Most beautiful origami for you?

[ahudson]

It depends on what sort of beauty you mean. Different contexts of beauty aren't always compatible, in many situations. In terms of traditional aesthetic values, I'd agree that Micheal Lafosse's and Giang Dinh's work will rank highly for me; but in terms of a more instinct-based, anthropocentric context, Joel Cooper's art beats out everyone else.

If on the other hand, we were talking about beauty in the pure, mathematical sense, then I'd have to choose between Hideo Komatsu, Daniel Kwan, and Yuko Nishimura.

[WhisperPuffin]

Mine have to be stuff by Eric Joisel, Joel Cooper, Satoshi Kamiya, Sipho Mabona, and (my fave) Quentin Trollip. I can't really rank any specific models, as everything is beautiful in it's own way. For example, Ryu Zin 3.5 by Satoshi Kamiya, or my favourite supercomplex model, Tran Trung Hieu's St Michael- The Archangel, are beautiful in their detail and sheer mindblowing complexity. Whereas, on the flipside, something by Michael LaFosse or Giang Dinh especially is all about the shaping. Similarly, Eric Joisel and Nicolas Terry have a more cartoonish style, and Joel Cooper's work is fascinating in the way he has incorporates a perfectly formed face into the square with tesselation techniques. As for Quentin Trollip, well..... He is in a class of his own .

[origami_8]

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder but here are some things that I think are most aesthetically pleasing. There is for example Sunbursts work that is so clean and soft like his Naga or Jeune dragon. I also really like some tessellations like the one by Christiane Bettens here as well as modular things like this ball by Meenakshi Mukerji.
The problem with most complex models is that they are very impressive but not necessarily beautiful to me, that's especially true for most of Kamiya's or Lang's work. Non the less I like to fold this stuff.

[legionzilla]

In my opinion the supreme technical skill of people like Satoshi Kamiya and Robert J Lang and so on is astounding. But I think that Ryu Zin is over detailed and over done, as are many other super complex models.

I don't agree with you. It is because of this 'over detailing' thats why origami is improving. The traditional pig was just a trapezium with legs, then the pig became abit more detailed than it became superdetailed and in my humble opinion, this striving for complexity and detail is why origami just keeps getting better and better.

[Cephalopod]

Well, like I said before, it's necessary to get the main features that makes something what it is, but I don't think you need to go much further.

Origami is improving because new techniques are making the possibilities of paper limitless, it's up to the origamist whether he/she wants to make a piece of art or a diagram. Again, this is just my opinion Don't mind if you disagree.

[legionzilla]

Sorry if I offended you in anyway, Cephalopod. If I'd, sorry .

[Cephalopod]

No need to be sorry You said one point of view and I said mine. What's there to be sorry about?

[Crane89]

The Traditional Crane: simple, easy, and elegant. I always teach origami to someone else with it, it is not overly simple (already has reverse folds, petal folds, etc) but not too complex for a beginner.

[legionzilla]

Yep, the traditional crane still wins for its simplicity and yet complex elegance.