




From: Mad <madhawn@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 01:03
Subject: [NO] Kenneth Kawamura -- I think I've got a job ...

Aloha,

(This is Kenneth Kawamura. I'm sending this to
the Origami-l mailing list.  Apologies if I'm
repeating old news, and a belated thank you to
everyone who wrote me while I was sick,
because I've been procrastinating again.)

(Style Warning:  I'm using double spaced lines to
break the letter up into sections, so it may not end
where you think.)

I am happy to announce that I have a job, starting
in a couple of weeks, I think.

The appointment I had today, turned out to be to
discuss the job and meet Greg, who'll be my boss.
I'll be contract programming for (I forget which
branch of) the State of Michigan, in Java ( a
language I haven't learned yet)  assuming
everything goes as discussed), working out of
one of the State office buildings downtown
(and maybe doing a little traveling, as necessary).

For those of you who've been worrying about me,
since I've been out of work for about three years,
and it's been almost two years since my little
stroke, and I haven't been looking hard for work,
I guess you can stop worrying, now.  :-)

I might have to go out of town occasionally for the job.
(They're talking Java, Java Beans, Javascript, and
HTML, none of which I'm real familiar with, so there
may be some training involved, plus they're taking
some software that's been developed outside, and
we may go to the company to learn more about the
product.)

(If that sounds like Greek, don't worry, I barely know
what it means, too.)

While I'm talking to you, in case I forgot to tell anyone,
about two years ago, almost exactly a year after I was
"terminated" at my last job, I had a small stroke.
Technically, the doctors said my "right vertebral artery
dissected", which I think means the layers of the blood
vessel wall separated from each other, or maybe tore
thru, and a blod clot formed that started to cut off
circulation to the brainstem, which impacted the sense
of touch, and motor control.

I got lucky. I had a headache on one side, so I took
some aspirin, which may have prevented the clot from
getting too big too fast. I lost my sense of balance, the
right half of my face went numb (and I found out later
the left half of my body also), and I lost my voice, and
my ability to swallow.   But, except for the headache,
there wasn;t any pain, or much discomfort.  Just majorly
inconvenient, and novel.   I knew I was "at risk" of a
stroke, being a Type 2 Diabetic, with out-of-control
blood sugar, but it never occurred to me to study the
symptoms of a stroke, so I didn't realize what the
problem was.

Anyway, to make a long story longer, I was in hospital
for a month. Just after they let me out, I got most of
my sense of balance back, and am mostly recovered.

There's still a little numbness, and some random face
pains, my right knee occasionally buckles for no
obvious reason, my balance is a tad worse then it used
to be (tho it was never really that good to begin with),
and I think I'm a little weaker (but that may just be me
getting older). But, hey, I'm doing a lot better than I was.

My doctor sent me to a Diabetes Education class
a couple months ago, and I'm slowly making progress
getting my blood sugar under control.  Still not getting
enough exercise (Uggh!  Those two awful words, diet
and exercise.) and eating too many late night snacks
(tho I'm learning to snack on radishes, raw Nappa,
tofu), but I'm trying to do better  (the new "comfort Curve"
blood test strips are cute, and real easy to use, and I'm
monitoring my blood sugar more often.).

So, that's how I'm doing, healthwise.

You'd think, after three years of unemployment, I'd at least
have my house in order, but it hasn't happened yet.  A
major part of the problem is, I'm a packrat and a hoarder.
Never, well, hardly ever met a book or magazine I didn't
like, also like gadgets, and toys, and empty packaging, ... ,
and my house shows it.  Aunty Hinako, Aunty Yoshie, and
especially Aunty Sue have _strongly_ advised me to
sort thru my stuff and toss as much as possible, if only to
make it easier on whoever gets stuck picking up the pieces
later (I am 49 already, it's time to "make plans"), and I
understand that, in theory.  In practice, I have a major clutter
problem.  And I'm emotionally attached to most of it, I think
it's my emotional security blanket.

I have (don't laugh, at least not too loud) a fair size collection
of books on the topic of organizing and de-cluttering, and
am trying to read thru them for ideas I can use.  Also found
the usenet newsgroup named alt.recovery.clutter , which
helps some, at least I know (1) I'm not alone, (2) it could be
worse, and (3) there's hope yet.

For anyone that doesn't know, one of my hobbies is Origami.
Actually got to the point where I, sometimes, create my own
folds.

I'm also interested in, and collect books and magazines on,
any papercrafts, any crafts, how-to anything, and Art, tho I
only do Origami, and a little paper snowflake cutting and
Calligraphy.  Oh, and a little photography.  I now have a
scanner, and a digital camera, tho I'm not doing nearly as
much with them as I'd like.  My fault, I need to work at using
them more.

If any of you are so inclined, please keep an eye out for
magazine or newspaper articles about Origami, papercrafts, or
other crafts.  I collect them. Likewise, if any of you are into any
crafts, tell me, and I'll see what I can find.

And, yes, I've gotten hooked on the Internet, and am still going
thru a feeding frenzy, finding lots of neat things on the 'Net,
and losing most of them almost as fast as I find them, _sigh_.
But I'm having fun anyway.

Also still stuck on the upward slope of the "Learning Curve",
learning how to use my computer. More fun!

Well, I only meant to send a short note, not talk your ear off.
More later.

Aloha,
":Mad"    (<shrug> I moved to Michigan  to get away from the
                hot weather  in Hawaii.  I must be "Mad".  :-D  )
Kenneth

Kenneth M. Kawamura
328 N. Fairview
Lansing, MI 48912-3110





From: Mike Kanarek <kanarekorigami@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 01:52
Subject: Diagrams: Collecting

Wanted:

I collect package diagrams, (the kind packaged with paper), and would
     appreicate help in compiling them.
I am looking information as to when they started to include them with the paper
     and as to whoes' designs they are if possible.
Would like to see some from before the universal symbols were developed if
     anyone has any that old.           Thank's                          Mike
     Kanarek                          17 Clinton Ave.
     Kingston, NY 12401
Kanarekorigami@Hotmail.comGet Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
     http://www.hotmail.com





From: Leong Cheng Chit <leongccr@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 15:03
Subject: Re: Creative Motivation (was: Brilliant Origami)

>
>  Paul Jackson raises some very interesting questions:
>
>  >I agree that a turned head may limit the 'display-ability' of this
> >model.  However, I disagree with D'gou's opinion that a creatorshould
> >create to please the most number of people, the most number of times,
> >by creating animal models that hold a neutral stance.
>
To which Doug Philips replies:
>
>  I never claimed that. What pleases people is up to them. See below
>  re:neutral stance.
>

The key word is "display-ability". For example, the Chinese believe that
you should never place a statue of a horse in the direction of the door
because luck would then escape through the door. But, if the head of the
horse is turned to one side, placing the horse the other way round would
make its head face the wall. So, why would you want a horse with its head
turned away from you?

With asymmetric origami models, there is a happy solution. Fold them in
their mirror image. Hence, for Dave's St. George and dragon, left should
read right and vice versa. (Incidentally, the eastern dragon, unlike its
western cousin, is wise and powerful. And, I don't recall anything said
about its orientation to the door.)

Talking about asymmetry, I've just folded Peter Engel's octopus. It has a
right pointed funnel. Despite this anatomical abnormally (?) it is a
beautiful model.

Cheers!

Cheng Chit





From: Dave Mitchell <davemitchell@MIZUSHOBAI.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 06:26
Subject: Golden rectangle / Penrose tiles

Dave Stephenson wrote:

>Since a square is in itself just a special form of rectangle is it possible
>to create a model from a golden rectangle that is anything other than
>trivially dependent upon the golden-ness?

I'm not sure I understand all the implications of this question .... but if
'other than trivial' means a fold that makes use of the special geometrical
properties of the golden rectangle ..... then the only one I can think of
off-hand is Kasahara's module for a 'skeletal' icosahedron (an adaptation of
Dave Brill's module for a 'skeletal' cube).

Along with other folders I have spent some time looking for useful folding
geometry (suitable for modular work in my case)  within the golden rectangle
and ..... failed to find it. The reason is that the main factor which makes
a rectangle useful in modular origami is the angles at which the diagonals
cross. (For instance the diagonals of the silver rectangle cross at 70
degrees ... which just happens to be dead useful.) If the angles of the
golden rectangle crossed at 72 degrees that would be great and open up all
kinds of possibilities in relation to solids based on pentagons and
pentagrams .... but they don't.

This is probably also why the 'murrican' rectangle has no specially useful
applications.

(Incidentally there is at least one other 'golden rectangle' .... in which
the golden proportion is a ratio between one side and the diagonal .... the
connection between them being akin to the relationship between the silver
rectangle (one by root two) and the square. However .... this second
rectangle still doesn't yield the angles I'm looking for.)

On the question of Penrose tilings .... kite and dart tiles are quite easy
to fold from a square (using the approximate angles obtained from the
diagonals of a 3 x 1 rectangle.) It would be nice however if the tiles could
be designed so that they would automatically only interlock in a
non-periodic tiling ....

Dave Mitchell





From: Leong Cheng Chit <leongccr@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 07:00
Subject: Re: Space-filling polyhedra [was Re: Brilliant Origami,

Robert Allan Schwartz wrote:
>
> I know about some periodic 3d space-filling polyhedra, but I don't
> know about non-periodic same. Where can I learn more?
>
>

Besides Conway's "biprism" mentioned by Tom Hull, other non-periodic 3d
space-filling polyhedra are the pair of golden hexahedra (I don't know who
discovered these) and Penrose's pair of rhombohedra. References to same and
the Penrose tiles can be found in Connections-The Geometric Bridge Between
Art and Science by Jay Kappraff. There is also a section on origami in the
book, which got me starting folding paper in the first place.

Not a mathematician
Cheng Chit





From: Sjaak Adriaanse <S.Adriaanse@INTER.NL.NET>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 08:19
Subject: Cambridge

Hello all,

readers of this list who visited the BOS Convention in Cambridge might have
noticed the growing animosity between Dave Brill and Eric Joisel. At times
there was murder in the air and both had to be held back. Eric Joisel was
spotted violently bashing and tearing a newly made paper mask before anyone
could see it... On the other hand, I saw Dave Brill in his black gown,
muttering in an ancient tongue while folding a life-size vulture. It then
flapped its wings without anyone touching it...
Folders from civilised countries (like us Dutch) can only fear what these
two great talents will bring about, should things come to a duel of folds.

But then, the atmosphere between the British and French has long been
tense. I found this old rhyme, dating way back from the French Revolution,
and adapted it for the occasion. It is to be read out loud with that
peculiar French accent you know from Inspector Clouseau, or maybe from Eric
himself.

   They seek 'im 'ere, they seek 'im there
   Those British seek 'im everywhere
   Is 'e in 'eaven, is 'e in 'ell?
   That mad Frenchy, Eric Joisel!

Greetings,
Sjaak

--------------------------------------------------------------
We perform the miracles.
                          Kate Bush





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 12:00
Subject: Re: Cambridge

Hey, why not use your energy to create some Origami figures for the Scarlet
Pimpernel, instead of debasing that enjoyable story to the level of gossip?
;-) Or at least explain what it's all about...

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch

-----Original Message-----
From: Origami Mailing List [mailto:Origami@MIT.Edu]On Behalf Of Sjaak
Adriaanse
Sent: Freitag, 21. April 2000 23:26
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Cambridge





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 12:07
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami and Cambridge convention postscript

David Brill wrote:

I'll buy you
doubles next September in York; dates for your diary 15th -17th
September!)

Is that a convention you're writing about? If so, I'd like to know more
about it, please...

Best regards,

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 12:57
Subject: Re: Creative Motivation (was: Brilliant Origami)

Doug Philips wrote:

"Let me be more explicit. I much prefer Neale's Dragon over Brill's,
because despite the "diagrammed" lifeless pose, Neale's model is far
more malleable, more poseable, more open to the folder's possibilities.
The fact that Brill's Dragon cannot look forward is a let down,
considering the other models in the book, and as a folder it bothers me
to have a more limited model to fold. Neale's Dragon, however, can look
sideways, backwards, etc. and is less limited."

Egads, D'gou, picking on a differently-oriented dragon, one that does
not strictly adhere to the status quo of origami design?   Why isn't it
also a let down that most origami animals look forward and cannot look
backwards and sideways?

I don't think Brill's Dragon is a more limited model to fold simply
because its head cannot be maneuvered.  Brill's Dragon is very
expressive and full of life and movement, and is limited only by the
folder's imagination, technique and interpretive skills.

Dorothy





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 14:54
Subject: New models...

Hi all,

I've added a new section of 'Woodland Origami' to my website - this included
diagrams for the squirrel that I taught at the BOS conference. I hope you
like them.

To Joel Stern - I've got your mail. I should be writing an essay regarding
Patricia Crawfor's work soon - this will help me greatly.

Re : My dinosaurs - Several of the models have pages in common, such as the
first one of both the T rex and the Triceratops. Unlike books, my website
allows the user to see both in the right section, rather than 'use steps
1-50 of the t rex'. However, I have not duplicated them to save on memory -
sorry if this has caused confusing. I have also posted the missing steps of
the Iguanadon.

Finally, the banter between David Brill and Eric Joisel may have been
something to do with a photo in Moiseur Joisel's possesion of Dave
accompanined by a couple of nude 'fashion models'. I unfortunately do not
have a copy to put on my website, mais, c'est la vie!

Yours, causing trouble,

Dr Stephen O'Hanlon MA(oxon) MB.BChir(cantab)
Origami Web page  - http://www.geocities.com/paperfolder.geo
Visit this site!  - http://www.thehungersite.com

Phone : 0118 969 4644
Mobile: 0771 327 8855

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Rachel Katz <mandrk@MAIL.PB.NET>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 15:07
Subject: Re: Commonly available paper shapes...

Doug writes...

This raises an interesting question as to why there aren't more models made from
8.5x11 "murrican" paper. (8.5x14 is also very widely available in US). Perhaps
Alice's promulgation of the square-as-best was effective? Or maybe since its
easy to make a square from a rectangle, potential 8.5x11-ers have just been
making squares instead? Given the attitude that origami is an inexpensive hobby
that can be done with found papers, I'm surprised at the dearth of 8.5x11 based
models.

Laura Kruskal (Lillian's daughter-in-law)has hundreds of originals from this
shape. Hopefully, there will be more of them published soon.

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





From: Penny Groom <penny.groom@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 15:18
Subject: Golden rectangle

Dear all,

Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1
etc.

By the way any people who I taugh Laura Kruskal's 'My Heart Springeth
with Joy' to at the BOS convention last week it is from 8.5 by 11 not A4
I forgot to say and you would have a piece left over ( easy enough to
fold in though) if you made it with A4.

Thanks

Penny

Penny Groom

Membership Secretary, British Origami Society
www.britishorigami.org.uk/

Please visit the Hunger Site at http://www.thehungersite.com/
Clicking on this site once daily donates food at no cost to you to the
hungry around the world.





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 16:47
Subject: Re: Golden rectangle

On 22 Apr 2000, at 20:18, Penny Groom wrote:

> Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
> proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1
> etc.

Easiest to do backwards [describe the property you want and then work
backwards to see what the necessary ratio is]:  You start with a
rectangle and you fold a square off of it (the diagonal is 45degrees)

   _________________
   |     \        |
   |     .\       |
   |     . \      |
   |     .  \     |
   |     .   \    |
   |     .    \   |
   |     .     \  |
   |     .      \ |
   |_____________\|
         ^
         ^
         cut here

And then you're left with something that looks like:

   ______   ___________
   |     |  \        |
   |     |  |\       |
   |     |  | \      |
   |     |  |  \     |
   |     |  |   \    |
   |     |  |    \   |  << -- despite how it looks, this right hand part
   |     |  |     \  |  << --   is a square you just cut off the original
   |     |  |      \ |  << --   rectangle
   |_____|  |_______\|
      ^
      ^
        This is your new rectangle.

**IF** the new little rectangle has the _same_proportions_ as the
original rectangle [after you rotate it 90degress, of course], then the
rectangle's sides are in the 'golden ratio'.

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





From: THOKI YENN <thok@THOK.DK>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 17:16
Subject: Sv:      Golden rectangle

Dear Penny

> Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
> proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1

The proportions of the Golden rectangle in simple terme are
1 to 0,618034.

If you go to
http://thok.dk/geometry.html
you can find instructions on how tro change
American letter size to a Golden Rectangle,
also how to change A4 to a Golden Rectangle

Kind regards

Thoki Yenn





From: THOKI YENN <thok@THOK.DK>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 17:52
Subject: Sv:      Golden rectangle

Dear Penny

As an after thought, I see you want your answer
in whole numbers,
the proportions 8 to 5 is close enough for folding purposes.

So if you fold a square into 8 sections and fold away 3 of them
you are looking at a golden rectangle (close enough ?)

> Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
> proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1
> etc.

Greetings with a happy Easter for you and your family

Thoki Yenn





From: Ron Arruda <arruda@CATS.UCSC.EDU>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 18:38
Subject: Re: Sv: Golden rectangle

Thank you Thoki for some simplicity!

Ron Arruda

On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, THOKI YENN wrote:

> Dear Penny
>
> As an after thought, I see you want your answer
> in whole numbers,
> the proportions 8 to 5 is close enough for folding purposes.
>
> So if you fold a square into 8 sections and fold away 3 of them
> you are looking at a golden rectangle (close enough ?)
>
> > Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
> > proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1
> > etc.
>
> Greetings with a happy Easter for you and your family
>
> Thoki Yenn





From: Leong Cheng Chit <leongccr@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 20:47
Subject: Re: Golden rectangle

Penny Groom writes:
>
> Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
> proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1
> etc.
>
There's a definition of the golden ratio and, hence, the golden rectangle
on the BOS website (Folding optimal polygons by David Dueisseix). The first
diagram for folding an optimal pentagon from a square actually shows you
how to fold a golden rectangle from a square.

Cheng Chit





From: D* Pun <debpun@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 23:39
Subject: Origami Sighting (NYC Subway ad)

During an evening's commute home from Downtown New York's
Wall Street to Main Street, Flushing, Queens, I spied last week:

"Find a space, fill the space. Clean up... with LOOT-
at newsstands everywhere. When classified run free, bargains run wild!"

A yellow origami lion folded from Loot's unique yellow
newsprint paper stares out from the ad with "LOOT" as his eyes.
Perhaps a Brill origami Lion?





From: Doug Philips <dgou@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 00:53
Subject: Re: Creative Motivation (was: Brilliant Origami)

Dorothy Engleman indited:

>Egads, D'gou, picking on a differently-oriented dragon, one that does
>not strictly adhere to the status quo of origami design?   Why isn't it
>also a let down that most origami animals look forward and cannot look
>backwards and sideways?

I wasn't discussing most origami animals, just two explicitly, Neale's and
Brill's Dragon. Interesting that you'd jump to such a conclusion, n'est-ca
pas?

As to "picking on," I choose not to pretend that no differences between
models exist. Whether that consitutes "picking on" depends on your
definition and your projection of "tone" into my messages.

>I don't think Brill's Dragon is a more limited model to fold simply
>because its head cannot be maneuvered.  Brill's Dragon is very
>expressive and full of life and movement, and is limited only by the
>folder's imagination, technique and interpretive skills.

I don't deny your other statements about that model, but I must have a
pretty limited imagination, since I can't figure out how to get Brill's
Dragon to look where it is "going." But that is actually not my point. I
wasn't refering to the folding of the model, but of its use once folded.
Interpretive skill can only go so far. In fact, the model design defines the
"space" or "range" of potential variations. All folders can work within that
space, to the extent of their abilities and imagination. Beyound that space,
the folder must make structural changes to the model, but that gets into an
area of question as to whether it is the same model or a variation,
eventually leading to a "inspired by" reference to the original.

-D'gou

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: THE' ORIGAMIMASTER <THE_ORIGAMIMASTER@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 01:10
Subject:

Someone just asked me !  How do you get the copy rights to certain original
     folds or models???  hhhmmmmmmmm





From: THE' ORIGAMIMASTER <THE_ORIGAMIMASTER@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 02:15
Subject: Re: Golden rectangle

I agree, it would be nice if some would give a simply dimmension as for
instance like  3 by  7  for an example  .  for the silver and golden
rectangle  please. And why  did someone come up with these sizes ratios,
too????????
----- Original Message -----
From: Penny Groom <penny.groom@BTINTERNET.COM>
To: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 12:18 PM
Subject: Golden rectangle

> Dear all,
>
> Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
> proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1
> etc.
>
> By the way any people who I taugh Laura Kruskal's 'My Heart Springeth
> with Joy' to at the BOS convention last week it is from 8.5 by 11 not A4
> I forgot to say and you would have a piece left over ( easy enough to
> fold in though) if you made it with A4.
>
> Thanks
>
> Penny
>
>
> Penny Groom
>
> Membership Secretary, British Origami Society
> www.britishorigami.org.uk/
>
> Please visit the Hunger Site at http://www.thehungersite.com/
> Clicking on this site once daily donates food at no cost to you to the
> hungry around the world.





From: THE' ORIGAMIMASTER <THE_ORIGAMIMASTER@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 02:15
Subject: Re: Golden rectangle

I agree, it would be nice if some would give a simply dimmension as for
instance like  3 by  7  for an example  .  for the silver and golden
rectangle  please. And why  did someone come up with these sizes ratios,
too????????
----- Original Message -----
From: Penny Groom <penny.groom@BTINTERNET.COM>
To: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 12:18 PM
Subject: Golden rectangle

> Dear all,
>
> Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
> proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1
> etc.
>
> By the way any people who I taugh Laura Kruskal's 'My Heart Springeth
> with Joy' to at the BOS convention last week it is from 8.5 by 11 not A4
> I forgot to say and you would have a piece left over ( easy enough to
> fold in though) if you made it with A4.
>
> Thanks
>
> Penny
>
>
> Penny Groom
>
> Membership Secretary, British Origami Society
> www.britishorigami.org.uk/
>
> Please visit the Hunger Site at http://www.thehungersite.com/
> Clicking on this site once daily donates food at no cost to you to the
> hungry around the world.





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: 23 Apr 2000 05:47
Subject: Re: Golden Rectangle

THE ORIGAMIMASTER asks:

> I agree, it would be nice if some would give a simple dimension as for
> instance like 3 by 7 for an example for the silver and golden
> rectangle please. And why did someone come up with these sizes ratios,
> too?

I am reluctant to intervene: I only recently returned from holiday in
Tenerife, and since then I have attended the British Origami Society spring
convention. I am frantically trying to put may affairs in order before flying
to Japan at he invitation of Mr. Yoshizawa on Wednesday.

At the risk of oversimplifying it Thoki Yenn has given the simplest answer to
this question and I commend his postings to everyone. There may be one or two
postings on the subject on the British Origami Society Web site, but for the
moment I am unable to check because I have lost my link to the Web. I know I
have written about the subject in the past, both in "British Origami" and
elsewhere

The Golden Ratio and the Silver Ratio are not the invention of mere mortal
men. They arise from the operation of mathematics. The Golden Ratio, or
Golden Section (a rectangle with its sides in the proportions of the golden
ratio is a golden rectangle) has exercised men's (and women's) minds since
Classical times and countless books have been written on the subject. (Dover
Books have several of them available at small cost). The Golden ratio has the
formula: a:b = b:(a=b).

The Silver Ratio is: one to the square root of 2. It has not been so studied
or discussed as the Golden Ratio, but came into prominence  when this
proportion was chosen for International paper sizes. I understand that the
name "Silver Ratio" is a modern one and ws suggested by the compilers of the
Oxford English Dictionary on the analogy of the Golden Ratio.

Both the Golden Ratio and the Silver Ratio are irrational numbers so it is
hopeless to ask for them to be expressed in simple whole numbers. For
practical purposes, the best you can hope to do is use and approximation, as
Thoki Yenn suggests.

Just as square paper has geometrical relationships which can be exploited in
paperfolding, so the Silver Rectangle has inherent geometries which can be
used. For many years I have been watching the slowly-evolving techniques of
folding from the Silver Rectangle, and some progress is being made. But
nobody has yet written a monograph on the subject. Here is scope for someone
wanting to make his or her mark on origami.

The Golden Ratio seems less promising for folding purposes than the Silver
Ratio. It is more implicated and involves the square root of five. Certainly
there have been less results than for the Silver Rectangle. Occasionally I
have voiced my hopes that someone would work out its paperfolding geometry,
but nobody has yet come forward with anything. If you deduct a square from a
Golden Rectangle, the bit left over is itself a golden rectangle. One would
think that something could be worked out from this.

I once identified a third kind of ratio and rectangle, which I designated the
Bronze Rectangle. Unfortunately it has receded into the far back of my mind
and because of the current pressures, I haven't sufficient time to dig it
out. But I can do so later if anyone is really interested. It involves the
square root of three.

One of the interests of origami is that it exploits the geometry of the piece
of paper, whatever its shape. Square paper is not the only shape which can or
should be used. Ultimately choice is a matter for personal decision. No human
being lays down law for these things, but they have to be exploited by human
ingenuity. I find it fascinating, because it is a hint that there is far more
to be discovered about folding paper than we know already. I have previously
expressed my hopes for folding from circular paper on Origami-L, but this
remains an almost wholly unexplored field.

This is an important aspect of folding which deserves a better contribution
than this and I apologise for its inadequacies. I thought, however that half
a loaf would be better than none. Perhaps I shall be able to go into it more
when I return from Japan.
Meanwhile, I'm enjoying all the contributions on the subject. They are all
adding to our knowledge of it.

David Lister.

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 08:46
Subject: Re: Cambridge

Sjaak Adriaanse <S.Adriaanse@INTER.NL.NET> sez

>  Is 'e in 'eaven, is 'e in 'ell?
>   That mad Frenchy, Eric Joisel!

Yes indeed - I saw him setting fire to an origami sheep after noticing
DB had his Wellington boots on. Eric also left via Waterloo station!

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
BOS homepage    www.britishorigami.org.uk





From: THOKI YENN <thok@THOK.DK>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 09:13
Subject: A-format & Silver rectangle

For those of you
who are not averse to reading long artcles
I have on a secret place on my website
an article from a book
by the Danish Engineer Tons Bruns.

It is about the A-format,
its origin and its relation to the roman foot

It not connected by link to my website
because I have not yet received an answer
to my application for permission to publish it.
It is now nearly a year ago since I asked,
I therefore dare give the URL
to this closed circle of friends.
http://www.thok.dk/aformata.html

Reading-stuff for you until David Lister
returns from Japan.

Greetings

Thoki Yenn





From: Deb Claypool <dsc-pod@WEBTV.NET>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 09:49
Subject: settling into O List / the crane

   I have now been hooked to the internet 7 days and to Origami List
about as long.  Please forgive me for novice blunders.
    One blunder is not quite being up to speed on the convention of
quoting what words were said that I'm responding to.  In fact, I know
I've even forgotten who made a comment about the crane that indicated
finding it a particularly unlovely (I think "inelegant" may have been
the term.) model.
    If you remember, I'm returning from years away.  Most folks I meet
find folding a piece of paper on the diagonal a challenging new
approach.  Maybe I've "dummied down" to suit the situation.  Certainly,
the discussions here are reawakening faded passions.
    From my origami missionary status, returning from years in the land
of darkest book folds, I would like to point out that the crane is a
beautifully "forgiving" model.  A badly out-of-true square can still
become a passable crane.  Wing tips can have an odd point.  Once the
reverse folds for neck and tail are formed, chances are fair that at
least one will have a sharp enough point to qualify as a tail.  The head
doesn't suffer when created from the "lesser" point.  Perhaps it is the
kindness to strangers of the crane that gives it its truest calling as
the symbol of origami that it is.

       Deb Claypool aka Pod





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: 23 Apr 2000 11:18
Subject: Re: Settling into O List.

Deb Claypool wrote earlier today:

>  One blunder is not quite being up to speed on the convention of
>  quoting what words were said that I'm responding to.

I don't think this is a blunder. It seems to me that there are a lot of
needlless conventions around on the Internet.

Yes, it is useful to quote a heading as it helps to identify the thread.

And Yes, it is useful to quote the date of the posting to which you are
replying or commenting.

But these are no different from the conventions of ordinary letter-writing.

Most e-mail programs give a facitiliy for automatically reproducing all or
part of a letter which is bing commented upon. Unfortunately, many e-mailers
misunderstand this and think that it is compulsory in every case to quote the
whole of the letter to which they are replying, whether it is necessary or
not. The extreme of this is where people have replied to a minor point in a
letter received as part of a Digest and have then tagged the whole of the
many pages of the Digest on to the bottom of their short one-line comment.

It is NOT necessary to use the quotation facility to quote the whole of an
e-mail being replied to. It is only necessary to highlight the relevant
portion being replied to. Better still, do not use the quotation facility at
all, but make a brief reference to it in your own text. Write as you would in
an ordinary handwritten letter.

To be honest, I'm against the use of the quotation facility in e-mail (even
though I have used it at the begining of this letter). It is argued that it
saves time and that e-mail is supposed to be speedier and in any case that
e-mail is less formal than ordinary letter writing. I don't see it myself.
The practice is having a ruinous effect on our style of letter writing and on
the clarity of our writing and our thinking. And from the acres of
unnecesarily quoted material that appears on this and every other List, it's
certainly not saving the time of writers or readers or making for
succinctness of communication.

I know I'm on my high horse, but do plead for a sensible and intelligent
approach to e-mail. It is a wonderful invention. Let's not submerge it in a
quagmire of needless and ill-considered "conventions" just becuse it is
thought to be the thing one should do.

Curmudgeonly,

David Lister.





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 12:34
Subject: Re: settling into O List / the crane

On 23 Apr 2000, at 8:47, Deb Claypool wrote:

>     One blunder is not quite being up to speed on the convention of
> quoting what words were said that I'm responding to.  In fact, I know
> I've even forgotten who made a comment about the crane that indicated
> finding it a particularly unlovely (I think "inelegant" may have been
> the term.) model.

Just so.  The internet standard for handling such things is to realize
*exactly* what you have observed: which is that although when you're
*writing* the article the original you're replying to is fresh in your
mind [probably right in front of you on the screen], by the time the
reader *reads* it, it may be a day or two later and the reader may have
dealt with several hundred email mesages on scores of other topics... so
you need to help the reader out.

In particular, in this kind of case you generally include a *SHORT* bit
of context [as above!] so that the reader is reminded of what's going on,
then you continue with your comments.  The key concept is *SHORT*: you're
not providing an explicit copy or an extended quotation for
legal/stylistic reasons, you're just trying to give the reader a
_reminder_.

As for getting started with the Internet, there are a LOT Of materials
about to provide some orientation on what's what.  A very good one [but a
bit hard to read and it icnludes a lot of stuff you might well not
careabout] is the "netiquette" RFC, RFC 1855,
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html>.  On this topic, for example, it
says:

    - If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
    summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
    enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure
    readers understand when they start to read your response. ... Giving
    context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

Other good advice can be found at:
"Emily Postnews" <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1/>
Hints on Writing STyle for Usenet:
         <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/writing-style/part1/>

[Note: these refer to 'news', but the "rules" are basically the same for
broad-distribution mailing lists, such as origami-l...]

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





From: Ron Arruda <arruda@CATS.UCSC.EDU>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 13:16
Subject: Silver Rectangle

Just to add a small bit to David Lister's transmission: There is a sort
of a "mongraph" on the Silver Recatange. It's John Cunliffe's booklet
(BOS #21, 1983) called "The Silver Rectangle". The booklet itself is, of
course, a Silver Rectangle size, a nice irony! There's not much text
really, but there is a clear graphic of what that shape means, and a
bunch of models using its unique geometry. Thokki Yenn's BOS Booklet #13
also has quite a few folds for this shape paper.

The "square root of two" business: This sounds mysterious until we recall
the tiny scrap of high school plane geometry called the Pyhagorean
Theorem. That's the war-horse about the hypotenuse of a triangle and its
relationship to the other two sides. Do I see eyes glazing over yet?
Well, anyhow, if you take a square and call each side "one unit", one
foot say, and then fold the square in half diagonally, that diagonal
crease has the measurement of the square root of 2 (feet in this case)!
AHA! So that relation does not come out of nowhere, but from the square's
geomety! Curiouser and curioser!!

Opps, I just fell off the edge of my math competence! Sorry to leave you
stranded: have a nice trip! Looking up "Pythagoras" or "Pythagorean
Theorem" in an enclyclopedia or even a good dictionary will show a
diagram of this well-worn triangle business.

Ron Arruda





From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@EXC.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 13:43
Subject: Sv:      Golden rectangle

>> Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
>> proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,I understand things like 2 by 1
>
>The proportions of the Golden rectangle in simple terme are=20
>1 to 0,618034.

Or roughly 3x5.





From: Marcia Mau <marcia.mau@PRESSROOM.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 16:29
Subject: Models which can be folded from both a square and a rectangle

Aimee Miura recently taught Laura Kruskal's Travelers' Modular Box (pg 197,
OUSA Annual Collection 1998).  When folded from 8.5 x 11 rectangles, the
units create a windmill pattern on a square box.  When folded from squares,
an entirely different pattern is created on a square box.  I would describe
it a four triangles forming a square withing four rectangles.  The box is
also more stable when folded from squares than rectangles.

Are there any other models which can be folded from either a square or a
rectangle?  My guess is letterfolds or modulars.
Marcia Mau
Vienna, VA





From: Margriet Klees <MargrietKlees@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 17:20
Subject:

I do not have copy rights I just have a publication with this model and asked
     is it possible to publish? It is a nice one and it is a pity that it is
     not published in books. The former publicer oj the paper is not doing
     origami as far as i now and I have

Greetings Margriet Klees

----- Original Message -----
  From: THE' ORIGAMIMASTER
  To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
  Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2000 7:05 AM

  Someone just asked me !  How do you get the copy rights to certain original
     folds or models???  hhhmmmmmmmm





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 19:32
Subject: Re: Copyright, etc

Ho hum, this old chestnut.

As, in the eyes of international copyright, origami is considered to be a
craft (yuck), the actual creation of a model cannot be copyrighted. However,
when the steps to create this model are drawn down, these become subject to
copyright! Dave Lister posted an essay in the list a couple of months ago
about this; Ive put the salient points on my webpage in the essays section.

Dr Stephen O'Hanlon MA(oxon) MB.BChir(cantab)
Origami Web page  - http://www.geocities.com/paperfolder.geo
Visit this site!  - http://www.thehungersite.com

Phone : 0118 969 4644
Mobile: 0771 327 8855

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Jake Crowley <jakecrow@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 21:01
Subject: Re: Fumiaka Kawahata Dragonfly, BOS Magazine?

Hi all,

While looking through the Tanteidan web site, I saw a picture of a dragonfly
model by Kawahata, and it mentions diagrams for it are in a "BOS magazine".
Anyone have any idea which magazine this is, and if its possible to get it
still. Thanks! Here's the link to the Tanteidan site, the dragonfly is right
at the top of the page.

http://www.origami.gr.jp/Etc/conv99Mizuno/mushi-e.htm

Jake Crowley
jakecrow@hotmail.com

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Weldon MacDonald <weldon.macdonald@SYMPATICO.CA>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 21:45
Subject: I'm new

I haven't been around this list long, so I don't know what is appropriate to
     the list, but I can't wait.
I'm not a folder, if that's what you call yourselves. Oh I made endless
     waterbombs as a kid (I was a serious pain in the butt) and I helped my
     niece get started with some very basic shapes in a kit, but that's it. The
     other day I was given a bill folded i

I am one of those people who has to be always doing something and I wanted
     something simple, yet with enough depth to keep me engaged (caged also
     works there), something basic, something creative. I think I found it.

The idea of starting with nothing, but a bit of paper, a little ingenuity, and
     only my hands as tools,  is enormously appealing to me. That was when I
     hit Joseph Wu's site. I assume you know who I mean as you can't search for
     origami sites without just ab

And now, I find there's a whole community to go with it, what could be better,
     but then I'm obviously preaching to the converted or you wouldn't be here.
I'm 42, well closer to 43. I'm of reasonable intelligence, very good with
     spatial relationships which is a benefit for reading diagrams if nothing
     else(I'm on my second try at Joseph's Great White Shark, at the moment he
     wants me to wrap something in fron

If you were me where would you start?

The obvious answer is to fold, fold, fold... so you can skip that one. I'm
     ready to go out tomorrow (if I can find a store open) and but some paper
     and a book. Which Book? What kind of paper? What do I have to learn,
     should I study and practice basic form

Any help, guidance, or recommendations would be appreciated,

Weldon "paper folder wannabe" MacDonald





From: =?big5?B?tOW0y7TX?= <giawgwan@SINGLE.URL.COM.TW>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 23:07
Subject:

>> Maths terms confuse me, please tell me in plain English what the
>> proportions of a Golden Rectangle are,
>1 to 0,618034.
>Or roughly 3x5.

There is a series of appoximation of  Golden rectangle.
We start from Fibonacci sequence:
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,.....the first 2 terms are 1,1, then afterwhile
every term equals the sum of the previous 2 terms.





From: Lar deSouza <fresco@SENTEX.NET>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 23:23
Subject: Re: I'm new

Weldon,

Welcome to the wonderful world of folding! :)

> I'm really rather excited
>about this so I'm motivated.    If you were me where would you start?
>warned, if you advise this I won't be able to stick to it, this  has to be
>fun too.)   Any help, guidance, or recommendations would be appreciated,

Hmmm?  Sounds like the desert island question :)  What books to take?  Some
of the ones I consider to be great for someone looking for folds that are
intermediate to complex, have a lot of variety of folds and model subjects
would be "The Complete Book of Origami" by Robert Lang, "Origami for the
Connoisseur" by Kunihiko Kasahara and "Origami: Step by Step" by Robert
Harbin and pretty much anything by John Montroll :)  These books have
figures, masks, animals, modulars and wacky paper shapes that can keep you
exploring this wonderful artform for a long time :)

I could go on, but I'd likely just be listing my entire library of books!
:)  In an effort to keep it to just easy for Weldon, I've selected three
which I know seem to be easy to find in my local book shops :)

You can't go wrong though with stuff by Kasahara, Lang, Harbin or Montroll.
 For more beginning models I always fall back on "World of Origami" by Isao
Honda but if he's working on Joseph Wu's shark he clearly enjoys more
intricate models :)

My $0.02 worth :)  Later!

Lar

**********
The Many Faces of Lar
http://www.sentex.net/~fresco/faces

The ArtGuys:
http://www.internet.com/~artboy





From: Doug Philips <dgou@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 23:34
Subject: Re: I'm new

Hello Weldon!

>If you were me where would you start?

That's a tough question. It really depends on your interests (not many
explicitly listed in your message), and goals...

>I'm ready to go out tomorrow (if I can find a store open) and but some
>paper and a book. Which Book? What kind of paper? What do I have to learn,
>should I study and practice basic forms before I tackle anything too
>complex? (Please be warned, if you advise this I won't be able to stick to
>it, this has to be fun too.)

I would urge you not to buy any books yet, but to scour your public
libraries. Its suprising what you might find, and if your library is in the
US, you can get many origami books via interlibrary loan (which is suprising
fast these days, in my experience). Once you've had the luxury of looking
through many books, trying models, you'll get a better feel for both your
skill level and interests.

John Montroll's "Teach Yourself Origami" is a good book with a progression
of models' difficulty. But whether you like the models well enough is your
call. Get this via Interlibrary Loan if you can. Also, Tom Hull has
coauthored two books "Origami: Plain and Simple" and "Russian Origami" which
contain a variety of simple, yet charming, models. Try to find those via
interlibrary loan too. Browse Browse Browse!

Have fun, and good luck!

-D'gou

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@IONET.NET>
Date: 24 Apr 2000 00:27
Subject: Fuse Book Identification

Hi --

I wonder if anyone can help me with the english title of a Tomoko
Fuse book I have.

It is perfect-bound paper with a slipcover. It is in Japanese with
the title in red characters, at a 45 degree angle across the white
background of the cover. There are 4 colored squares that serve as a
background for the models on the cover, arranged 3 diagonally and one
to the lower right. There are 7 1/2 models shown, all of which are
open-work modular balls. The most prominent color among the models is
red, appearing in all of them except one, which is two different
shades of blue and one which is in green and yellow. On the back
cover is one model: orange and blue on a red square. At the upper
left corner, on both front and back is 12 pointed figure made to look
like red paper laid over yellow paper laid over green paper,
surmounted by an arc along which appear 7 white Japanese characters
in black circles -- I assume that this is the publishers logo for
this series of books.

It has 62 numbered pages and a copyright date of 1988.

The ISBN is 4-416-38825-X, but it looks as though this is a 1994
reprint of the original edition, so the ISBN may have changed as some
point.

Thanks in advance,

-=-Dennis

dmanasco@ionet.net





From: "K. A. Lundberg" <klundber@MNSINC.COM>
Date: 24 Apr 2000 01:03
Subject: Re: I'm new

Weldon wonders:

> I'm not a folder, if that's what you call yourselves.

______________________________
I think of myself more as a crinkler...big grin. Sorry couldn't resist.

> If you were me where would you start?

__________________
First, download the cheat sheet from Steve Hecht's site check out his
diagrams while you're there:
http://www.serve.com/hecht/origami/origami.htm

If you can view video files with Real Player or a similar program this site
has some that show the basic moves in origami:
http://www.learn-origami.com/Default.htm

You've already found Joseph's site so just check the links or the diagrams
listing to find models that interest you.  Make sure when you visit origami
site that you also check out the links page on those sites too or just
follow the links in the sigs on the list.

> Which Book? What kind of paper? What do I have to learn, should I study
and practice basic forms before I  > tackle anything too complex?

________________________
Any kind of paper that will hold a crease will work but most people prefer
origami paper which comes precut into squares and is usually colored on one
side and white on the other. Be sure to check your local art supply store as
well as craft stores. (The craft stores in my area don't carry origami
paper...no idea why.)

I'd say to tackle which ever models interest you.  You're more likely to
work out how to fold a dragon if that is what you want to make than say a
butterfly that doesn't interest you.

Kalei





From: Calfaile <calfaile@HOME.COM>
Date: 24 Apr 2000 02:01
Subject: Advanced Projects

I've been a folder for quite awhile now.  I'm looking for more
challenging projects maybe at the level of Brill's animal models (In
"Brilliant Origami").  I've also got "origami insects" by Lang and "unit
origami" by Fuse.  Any suggestions?  Also, has Brill written any books
other than "Brilliant origami"? I really like his animal models, they
are a lot more elegant then other models.  Oh, and I have also read
"origami for the connesseur", but found it too expensive concidering how
many of the diagrams I already owned.

Thanx,

Calfaile





From: Mad <madhawn@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Date: 24 Apr 2000 02:03
Subject: Re: I'm new (2nd answer, not so long)

I almost forgot this.  About practicing, you might try
folding with your eyes closed.  I think I can do a
Robert Neale Dragon with my eyes closed.
Sometimes.

It also helps to try to teach someone.  Nothing like
trying to teach, to uncover what you don't know.
And remember, there's almost always another way
to do something.

If you think you can teach, try doing it over the phone,
or by email.  :-)   "Good training."

Aloha,
Kenneth M. Kawamura





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 24 Apr 2000 04:59
Subject: Re: Fumiaka Kawahata Dragonfly, BOS Magazine?

It was in 3 parts over three BOS Magazines:

Part 1 - June 1999 issue  196
Part 2 - August 1999 issue 197
Part 3 - October 1999 issue 198

Hope this helps
Dave





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: 24 Apr 2000 05:46
Subject: Stephen O'Hanmlon on Copyright: a Clarifiction

Stepehen O'Hanlon began his brief note on Copyright last night with the words:
"As in the eyes of interntional copyright, origami is considered to be a
craft (yuk)....."

This is not so and I feel that a clarification is needed. As a piece of
sculpture, an origami model has full copyright protection as a work of art.
It is the standing model that is protected and copyright law makes no
judgement about whether that model is good sculpture or bad sculpture, good
art or bad art. It will be protected.

But the law is only concerned with the outward appearance of the model. It is
not concerned with the model's inner structure, its crease pattern or its
folding sequence. For all the law cares, it will protect any method of
construction which gives a semblance of the original standing model, even if
it is a pastiche supported by crumpled chicken wire coated over with plaster
and then liberally applied with cut and glued pieces of paper until it
outwardly it gives the appearance of the original origami model. (Rather like
some of those "origami" advertisements in the newspapers.) In the same way,
the law of copyright would not be concerned whether a bronze statue was
reproduced in plaster or chiselled stone. Any semblance of the original would
be a breach of copyright.

What the law does not protect is that inner structure, crease pattern and
folding sequence. It couldn't care less about the inner of construction of
the model.

It is for this reason that the inner structure and folding sequence is
considered to be an invention, which must be protected, if at all, by a
patent. Otherwise, anyone is at liberty to pull a model part, work out how it
was folded and to draw and publish his own diagrams. (As long as he doesn't
copy any one else's diagrams: such copying would be a breach of the copyright
in the diagrams, not the model.)

All this has nothing to do with whether origami may be an art or a craft. In
a fairly recent posting, which is presumably in the archives - with my
impending visit to Japan, I have no time to search now - I argued that all
arts are basically crafts, that is things that are made or done and I cited
the  _craft-_ of the fine soprano. ART is something which we add to craft,
something creative; if you like something spiritual. Or it is something
expressive or something we communicate to others. Whatever it is, it is
_more_ than the routine reproduction of a basic object of utility. But even
making a basket or a brush _can_ be an art - and often is. Nor need the art
input be good art: it is still art. And as art it will have the full
protection of the law of copyright.

The only caveat I add to this, is that the actual law of copyright  differs
in minor detail in different countries, even when they subscribe to the
provisions of the Berne Copyright Convention. Some countries protect works of
art. Others specifically refer to sculpture, but the end result for our
purposes is the same.

The law of Copyright fits origami like an ill-fitting suit. Origami is a
curiously hybrid art/craft/science and nobody had it in mind when the law of
copyright evolved. Personally, I still have some reservations about whether
the inner structure and crease pattern cannot have some protection in
copyright law, but for the time being, I am cogitating my ideas and keeping
them to myself!

David Lister.

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com
