




From: Lar deSouza <fresco@SENTEX.NET>
Date: 10 May 2000 21:55
Subject: Book recommendation?

Hello all :)

I'm hoping someone can give me a bit of information on the book "Origami
Amusement Park" by Momotani.  It's been tempting me for a long time, and
I'm in a book buying mood (I broke down and emailed for info on getting
Paul Jackson's reprint after all :)

My children would love these sorts of models.  Are they modular (do they
interlock) or is extensive gluing involved?  Do the models 'work'?  Do they
require a fair bit of reinforcement or are they only for show?

Many thanks for your time :)

Lar

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

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





From: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 11 May 2000 02:33
Subject: Re: Email address for 'Comp S by S Guide'

 I'm grateful to those of you who publicly through this List and in
 private to me, have expressed enthusiasm that 'Origami: a Complete
 Step by Step Guide' has been republished by Bounty.

 I now have an email address for those of you outside the UK who may
 wish to purchase a copy:

  becky.easter@exel-media.co.uk

 Contact Becky Easter at Exel -- note that Exel are the distributors,
 not the publishers.  The UK list price is 5.99GBP (that's about
 $9.00), but no doubt you'll have to pay shipping costs on top.

 Regards,

 Paul Jackson
 mpjackson@btinternet.com
 www.origami-artist.com





From: Hatori Koshiro <hatori@JADE.DTI.NE.JP>
Date: 11 May 2000 10:00
Subject: Re: insects

> I swear just a little while back somebody mentioned something about
> Tanteidan Insects.  Is there an Origami Tanteidan book on insect models?
> If so who's selling copies?  I wonder how big OT 6 will be?

Origami Insects volume 1 was published from Gallery Origami House
last month. It features super-complex models by Kawahata Fumiaki
and Nishikawa Seiji.
Volume 2 will be available in this summer, and will contain models
by Maekawa Jun, Meguro Toshiyuki and Hojo Takashi.

I don't know very much how to get a copy.
Ask directly to Gallery Origami House at origamih@remus.dti.ne.jp

 _ _ _ _ _
|         |  Hatori Koshiro (Koshiro is my first name.)
|_._._._._|          hatori@jade.dti.ne.jp
|         |      http://www.jade.dti.ne.jp/~hatori/
|_ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 If they keep on risking failure, they're still artists. (S.Jobs)





From: Kate Goff & Erik Rohman <erikkate@EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: 11 May 2000 10:00
Subject: Being new to the list...

I'm not familiar with this book, Tantetadains.  What is it and how do I
get one?

:-)

Thanks!
Kate





From: Foldmaster@AOL.COM
Date: 11 May 2000 10:09
Subject: Tanteidan Insect Books - not available yet!

Dear All,

Sorry, but I will not be accepting orders for this book.  However, OrigamiUSA
(OUSA) will be stocking the book.  Their order has already been shipped by
sea mail and will hopefully arrive in time for the annual origami convention
in NYC by end of June.

I will make a formal announcement to the list when the books will be
available for sale with the cost included.

Also, I would like to apologize to those people who have still yet to receive
their orders from Japan.  The Japanese postal service seems to be
experiencing some problems.  For example, I didn't receive my copy of JOAS
issue #60 until about ten days although it was postmarked March 31st!

Therefore, please be a little more patient.  I'm sure your order is on its
way and will arrive shortly!

June Sakamoto





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 11 May 2000 11:39
Subject: Re: Paper selection-Wallpaper

Kennedy, Mark <KennedyM@DNB.COM> sez

>I have made extensive use of wall paper for wet-folding.

You also sent me a superb handbag made from wallpaper, about 15 years
ago. It's still impressive!!!

all the best,

Nick Robinson

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





From: Howard Portugal <howardpo@MICROSOFT.COM>
Date: 11 May 2000 12:00
Subject: FW: [ousa-members] Graduation Mortarboard ?

Fwd'ing from OUSA members list for wider audience.

-----Original Message-----
From: V'Ann Cornelius [mailto:vann@lht.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 8:04 AM
To: OrigamiUSA
Cc: g_fraleigh@yahoo.com
Subject: [ousa-members] Graduation Mortarboard ?

Hello, OUSA Members,

Seems like the search for a mortarboard
comes up every so often.
Last year I remember someone had an answer.
Does anyone have any references for Gail?

V'Ann
-=-=-

Gail Wrote:

I've been looking for a mortarboard or other money
fold suitable for a graduation gift.  When I used your
index, I didn't notice any of the models from past
convention books and was hoping maybe you knew of a
source other than what was listed.  I haven't folded
much in the last ten years, but surfing the web might
get me started again.  What a fabulous way to share!

Gail Fraleigh
g_fraleigh@yahoo.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double your manufacturer's warranty on all computers,
home appliances, and electronics AND win up to $500
towards your purchase!
http://click.egroups.com/1/3749/7/_/66925/_/958053377/





From: "Kennedy, Mark" <KennedyM@DNB.COM>
Date: 11 May 2000 16:18
Subject: "Origami Amusement Park" by Momotani.

>I'm hoping someone can give me a bit of information on the book "Origami
>Amusement Park" by Momotani.

I have not looked at my copy in a few years. I as I remember some of the
models were impressive but took a lot of work to fold and assemble. There is
a rocketship/plane ride machine in three parts: the tower, the arms hanging
out that rotate and 4 rockets/planes. There is train complete with tracks. I
don't want to consider how many tracks would need folding.

The photos of the Ferris Wheel were impressive. The model took several units
to make the wheels, struts to support them and the baskets. As I remember,
there was some notes about supporting the sides stands with some thin wire.

The folding levels for the models are not overly complex. Some of the
diagrams contain short cuts for the experienced folder. I would not
recommend it to a novice.

There are a few models of Amusement Park food - I was not impressed.

Since there were many neat models, I bought the book and recommended that
OUSA carry the book. I did a book review many years back when the book was
first issued. I am so use to books only being around for a little while that
I will purchase a book when I first see it if it is at all interesting.

At about the same time as this book, he also published a Treasure Island
book with all sorts of neat pirate stuff.

"I am going to be Peter Pan, when I don't grow up!"

Mark Kennedy





From: Jansill@AOL.COM
Date: 11 May 2000 16:18
Subject: Groucho Marx

Hello,

Has anyone made a portrait of Groucho Marx? Are diagrams available?

As ever,

Jay
Jay Ansill
www.fortissimo.org/artists/ansill (soon to be Jayansill.com)
"There's no money, in poetry, but there's no poetry in money either" Robert
Graves





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: 11 May 2000 16:24
Subject: Re: FW: [ousa-members] Graduation Mortarboard ?

>>From: Howard Portugal <howardpo@MICROSOFT.COM>
>>
>>Seems like the search for a mortarboard
>>comes up every so often.
>>
>>I've been looking for a mortarboard or other money
>>fold suitable for a graduation gift.  When I used your

I've suggested the Biddle & Biddle's model in The New Origami (St. Martin's).
It's a trivial modification of the painter's hat, and could
be changed to use a $ bill.

        Sincerely,
                Carlos
        furuti@ahand.unicamp.br www.ahand.unicamp.br/~furuti





From: Florence Temko <Ftemko@AOL.COM>
Date: 11 May 2000 20:34
Subject: Mortar Board

I designed a mortarboard for my grandaughter's high school graduation. It's
very simple, on a four-points-to-the-center base. I think it could be adapted
to be folded from a dollar bill. I sent instructions  to Bob Stack on 2/22/99
so it may appear in this year's OUSA annual.
    I made it up in the school colors: red Astrobrite and stuck on a black
piece of fringed paper for a tassel. It was a big hit.
    Gail Fraleigh, and others, if you will send me your snail-mail address
I'll send you the rough instructions. All best from Florence. (Ftemko@aol.com)





From: Michael Janssen-Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: 11 May 2000 23:58
Subject: Kasahara book

Could someone please provide some more details on the following book:

Tanoshii Origami no Hon by Kunihiko Kasahara
ISBN/Item No.: 476590007X
Publisher: Kubo Shoten

regards

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Michael Janssen-Gibson                 e-mail: mig@isd.canberra.edu.au
ISD, Library                    phone/voice mail: +61 6 (02) 6201 5665
Communication & Education                    fax: +61 6 (02) 6201 5068
University of Canberra
PO Box 1 Belconnen, ACT 2616

University of Canberra - 30 years making the difference





From: Allen Parry <parry@ESKIMO.COM>
Date: 12 May 2000 00:51
Subject: Graduation Mortarboard ?

I have designed a Graduation Morderboard from a request made through Sy
Chen.  I'd say it is good, not great, but I tend to be a perfectionist. (I
really wanted the tassle in the design.)  Of course it is a dollar bill
design.

It hasn't been diagrammed. If someone out there is set up to diagram, I
could send them one.  They would have to reverse engineer it (which won't
be difficult and I can help) and it would need to be done fairly soon to
get it out in time.  If anyone is interested in diagramming this, please
e-mail me privately.

Allen Parry
parry@eskimo.com





From: Rick Beech <Ricknbeech@AOL.COM>
Date: 12 May 2000 03:20
Subject: Tom Hull's 5 Intersecting Tetrahedra

Dear Friends,

I am currently working on a book in London, which will feature Tom Hull's
amazing 5 Intersecting Tetrahedra model. Thing is, the publishers are working
me to really tight deadlines, and need finished samples of all the designs in
the book. One thing I would like to have is a finished model of this design
in dollar bills, a couple of which I noticed on the display table at the OUSA
convention.

To save me time, if anyone out there has made this model, and would happily
loan it to me (it will be returned I assure you), I would be grateful to
receive same in the post: 33 Ormskirk Rise, Spondon, Derby, DE21 7NU, England.

Many Thanks,

Rick.





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: 12 May 2000 04:24
Subject: Re: Mortar Board [NO]

Just a few notes about mortar boards.

The correct name in England, at any rate, is "Square Cap". It obviously gets
its popular name from the square board with a handle in the centre underneath
that bricklayers use, especially when they are doing fine work such as
pointing.

Far from being worn only at graduation ceremonies, the Square Cap is part of
everyday academic dress, although academic dress is less worn at universities
than it used to be, especially by members of scientific faculties. But when I
was at grammar school in the 1940s all the schoolmasters wore their gowns and
the headmaster and one other very old Latin master regularly wore their
"mortar boards". I believe this may still be the tradition in some of the
British "public schools" (which, perversely are not public schools in the
American sense, but private boarding schools like Eton, Harrow and
Winchester). However, academic dress was never worn every day at my wife's
Girls' Grammar School which had been founded as recently as the 1920s.
However academic gowns and hoods are still worn at many schools on formal
occasions like "speech days" and founders' days.

The square cap is just one particular form of the hat worn by ecclesiastics
and academics in the middle ages. Why it took the flat form it has in
England. I have no idea. A softer version, still with four corners, but more
like a comfortable hat, is the "Canterbury Cap" which used to be worn by
clergy of the Church of England, but which seems to be just about extinct.

>From mitres to wide-brimmed hats and from skull caps to the Pope's now
discarded tiara, ecclesiastical headdress is an absorbing subject which
presents ample scope for the bored paperfolder.

When I was at Cambridge in the 1950s, caps and gowns were worn as a matter of
course by the dons (senior members of the university) and they used to greet
each other by doffing their caps, not just by raising them an inch or two,
but by lifting them and sweeping them gracefully forward in a broad
semicircle. I have no doubt they still do this if they are wearing their
caps. As undergraduates we wore short gowns for lectures, dinner in Hall,
visiting dons, in chapel and on all formal occasions. But caps had almost
completely gone out for junior members, even at graduation. An undergraduate
wearing a gown, riding a bicycle and carrying a raised umbrella was a
fearsome sight!

The square cap developed in different ways in other parts of Europe. In
Italy, it became the biretta, which is still worn at times in the Roman
Catholic Church, though less often today. It tended to become a ceremonial
headdress worn in the Mass and was also worn by some clergy of the Church of
England of the "High Church" wing, who were unaware that their own version
was the Canterbury Cap.

Perhaps this overlong digression can be justified if it will persuade someone
to work out how to fold a Square Cap, a Canterbury Cap and a Biretta and all
the other forms of ecclesiastical headdress in paper. There's enough scope
for a book about it. But we already have enough mitres in napkin folding.

David Lister.

Grimsby, England.





From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juan_Carlo_Rodr=EDguez?= <tciprograming@TELCEL.NET.VE>
Date: 12 May 2000 10:19
Subject: Origamists as artists

Hi, people, saludos from Venezuela.

I'd have this nagging thought in my head. I'd like to hear opinions.

1.- Why hasn't museums like, say, the Guggenheim or the Metro ever made
     exhibits on origami, as it has on sculptors or painters?

2.- Do you think people outside the origami world could someday, after they've
     passed away, remember John Montroll or Robert Lang or Akira Yoshizawa as
     we now remember Pablo Picasso or Vincent Van Gogh (minus the insanity, of
     course)?

3.- And what makes said folders, along with all the masters we've come to know
     and love, so appealing to us?

4.- Who do you think can be "the next big thing" in origami?

5.- Finally, on a lighter note, what has been the longest you have taken to
     fold (not create) a model? I bought Peter Engel's "Origami: From Angelfish
     to Zen" nearly five years ago and I still can't fold more than half of
     those models to my satisfaction.





From: V'Ann Cornelius <vann@LHT.COM>
Date: 12 May 2000 13:50
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

Juan,
About recognition of 'origami artists' in our future art history...

A great step in creating a presence in the visual art arena involves
preparing public environments where the art can stand on its own merit.

Some extended exhibits for public viewing are:
 Mr. Yoshizawa's exhibit at the World Fair, Seville, Spain, 1992;
 Carrousel de Louvre, Paris, 1998
 Michael La Fosse, Arizona Exhibit of Desert Animals, 1998?
 Xerox Park, California, 1999;
 Brazil, 1996?? [I saw slides but cannot find my notes.
                This show included a dance performance
                with six foot fortune tellers connected...]
 Mr. Yoshizawa's 88th birthday exhibit, Japan, 2000;
 Germany 2001, ???  In process
 others???

The Mingei Museum of San Diego in collaboration with OrigamiUSA is
hosting an origami masterworks exhibit in winter of 2003. Promotional
information is being prepared and exhibit selection is being defined.

The Mingei Museum of Folk Art is an internationally recognized museum
with seven galleries.

http://www.mingei.org

The Mingei Museum is in the Prado of Balboa Park, San Diego, California.

http://www.balboapark.org

This is going to be a lot of fun.

V'Ann
[Have you noticed how I like lists?]
vann@lht.com
-=-=-

Juan Carlo Rodrguez wrote:

Hi, people, saludos from Venezuela.

I'd have this nagging thought in my head. I'd like to hear opinions.

1.- Why hasn't museums like, say, the Guggenheim or the Metro ever made
exhibits on origami, as it has on sculptors or painters?

2.- Do you think people outside the origami world could someday, after
they've passed away, remember John Montroll or Robert Lang or Akira
Yoshizawa as we now remember Pablo Picasso or Vincent Van Gogh (minus
the insanity, of course)?

3.- And what makes said folders, along with all the masters we've come
to know and love, so appealing to us?





From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juan_Carlo_Rodr=EDguez?= <tciprograming@TELCEL.NET.VE>
Date: 12 May 2000 14:18
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

Lots of fun, indeed!

We also try to pop in any important events down here any time we can.
Recently, we had an exhibition at the Ministry of Defense (sorry if I'm
mistranslating), and that put us very much in the public view, as I think
that even the President went to that exhibit. (That's not as much as a good
thing as you think, though...) Also, every February, there's the Japanese
Cultural Week, which is hosted by one of our local banks. Besides origami,
there are also exhibits of bonsai and kimonos, and in past years there has
been watercolors, kites, and traditional Japanese toys. We have been having
an origami exhibit and class there for the past six years, and, I'm proud to
say, ours has always been the most visited class and the best-attended class
for the week. So we hold up our own.

Let's see if these exhibits continue to show up, the bigger, the better.

Thanks for writing!

JC

-----Original Message-----
From: V'Ann Cornelius <vann@LHT.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:18:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

Juan,
About recognition of 'origami artists' in our future art history...

A great step in creating a presence in the visual art arena involves
preparing public environments where the art can stand on its own merit.

Some extended exhibits for public viewing are:
Mr. Yoshizawa's exhibit at the World Fair, Seville, Spain, 1992;
Carrousel de Louvre, Paris, 1998
Michael La Fosse, Arizona Exhibit of Desert Animals, 1998?
Xerox Park, California, 1999;
Brazil, 1996?? [I saw slides but cannot find my notes.
                This show included a dance performance
                with six foot fortune tellers connected...]
Mr. Yoshizawa's 88th birthday exhibit, Japan, 2000;
Germany 2001, ???  In process
others???

The Mingei Museum of San Diego in collaboration with OrigamiUSA is
hosting an origami masterworks exhibit in winter of 2003. Promotional
information is being prepared and exhibit selection is being defined.

The Mingei Museum of Folk Art is an internationally recognized museum
with seven galleries.

http://www.mingei.org

The Mingei Museum is in the Prado of Balboa Park, San Diego, California.

http://www.balboapark.org

This is going to be a lot of fun.

V'Ann
[Have you noticed how I like lists?]
vann@lht.com
-=-=-

Juan Carlo Rodrmguez wrote:

Hi, people, saludos from Venezuela.

I'd have this nagging thought in my head. I'd like to hear opinions.

1.- Why hasn't museums like, say, the Guggenheim or the Metro ever made
exhibits on origami, as it has on sculptors or painters?

2.- Do you think people outside the origami world could someday, after
they've passed away, remember John Montroll or Robert Lang or Akira
Yoshizawa as we now remember Pablo Picasso or Vincent Van Gogh (minus
the insanity, of course)?

3.- And what makes said folders, along with all the masters we've come
to know and love, so appealing to us?





From: Papa Joe <papajoe@CHORUS.NET>
Date: 12 May 2000 15:23
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's 5 Intersecting Tetrahedra

Subject: Tom Hull's 5 Intersecting Tetrahedra

> Dear Friends,
>
> I am currently working on a book in London, which will feature Tom Hull's
> amazing 5 Intersecting Tetrahedra model. Thing is, the publishers are working
> me to really tight deadlines, and need finished samples of all the designs in
> the book. One thing I would like to have is a finished model of this design
> in dollar bills, a couple of which I noticed on the display table at the OUSA
> convention.
>
> To save me time, if anyone out there has made this model, and would happily
> loan it to me (it will be returned I assure you), I would be grateful to
> receive same in the post: 33 Ormskirk Rise, Spondon, Derby, DE21 7NU, England.
>
> Many Thanks,
>
> Rick.
>

Hello Rick,

I have two of the FIT made of dollars but live in the USA.
Would it work to just send some photos? (I have a digital camera)
Also I have made a mini FIT from a single Dollar cut into 30 sections
if you would be interested in photos of that.

Joe





From: Papa Joe <papajoe@CHORUS.NET>
Date: 12 May 2000 15:37
Subject: No   Re: Last post

Sorry that one was ment for Rick.

Gota rember to look at that "To box" after hiting "Reply to sender"

Joe





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 12 May 2000 15:49
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

>2.- Do you think people outside the origami world could someday, after
>they've passed away, remember John Montroll or Robert Lang or Akira
>Yoshizawa as we now remember Pablo Picasso or Vincent Van Gogh (minus the
>insanity, of course)?
>

Given that there are many great artists, thinkers, engineers and scientists
who have contributed so much and are not known to the public, I'll be
pessimistic and say no.  Not that I don't think that these origami masters
are great, but consider how many people have heard of Lorentz, Hamilton,
Lagrange, Minkowski, Riemann, and so on.  (of course I name physicists and
mathematicians because I'm a physics major.)

>3.- And what makes said folders, along with all the masters we've come to
>know and love, so appealing to us?
>

I really like how Lang and Kawahata have these really elegant folding
patterns to produce an animal with just the right proportions and shape.  I
really like how Yoshizawa and Montroll bring the spirit of the animal into
the model.

>4.- Who do you think can be "the next big thing" in origami?
>

Surrealism and abstract pieces.  We've done realism for along time now and
I think that we will soon be ready to expand our horizons.

>5.- Finally, on a lighter note, what has been the longest you have taken
>to fold (not create) a model? I bought Peter Engel's "Origami: From
>Angelfish to Zen" nearly five years ago and I still can't fold more than
>half of those models to my satisfaction. Hell, I haven't even been able to
>fold the Scorpion, Octopus or Butterfly past the first 15 steps!

Just that octopus I folded many, many times before I got it to work.  I
must have spent 20 hours on the total number of times I've folded it.  I
know I've spent that much on Kawahata's pegasus.  I learned that sometimes
the paper you use can make a difference.  Improving the fold that I
butchered and not giving up on a fold that I just don't get always has
turned to my advantage.  I end up improving my origami skills.  If I didn't
tackle new challenges in origami I wouldn't have completed a simple
traditional box.  I know what you mean about those models: there are many
models that either I don't have the patience to do or requires a level of
folding beyond me.  I mean to tackle those folds to leap over the next
obstacle.  I think it's well worth it in reward.  Happy folding!

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 12 May 2000 15:51
Subject: Montroll's horse

Well I've folded Montroll's horse from Origami Sculptures and have a
question: what is the best way to fold the mane?  I folded with crimp
folds, but I don't quite like it.  I've been contemplating using crimp
sinks, or of simply carefully doing valley and mountain folds that don't
actually form crimps, but do alternate.  My problem is that I don't want to
trap the upper layer (the neck) in the folds that I do, or remove the layer
after the fold with it wrinkled.  Any suggestions?

David





From: Tim Rueger <trueger@CRYSTAL.CIRRUS.COM>
Date: 12 May 2000 16:06
Subject: flower & stem from a cocktail napkin?

Hi,

I got this message from someone browsing my origami site:

>Recently, I saw someone make a flower, including stem, from a single
>cocktail napkin without any tears or glue.  I've looked in several
>libraries and bookstores but I can't find anything even close.  Can you
>help me?

The ironic thing is, I've actually seen someone do this, but I don't
recall how he did it.  Any clues?

On a more general note - are there any known sources for napkin folds?

Thanks for any help,
-Tim





From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Friederike=20Noether?= <f_noether@YAHOO.DE>
Date: 12 May 2000 16:21
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

> >4.- Who do you think can be "the next big thing" in origami?
>
> Surrealism and abstract pieces.  We've done realism for along time now and
> I think that we will soon be ready to expand our horizons.

Interesting Idea. I like it. But isnt there a danger in such a developement?
     The more abstract any
form of art becomes the more people turn away from it and say "i dont
     understand it. What is it
what the artist wants to tell us? I dont see anything familiar in it, anything
     I can recognize"
Nothing against abstract art, I love it, but still I dont understand it. But I
     think that is not
always necessary.
What do you think about abstract Origami?

> >5.- Finally, on a lighter note, what has been the longest you have taken
> >to fold (not create) a model? I bought Peter Engel's "Origami: From
> >Angelfish to Zen" nearly five years ago and I still can't fold more than
> >half of those models to my satisfaction. Hell, I haven't even been able to
> >fold the Scorpion, Octopus or Butterfly past the first 15 steps!

Me too, welcome to the club. But keep on working that is what I do. Every try
     gets me a step
further to the end.

Friederike

=====
==============================
f_noether@yahoo.de
==============================

__________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Yahoo! Mail auf Ihrem Handy? - http://mobil.yahoo.de





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: 12 May 2000 16:27
Subject: Origamists as Artists?

Juan Carlo Rodriquez ask why haven't musums like the Guggenheim of the metro
ever   displayed exhiitions by paperfoders has they have sculptors or
painters.

In fact one did. In 1959. the Cooper Union Museum (now the Cooper hewitt
Museum) of new york put on a highly successful dispalay of origami with the
title of "Plane Geometry and Fancy Figures". the museum had the best ever
ttendances for a summer exhibition. And it must be remembered that  Origami,
at that time ws still at a compartively elementary stage of development.
(Some photographs from the ehibition are included in Samuel Randlet's book,
"The Art of origami".

Why has this successful experiment never been repeated.?

This question has been very much in my mid during my visit to the Yoshizawa
exhibition in Kyoto. Although I was previously famiiar with the work of
Yoshizaw, itws still for me a stunning experience and s I wandered round the
exhibits I continuously found myself asking the question: "Why cannot this
exhibition be brought to Europe or North America?". I felt sure that if this
could happen, with ethe exhiition taking place in an established rts museum
in the centre of one of the big cities, it would be an instant success.I am
sure that the eyes of many people,hitherto wholly ignorant of the
pssiblitities of folded paper would be sstonished.

But how could it be arranged? Galleries are expensive to run and curators
prefer to follow in well-trodden and safe ways. And origami is simply not an
acknolewdged art form. It carries no credence.

Japan is possibly different from the West in that there is a tradition for
department stores to display exhibitions of fine art. Would tyhat harods or
Maceys could be so altruistic.





From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juan_Carlo_Rodr=EDguez?= <tciprograming@TELCEL.NET.VE>
Date: 12 May 2000 16:32
Subject: Re: Montroll's horse

Try sort of squeezing alternate mountain folds without actually pinching
them. It creates sort of a "wavy" look to the mane, and doesn't trap the
neck layer beneath. By the way, thanks for your former reply, I really
appreciate it.

-----Original Message-----
From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:32:16 -0400
Subject: Montroll's horse

>Well I've folded Montroll's horse from Origami Sculptures and have a
>question: what is the best way to fold the mane?  I folded with crimp
>folds, but I don't quite like it.  I've been contemplating using crimp
>sinks, or of simply carefully doing valley and mountain folds that don't
>actually form crimps, but do alternate.  My problem is that I don't want to
>trap the upper layer (the neck) in the folds that I do, or remove the layer
>after the fold with it wrinkled.  Any suggestions?
>
>David





From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juan_Carlo_Rodr=EDguez?= <tciprograming@TELCEL.NET.VE>
Date: 12 May 2000 16:39
Subject: Re: flower & stem from a cocktail napkin?

This is a traditional fold, and I've seen even guys who will do this fold
for a tip in a restaurant. There's a guy in my group who can do this almost
blindfolded. But there are no diagrams anywhere, as far as I can tell! There
is a similiar one made out of five napkins in the page for the Grupo
Zaragozano de Papiroflexia. I don't have the URL for the page directly, but
you can find links to them in Eric Andersen's page, in the diagrams link:

http://www.paperfolding.com

Or at the Asociacisn Espaqola de Papiroflexia site (like the one from Grupo
Zaragozano, it's all in Spanish, so go to the part that says "ENLACES" and
seek "Grupo Zaragozano"; there's a map, I believe, so you have to select
Europe and find the link there). If any one needs translations, hey, I'm
more than happy too!

http://www.pajarita.org

Enjoy!

JC

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Rueger <trueger@CRYSTAL.CIRRUS.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:39:22 -0400
Subject: flower & stem from a cocktail napkin?

>Hi,
>
>I got this message from someone browsing my origami site:
>
>>Recently, I saw someone make a flower, including stem, from a single
>>cocktail napkin without any tears or glue.  I've looked in several
>>libraries and bookstores but I can't find anything even close.  Can you
>>help me?
>
>The ironic thing is, I've actually seen someone do this, but I don't
>recall how he did it.  Any clues?
>
>On a more general note - are there any known sources for napkin folds?
>
>Thanks for any help,
>-Tim





From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juan_Carlo_Rodr=EDguez?= <tciprograming@TELCEL.NET.VE>
Date: 12 May 2000 16:41
Subject: Re: Origamists as Artists?

David, first off, thanks for the reply. And secondly, the origami world
awaits: how was the Yoshizawa exhibit?

-----Original Message-----
From: DLister891@AOL.COM <DLister891@AOL.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:41:27 -0400
Subject: Origamists as Artists?

>Juan Carlo Rodriquez ask why haven't musums like the Guggenheim of the
metro
>ever   displayed exhiitions by paperfoders has they have sculptors or
>painters.
>
>In fact one did. In 1959. the Cooper Union Museum (now the Cooper hewitt
>Museum) of new york put on a highly successful dispalay of origami with the
>title of "Plane Geometry and Fancy Figures". the museum had the best ever
>ttendances for a summer exhibition. And it must be remembered that
Origami,
>at that time ws still at a compartively elementary stage of development.
>(Some photographs from the ehibition are included in Samuel Randlet's book,
>"The Art of origami".
>
>Why has this successful experiment never been repeated.?
>
>This question has been very much in my mid during my visit to the Yoshizawa
>exhibition in Kyoto. Although I was previously famiiar with the work of
>Yoshizaw, itws still for me a stunning experience and s I wandered round
the
>exhibits I continuously found myself asking the question: "Why cannot this
>exhibition be brought to Europe or North America?". I felt sure that if
this
>could happen, with ethe exhiition taking place in an established rts museum
>in the centre of one of the big cities, it would be an instant success.I am
>sure that the eyes of many people,hitherto wholly ignorant of the
>pssiblitities of folded paper would be sstonished.
>
>But how could it be arranged? Galleries are expensive to run and curators
>prefer to follow in well-trodden and safe ways. And origami is simply not
an
>acknolewdged art form. It carries no credence.
>
>Japan is possibly different from the West in that there is a tradition for
>department stores to display exhibitions of fine art. Would tyhat harods or
>Maceys could be so altruistic.





From: Doug Philips <dgou@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 12 May 2000 16:41
Subject: Re: Montroll's horse

david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU> unfolded his laundry list to reveal
a crease pattern which read:

>Well I've folded Montroll's horse from Origami Sculptures and have a
>question: what is the best way to fold the mane?  I folded with crimp
...

I know that at last year's OUSA convention (or was it the previous year?)
that Terry Hall was teaching some of his own variations to Montroll's Horse.
I regret that I didn't learn them, so I don't know if they included any
changes to the mane. Perhaps Terry, if on the list, or someone who has
learned his variations, could explain?

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





From: Jose Tomas Buitrago Molina <buitrago@EIEE.UNIVALLE.EDU.CO>
Date: 12 May 2000 17:39
Subject: Re: flower & stem from a cocktail napkin?

Hello.
There is a Mexican site, a napking factory, where they teach how to fold
five napking models.

http://manteles.com/doblar_servilletas.htm

Enjoy it!

Good luck,
Jose Tomas Buitrago

     Jos Tomas Buitrago Molina M.Sc.
     buitrago@eiee.univalle.edu.co
     http://eiee.univalle.edu.co/~buitrago

     "Origami y Robtica"





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 12 May 2000 21:02
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

The more abstract any
>form of art becomes the more people turn away from it and say "i dont
>understand it. What is it
>what the artist wants to tell us? I dont see anything familiar in it,
>anything I can recognize"
>Nothing against abstract art, I love it, but still I dont understand it.
>But I think that is not
>always necessary.
>What do you think about abstract Origami?

You have a good point, but the great thing is that it gets the mind going
trying to understand it.

David





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: 12 May 2000 23:51
Subject: Re: origamists as artists

What made painting art, or sculpture, etc...?. It has to become an =
ubiquitous form of communication, it seems, before it can be raised to =
an art form. Cave paintings and cairns were the predecessors to painting =
and sculpture. Origami, until the last few decades, was used primarily =
as funerary or decorative art. It's sort of like asking when does a =
token become more than one. I suppose it depends on how long, and how =
insistantly the token reappears, along with how deeply the drives that =
impel one to make the token go. Go to any hotel room and look above the =
bed. There is almost always a painting or decorative print there. The =
token for a good hunt, harvest, or bed yield (insert sex pun here), =
becomes metaphorical for just plain good in general, and the idea of a =
'lucky charm' becomes more a painting that one must view, and less a =
real supersitious depiction. Van Gogh created things that one must see, =
because they evoke images on many sensory levels. There is the =
perceptual (like-not like) level, but even before that, visually he ties =
the light of an unique moment through the brush-strokes of an =
individual. Rodin (and Camille Claudel) did much the same, breaking away =
from even the convention of impressionism, and making tactile the =
visual. Origami is an art for us. Each folder has an approach that is =
unique. But I understand that ship-to-ship morse and semaphores =
signalers can tell each other apart by individual technique. For us =
there is a deeper level of the craft that elevates it to art. Origami =
already is art for our peculiar enclave, but making it accepted as art =
throughout the greater community in general requires a breakthrough, not =
P.R. work. The onus is upon the origami community to redefine the uses =
of the craft to be more congruent to the communicatory needs of society. =
At least in the U.S., we seem to be headed toward an illiterate (or; to =
give it a positive spin--image-oriented) society; origami has a leg =
up--as the words, at least in a well diagrammed book, are purely =
ancillary to the images. Blah, blah, blah... In short (thank god, =
finally), you gotta go out and make it an art. If that means initiating =
people through scultpure--it's closest relative in the art world, or =
anything else, so be it. It has to be spread massively at the simple =
level to ever climb up to art status among the uninitiated. Sure, there =
should be an origami museum, but we're the only people who think so now. =
When everyone is familiar enough with it to appreciate the niceties of =
Montroll vs. Lang vs. Yoshizawa, then it may take off. My theory; teach =
kids early and often. Just do that, and you're helping the big game out. =
Again, Blah, blah, blah... Sorry for the length, here's the soap-box =
back. All the best - c!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With clear melting dew,
I'd try to wash away the dust
of this floating world
                      -Basho
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

email: ella-mae@msn.com





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: 12 May 2000 23:51
Subject: Re: origamists as artists

Now that I've vented some spleen, with apologies all around for the length, a
     quick question: 'Origamists', or 'Origamians'? I like 'papersmith', and
     have had 'paperwright' suggested. It's been asked before, and I just call
     myself a folder. Any sugs? And,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With clear melting dew,
I'd try to wash away the dust
of this floating world
                      -Basho
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

email: ella-mae@msn.com





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@MOEBIUS.INKA.DE>
Date: 13 May 2000 04:15
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 12:48:12PM -0700, david whitbeck wrote:
> I really like how Yoshizawa and Montroll bring the spirit of the
> animal into the model.

Mentioning Yoshizawa and Montroll in the same sentence seems a wee bit
peculiar to me. As for Yoshizawa's models, the art doesn't lie in the
desing so much as in the execution; Yoshizawa is a brilliant paper
*folder* who can breathe life into a piece of paper. Montroll, on the
other hand, is a brilliant designer, but his execution of his own models
is, in my very, very humble opinion, not as good as that of other paper
folders.

> Surrealism and abstract pieces.  We've done realism for along time now
> and I think that we will soon be ready to expand our horizons.

There's already plenty of abstract origami out there -- just think of
the works of Chris Palmer, or Paulo Taborda, or Jean-Claude
Correia. Surrealism seems to be less popular; the only "surreal" model I
can think of is Jeremy Shafer's "Walking Boat".

--
Yours, Sebastian <skirsch@moebius.inka.de>





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 13 May 2000 06:07
Subject: Origamido

Hi everyone!

This morning I went to pick up the copy of Michael LaFosse's "Origamido" I'd
ordered.

I want to thank Michael for making this book, because it's just splendid!

Leafing through it, I realised it achieved what an art book should do: it
opened my eyes and made me see things differently. Although what usually
attracts me to try and fold a new model is its beauty, I realised that I
often slip into seeing the model as a problem to be solved or a challenge to
meet. The photographs of "Origamido" made me see the models again as things
of beauty.

... which means I'll probably be ordering more origami books before too long
or hunting up diagrams for the models I haven't tried yet...

I have an idea I could apply this change in seeing to other things as
well... ;-)

One aspect of origami I love is that it's not an exclusive art, producing
only "one-of-a-kinds" for only those who can afford them. There is far more
potential for pleasure in an origami model than in a painting by Picasso.
The creator of an origami model can show others how to reproduce his model
and pass it on so more people can enjoy it, while the owner of a Picasso
painting probably has to worry about the chances of its getting stolen...

So thank you to Michael and everyone for the pleasure!

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 13 May 2000 13:00
Subject: Re: Origamists as Artists

The subject of when origami 'model making' becomes 'artistic model
making' becomes 'origami art', interests me greatly. I think every
that creator whoever was, can be fitted into one of these categories.

Most creators and enthusiasts who fold from books are 'model making'.
That is: they want to make a representation of a chosen subject, in a
way that can be repeated by others.  Choosing a decent paper to fold a
finished version from doesn't make a model 'origami art', it just
makes it more presentable.  Model making creators tend to create one
of everything, rather than many versions of the same subject.  This
category represents the bulk of origami activity -- that is; most
technical models, geometric models, simple and traditional models,
models that are presented in 'how to' books, models that are taught in
classes, and origami used as a therapy or as an educational tool.

A fewer number are 'artistic model makers'.  That is: they create
models with an exquisite sense of touch that is difficult for others
to mimic, often using unusual papers and idiosyncratic techniques.
Each piece is a 'one off', not an exact copy of a template. What is
created often has an expressive, dynamic quality, but the activity is
still essentially 'model making'.  Artistic model makers can switch
between making many versions of the same subject, and making one
version of everything.  This category occupies a sometimes grey middle
area between the first and third, and is the most difficult to define.

Then, a very few are 'origami artists'.  That is: what they make
relates to, or is a metaphor for, something beyond the activity of
making a representation of a (recognisable) form in folded paper.
Origami artists tend to explore the same metaphorical themes in great
depth, for years at a time. No matter how pleasing it is to make or to
view an example of origami 'model making', the ambition of the creator
(and of the person folding a copy) is usually limited to making a
satisfying representation of a subject.  I describe this as
'self-referential'.  By this, I mean that the process of origami model
making refers only to itself, similar to the process of designing a
chess problem or a crossword puzzle. It doesn't refer to, or make us
aware of, or challenge, or increase our appreciation of a sometimes
complex interaction of ideas (be they philosophical, political, social
or whatever) beyond the model itself, in the way that a good work of
art aspires to do.

In saying this, I'm making NO hierarchical judgement about which
approach to origami is best!  Put simply, all approaches are valuable,
but they are valuable in different ways, and I love them all in
different ways.

But I do think we need to be very careful about what we describe as
'origami art'.  I have a gut feeling that if origami is to continue to
grow and develop at the rapid rate it did in the second half of the
20th century, it will do so in the realms of ideas and expression, not
in the realms of self-referential, repeatable folding techniques.  The
techniques will facilitate the ideas to be expressed, but will not be
an end in themselves.  For me, that is art.  Everything else is model
making.

This -- I think -- is one of the primary reasons why the art world has
had little interest in origami.  Put simply, the overwhelming majority
of origami practice is as a self-referential, model making game,
which -- though superfically similar -- has little in common with the
intuitive/intellectual aspirations of good art practice.

Regards,

Paul (ex Fine Art student) Jackson
mpjackson@btinternet.com
www.origami-artist.com





From: Torsten Drees <torsten.drees@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: 13 May 2000 15:12
Subject: Re: Origamists as Artists

Hi people,

i already wrote na aswer to Juan Carlo,
but i didn't see that my new mailprogram sent this mail only privatly.
now i send it for all again. i think it's a good suplement to pauls.

8<  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to question 1-3

Hi,

i tryed to get an answer for the question:
"WHAT IS ART"

i've spoken with many people until i noticed that it is not easy to
answer.
i think it is not possible.

if you call anybody an artist or anythink as art, you need some
definitions.
these definitions you got in education, company, social enviroment,
other expieriences and expressions.
this is a part of you and your kind of watching.
some people in germany think that the expression "art" is only used to
get commercial success. other people uses this word to get pretige.

I think you call anybody an artist because you think that his skills
make him to an artist.

but thats not all.

you can divide art in two differt parts:

1. skills
the skill is needed to perform a origami model in your kind of folding
or to dance that it looks wounderful. etc...

2. creativity
e.g. you create new models or write a new science fiction story.

The problem with the freedom of definition is, that many people have to
define somthing as art bevore it is art.

so be free. do not wait for prestige. you may define art by yourself.
the area where it is art or you are an artist may be small. but doesn't
matter.

it is also in origami. only few people define it as art. note, origami
is a non comercial art.

Torsten

p.s.
look at my comic on my page:
http://home.t-online.de/home/torsten.drees
8<  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paul Jackson schrieb:
>
> The subject of when origami 'model making' becomes 'artistic model
> making' becomes 'origami art', interests me greatly. I think every
> that creator whoever was, can be fitted into one of these categories.
>
> Most creators and enthusiasts who fold from books are 'model making'.
> That is: they want to make a representation of a chosen subject, in a
> way that can be repeated by others.  Choosing a decent paper to fold a
> finished version from doesn't make a model 'origami art', it just
> makes it more presentable.  Model making creators tend to create one
> of everything, rather than many versions of the same subject.  This
> category represents the bulk of origami activity -- that is; most
> technical models, geometric models, simple and traditional models,
> models that are presented in 'how to' books, models that are taught in
> classes, and origami used as a therapy or as an educational tool.
>
> A fewer number are 'artistic model makers'.  That is: they create
> models with an exquisite sense of touch that is difficult for others
> to mimic, often using unusual papers and idiosyncratic techniques.
> Each piece is a 'one off', not an exact copy of a template. What is
> created often has an expressive, dynamic quality, but the activity is
> still essentially 'model making'.  Artistic model makers can switch
> between making many versions of the same subject, and making one
> version of everything.  This category occupies a sometimes grey middle
> area between the first and third, and is the most difficult to define.
>
> Then, a very few are 'origami artists'.  That is: what they make
> relates to, or is a metaphor for, something beyond the activity of
> making a representation of a (recognisable) form in folded paper.
> Origami artists tend to explore the same metaphorical themes in great
> depth, for years at a time. No matter how pleasing it is to make or to
> view an example of origami 'model making', the ambition of the creator
> (and of the person folding a copy) is usually limited to making a
> satisfying representation of a subject.  I describe this as
> 'self-referential'.  By this, I mean that the process of origami model
> making refers only to itself, similar to the process of designing a
> chess problem or a crossword puzzle. It doesn't refer to, or make us
> aware of, or challenge, or increase our appreciation of a sometimes
> complex interaction of ideas (be they philosophical, political, social
> or whatever) beyond the model itself, in the way that a good work of
> art aspires to do.
>
> In saying this, I'm making NO hierarchical judgement about which
> approach to origami is best!  Put simply, all approaches are valuable,
> but they are valuable in different ways, and I love them all in
> different ways.
>
> But I do think we need to be very careful about what we describe as
> 'origami art'.  I have a gut feeling that if origami is to continue to
> grow and develop at the rapid rate it did in the second half of the
> 20th century, it will do so in the realms of ideas and expression, not
> in the realms of self-referential, repeatable folding techniques.  The
> techniques will facilitate the ideas to be expressed, but will not be
> an end in themselves.  For me, that is art.  Everything else is model
> making.
>
> This -- I think -- is one of the primary reasons why the art world has
> had little interest in origami.  Put simply, the overwhelming majority
> of origami practice is as a self-referential, model making game,
> which -- though superfically similar -- has little in common with the
> intuitive/intellectual aspirations of good art practice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul (ex Fine Art student) Jackson
> mpjackson@btinternet.com
> www.origami-artist.com

--
                             (oo)
Torsten                       ||
                             <-->
==========================-oOO--OOo-========+
Fax   : 02241 330395                        |
email : torsten.drees@t-online.de           |
Origami Models:                             |
http://home.t-online.de/home/torsten.drees  |





From: Mark and Theresa <mark@HOBBITON.FORCE9.NET>
Date: 13 May 2000 16:38
Subject: Exploding Rose

Having perservered and got the latest set of photos from the Web I've
got close to the end of the Kawasaki Rose. Step 15 (OftC) "bend the
points over without folding (or something)" to close the base. I do
that, carefully interleaving the flaps to lock them in place
(remembering to remove the paperclips first ;> ) then ....... PING! The
points pop out again! And again, and again. OK, other than sticky tape
how do I get them to stay in place?

--
Mark





From: Andrew Buechele <andrewb@VSL.CUA.EDU>
Date: 13 May 2000 18:24
Subject: Re: Montroll's horse

Juan wrote:

"Try sort of squeezing alternate mountain folds without actually
pinching
them. It creates sort of a "wavy" look to the mane, and doesn't trap
the
neck layer beneath. "

        Actually, that sounds pretty much like the approach I used. I
have the hourse here in my office and the book at home, so I can't
say what my logic was in interpreting Montroll's diagrams at this
point, but usually I find them very clear. I have kind of a triangular
sunken region running from the base of the ears to just below the
vertex of the angle in the mane, and essentially pleat folds beyond
that point. The folds just go down to the neck line and the paper
underneath  is just kind of "wavy." The outer neck stays pretty
smooth. I'm not sure this is clear, but I hope it helps.

                    All the best,
                       Andy Buechele
                               Washington, D.C. - U.S.A.





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 13 May 2000 19:40
Subject: Re: Montroll's horse

Thank you Juan and thank you Andrew.  I took your advice Juan and the mane
looks better.  The next model I fold (in about an hour) I'll try your
suggestion Andrew.  I find that the picture (which is not a photo) doesn't
do the model justice, it's purely amazing!

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 13 May 2000 19:42
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

>Mentioning Yoshizawa and Montroll in the same sentence seems a wee bit
>peculiar to me. As for Yoshizawa's models, the art doesn't lie in the
>desing so much as in the execution; Yoshizawa is a brilliant paper
>*folder* who can breathe life into a piece of paper. Montroll, on the
>other hand, is a brilliant designer, but his execution of his own models
>is, in my very, very humble opinion, not as good as that of other paper
>folders.

I've never seen actual models folded by Montroll (well I might accidently
have in Origami Sea Life.) or by Yoshizawa.  I am most interested in seeing
models folded by the Grandmaster.

David





From: Kelly Dunn <Kellydunn@AOL.COM>
Date: 13 May 2000 21:55
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

<< Interesting Idea. I like it. But isnt there a danger in such a
developement? The more abstract any
form of art becomes the more people turn away from it and say "i dont
understand it. What is it
what the artist wants to tell us? I dont see anything familiar in it,
anything I can recognize"
Nothing against abstract art, I love it, but still I dont understand it. But
I think that is not
always necessary.
What do you think about abstract Origami? >>

I think more people like abstract art because they can add their own
interruption
into the image. It can be soothing because it is not about a figure, thing or
event,
only an abstract design that can be intriguing like an unfinished problem or
an exploration of the possibilities of line, color and space. Abstract art can
push the medium as in paint, paper, sand to it's physical limit..a big
challenge
for an artist. It has more than one interruption and so the viewer has to use
more
imagination to look at it, but also has more freedom to look at it and not
think of a
set scene but to react to it instead. It's not simple and clear.
One thing that I like about abstract art is that sometimes,
it is not about the finished
art as you would think...it is about the creation of the art and process.
For example,
Jackson Pollock's paintings are about action..including movement and
physical expression and mood in how the paint, so, paintings of concepts
we cannot see. And, as an artist, why not create what isn't recognizable.
There is a boldness in risking new ideas. Also, it's difficult to create an
abstract work of art. The best way to gain an understanding is to try.
Then, go back to the museum and you'll think "that is some good work!
It must have taken that artist years to come to that conclusion."
Leaping into a world without limitations is difficult, even if it is only
for a work of art.
It seems like origami innately is not an abstract art.

best wishes!
Kelly





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: 13 May 2000 22:06
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

And let's not forget Jean-Jerome C-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-L-O-O-O-N-N-N-G-G-A!
(Or does he more properly fit the "dada" definition?)

-----Original Message-----
From:   Sebastian Marius Kirsch [SMTP:skirsch@MOEBIUS.INKA.DE]
Sent:   Saturday, May 13, 2000 3:51 AM
To:     ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject:        Re: Origamists as artists
  . . .  .

There's already plenty of abstract origami out there -- just think of
the works of Chris Palmer, or Paulo Taborda, or Jean-Claude
Correia. Surrealism seems to be less popular; the only "surreal" model I
can think of is Jeremy Shafer's "Walking Boat".

--
Yours, Sebastian <skirsch@moebius.inka.de>





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 13 May 2000 22:58
Subject: Re: Origamists as artists

>Jackson Pollock's paintings are about action..including movement and
>physical expression and mood in how the paint, so, paintings of concepts
>we cannot see. And, as an artist, why not create what isn't recognizable.
>There is a boldness in risking new ideas. Also, it's difficult to create an
>abstract work of art. The best way to gain an understanding is to try.
>Then, go back to the museum and you'll think "that is some good work!
>It must have taken that artist years to come to that conclusion."
>Leaping into a world without limitations is difficult, even if it is only
>for a work of art.
>It seems like origami innately is not an abstract art.
>
>best wishes!
>Kelly

But someday soon origami will be complex enough to have models of people
who are angry, who are sad, etc.  I think that in the future origami will
evolve to the point where an origami master might with a few folds convey
expressions just as easily as a painter does with the stroke of a brush.
Imagination helps fill in detail that we keep thinking about.  For instance
I folded a tiger for a friend who was amazed at the detail.  She remarked
how amazing it was that she could see the bulges of the muscles.  I never
folded that in there.  It was a simple Montroll model, I just made a few
curves in the animal to make the beast 3d, and she filled in the rest.
That is why I think origami started as a minimalistic art.  People filled
in the details in their head and the model became alive to them.  That is
one of the joys of origami: life was breathed in the paper and the people
you show it to don't see it as paper.  I think someday origami may inspire
the same thoughts and feelings that great art can.  Just a few decades ago
look where we were.  Now look where we are now.  The future has endless
hope.

David
