-noticed (except for a
couple of IT support guys who almost drool at the sight of them :}).

Wandering thoughts.....

regards
Michael





From: Michael Janssen-Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 02:32
Subject: The Price of Technical Virtuosity

I have enjoyed this discussion to a point, where my lack of knowledge or
expertise has given out and left me floundering. I can recognise a good
folding sequence, but appreciating paper distribution, or excellent
structures is beyond me at present. I get a kick out of completing certain
sequences in a model, but this derives more from self-satisfaction
(Yippee! I made it!) than structure appreciation.....but I am starting to
waffle.

Paul Jackson mentioned some artists/folders he (I assume) admired and felt
illustrated his points, many of which were unknown to me. I was hoping
that someone could point me towards photos, souces of info etc, in the
hope that I can better understand Paul's point of view.

Thanks in advance,

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Michael Janssen-Gibson                 e-mail: mig@isd.canberra.edu.au
Applied Science
ISD, Library                   phone/voice mail: +61 6 (06)  201 5665
University of Canberra
PO Box 1 Belconnen, ACT 2616





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 03:19
Subject: Re: Thoki Yenns's Abstract Form

Clare,

If you turn Thoki's model over 45 degrees, you get an iceberg.

Such riches from four folds!

Dorothy, the recently shaken (magnitude 7.1 earthquake) and currently
baked (99 degree desert winds) and always humble folder





From: Anine Cleve <anine20@USA.NET>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 03:23
Subject: Origami chat on IRC

Which reminds me, are any of you folders on IRC? I'm sitting here all alone
and thought it would be nice to chat with some origami-freaks (sorry ;) I'm at
the server on top in the status window (Random EU DALnet Server) my nick is
Josefin and when I'm online I'm always on #Roxette.
I have checked if there was an origami channel (that is #Origami) but didn't
find any. If there's already an origami channel out there please let me know
and tell me the server name!
Thanks in advance!

Anine

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1





From: Andrew Daw <andrewd@REDAC.CO.UK>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 03:27
Subject: Re: Arch form (WAS: A Reply to Ronald Koh)

There are no extra flaps, just less creases.
But let's not get into an argument over the simple models,
when there's more fun to be had with the complex ones :O)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Origami Mailing List [mailto:Origami@MIT.Edu]On Behalf Of Rob
> Hudson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 8:50 PM
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: Arch form (WAS: A Reply to Ronald Koh)
>
>
> In a message dated 10/20/99, 3:18:03 PM, ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU writes:
> <<OK, I tried it both ways.  And to tell you the truth I like i better
> with the extra crease.
> -->>
> Me too. I prefer the extra crease to the extra flap.





From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@SCI.FI>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 06:01
Subject: Re: A Reply to Ronald Koh

On 20-Oct-99, Thoki Yenn (thok@THOK.DK) wrote:

>I was just showing Paulo Mulatinho how to change a square into a
>silver rectangle and went on fiddling with the folds and then this
>abstract form created itself when I opened it and put it on the
>table.  Paulo thought it beautiful enough to put it in the first
>Edition of his Pfifiges Origami 1993 - ISBN3-8043-0368-4

It's also in Mulatinho's 1995 book 'Origami - 30 fold-by-fold
projects' which may be be English translation of the above book.
The book also includes Thoki's 'Crossed Box Pleat' and 'Shy Young
Hare'.  ISBN 0-7858-0262-2

--
Jorma Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi

Weyland-Yutani - Building Better Worlds





From: Dave Mitchell <davemitchell@MIZUSHOBAI.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 06:29
Subject: The price of technical virtuosity

Joseph Wu informed us:

>I recently had the chance to chat with Kawahata quite extensively about his
>design. He seems to work in the same way that I try to work. He identifies
>certain key features that he wants to represent in his models and then
finds
>ways of achieving that representation.

Thanks Joseph. I had suspected this - but it's good to have it confirmed. I
believe this is the fundamental reason why his models turn out as they do.
By choosing the result in advance and striving to achieve it the designer
ends up fighting with the paper. This always shows.

>But to say that he has no intention of producing a thing of beauty is to be
grossly
>unfair to him.

Is it? Haven't you just confirmed that in fact his intention is to produce
models which possess certain specified technical features? In origami these
two things are almost always mutually incompatible.

It's also worth pointing out that what I said was that - to me personally -
his models are ugly. I said nothing about them not being art. It is possible
to design for ugliness just as it is possible to design for beauty - though
it seems that Kawahata is doing neither of these things.

Robert Lang's comments on Stravinsky fit in here. Music can be designed to
shock as well as to please. It's still valid as art. But beauty?

Ronald Koh wrote:

>Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! You flayed the man (okay, his origami) without adequate
>review of the evidence!

A misinterpretation. Saying something is ugly is not at all the same as
flaying it. I didn't say it was poor, bad, awful or worthless origami. In
fact, as Joseph Wu has confirmed, it's experimental design work. This has to
be good for origami. The thing is to get it in context and to understand
what and why it is - if we can.

What I was trying to counter was the growing tendency for folk on this list
to believe that technical virtuosity equals excellence. This is simply not
true.

Dave Mitchell





From: Maarten van Gelder <VGELDER@KVI.nl>
Date: 21 Oct 1999 08:03
Subject: Searching the archived messages

Due to changes in the FTP entrance to the Archive Search computer that
mirror contains only messages up to May 1999.

The original archives are just running up to yesterday.

I just installed an Archive Search in the archives itself.
You may use it via the main page of the archives:

   http://www.rug.nl/rugcis/rc/ftp/origami

Be aware that searching may take a lot of time. There is about 35
Mbyte of text available.
It makes sense to adjust the starting date.
Example:

searching for    prop detective
may take several minutes

searching for    prop detective       with     Start    1999 JAN
takes about 20 seconds

searching for    prop detective       with     Start    1999 MAY
takes about 15 seconds

This Archive Search is an adapted version of the search engine
accessable via email:

   mailto:origami@www.rug.nl

--
Maarten van Gelder    KVI - Groningen, Netherlands    vgelder@kvi.nl
