HankSimon wrote:But, IMO, the Yoshizawa style of bringing warmth and life into a model is to vary the creases from soft to medium to hard (even along a crease)
I think you've got it right Hank. Almost all origami is based on underlying geometry, otherwise edges wouldn't meet, points wouldn't coincide with creases. What Yoshizawa, Brill, LaFosse et al bring to the art is a highly developed sensitivity to the paper - almost the opposite to the "bone folder brigade" who iron every crease mercilessly. Whilst sharp creases suit geometric models, they don't help to breathe life into a design.
Another aspect I've noticed of folders who can imbue life into a model is that they fold in the air most of the time. The continual turning of the paper, judging of angles, adding just the right pressure to a fold is something you can't really do flat on the table.
My problem with this poll is that it says, "too much geometry", which can't be defined. It depends entirely on what an individual considers 'excesive'. Sure, almost all of origami depends on using the edges and points and angles and whatnot, but I voted 'yes' because let's say you folded something completely out of tiny equlateral triangles. I wouldn't say it would look lifelike. Stylistic, yes, but having so many angles and sides and points would be distracting.
But then again, maybe someone likes the stylistic look and wouldn't share the same opinion... I don't know. All I do know is that the poll question should be revised a a bit. No matter what, origami will be dominated by geometry, which is one thing. It's a whole nother thing to make a model too geometric and, I guess you could say, give it the 1990 video game look.
I think we follow the Principles of geometry, such as balance, symmetry, and repeatable steps.But we are not bound by the rules which require sharp creases, specific landmarks, and exact, linear angles (as compared to varying curves).
Novices - myself, included - can follow the written instructions to get nice models, but the more experienced folders understand the Principles and know where they can bend the rules (pun intended).
So, "Too much geometry" doesn't get the idea across. I guess part of the question that we were heading toward is:
What is the bounday and difference between Origami and Paper Mache ?
Not to be too insulting to Paper Mache artists on the Forum, but I believe that Origami has advanced further as an interpretive art form, requiring less embellishment to convey the feel/communication of the folder...
This is getting into the differences and opinions about Eastern vs Western folding philosophies. Certainly one needs to have elements of Eastern styles, otherwise the finished models would be lifeless and cold. But with parts of the Western philosophy it is possible to fold more complex models and a much wider array of folding/design methods become available. The balance between the 2 is entirely opinionated and varies from person to person, but it is possible to fold something beautiful and breathtaking with any balance between these two philosophies.
I guess what I'm getting at is that yes, there can be too much 'geometry' (by geometry I mean incorporating too much strict mathematical design or trying to be overly realistic, e.g. Lang's butterfly (from Insects and their kin?)), but ignoring it completely can be bad too. There are merits to a saturation or absence of geometry, but the folder must know how to use folding and design techniques to turn it into something beautiful. 1 fold stegosaurus and Ryujin are two examples of pretty extreme philosophies, and they are both beautiful compositions.
To answer the question, yes and no. Lafosse for example is well known for his yoshizawa 'breathing life into the paper' style of folding. But look at his american alligator: that is extremely geometric and comlex yet it still has life. I think that breathing life into the paper is a personal taste. I think that Lang breathes life into alot of his pieces. Despite the crease patterns his end result is wetfolded and allows for shaping and artistic freedom. I think when designing something if the designer takes away that freedom of artistic expression, then the life is taken away. So in the end there can be very geometric and complex works that breathe life and there are also very complex works that don't. It all depends on how the artist chooses to shape the final piece and what paper to use!
Totally late to the game here, but I had to respond:
but I voted 'yes' because let's say you folded something completely out of tiny equlateral triangles. I wouldn't say it would look lifelike. Stylistic, yes, but having so many angles and sides and points would be distracting.
I have to say- I have two masks by Joel Cooper, and his creations are the most lifelike and realistic origami I have ever seen. Dragons and insects and all that stuff are all well and good, but his work using an insane level of geometry has produced some very impressive results. You are of course quite welcome to disagree but the emotional reaction we get from houseguests to his mounted piece in our living room says otherwise...
Using curves and volumetric folding methods adds much to the organic and lifelike nature of folding- but they are just more complicated folding methods that go beyond traditional straight-line techniques. (and much harder to master!)
I enjoy models like Hideo Komatsu's, which I feel really capture the essence of a creature vs. a driven need to be utterly accurate with representation. As a non-representational folder, I find the deep opinions held on these kinds of topics to be really interesting, but also somewhat funny: the number of lines or the geometry involved doesn't matter, does it? only whether the finished product is pleasing or not in the eyes of the creator. If you like it too, then even better.
Considering that any serious project I fold requires many hundreds of creases at a minimum I find the geometry to be an intrinsic part of the origami experience - I can't imagine creating something without that process. It would be very strange indeed.
Suffice to say that I most definitely voted no - we can never have enough geometry, and ever-improving accuracy is a plus :)
I use a Cad program to diagram my designs. It is very accurate. When lines and edges etc. don't meet up, I'm not satisfied with the design. For me, this is the interesting part of origami... getting the geometry right. But different strokes for different folks. Or shall I say different folds for different folks!
I have disagree with Yoshizawa sensei becouse I think that breathing life into a model has nothing to do with using more or less geometry. The way one folds and shapes the final piece is all that matters. I mean, just look at Hojyo's creations! Heavily box-pleated models that can't be more lifelike. Joel Cooper's masks are another great example...
Cupcake wrote:Seeing as I am writing a speech on Akira Yoshizawa, I had to do a lot of research. I came across this line while reading:
He breathed life into his models, and although he acknowledged that geometry was the basis of all origami, if geometry dominated, a model was incapable of having life breathed into it.
My question is how do we manage to fold something, especially with all the different theories about folding, without having it being dominated by geometry? My idea is that, according to this, designing from a crease pattern would be wrong. So, do we all just have to doodle all the time? Or maybe just do anything other than using crease patterns to make things?
Funny, but I feel the exact opposite way. To me, the attraction of origami lies in what can be achieved through sharp, well-defined creases (and thus through geometry.) Too much shaping and sculpting leads to something more akin to papier mache. This is still a valid art form in its own right, of course, but different from origami.
1. Cupcake started this... I would like to see the speech that he came up with.... 3 months ago.
2. Geometry is important for getting the points to line up... but you can vary the lines (straight, curved, other) that connect the points to give different effects.
I wouldn't argue strongly that a crystal is more beautiful than a flower. But I do believe that models of animals (and some shapes) have a more organic feel, more life, when some lines are soft rather than precise.
Well, I didn't really have much of a speech... I just took a bunch of facts from articles that I had found and combined them. I don't think that I even have a copy anymore...
GreyGeese, Akira Yoshizawa started wet folding. Seeing as this was his idea, most of his model were done this way. If you look at some of his dirgrams, you would find that theres not always very much geometry involved. Some is just no guidline folding.
Plus, I find that those sharp well defined creases are what make 2D models, not so much 3D models. Sometimes theres something with a sharp edge. I fond that 3D models are what are truly amazing seeing as you are turning something thats 2D (not really, but flat) into a 3D object. The 2D models are just remaining flat.
(and by the way, I think that I got a 90 or 95% for my speech)
and why should using geometry be wrong?? If it works for you wy shouldn't you use it then. Everybody has his own approch towards folding models. There is no wrong or right as there are no written or enforced laws on Origami. Whatever suits you goes.
Cupcake wrote: If you look at some of his dirgrams, you would find that theres not always very much geometry involved. Some is just no guidline folding.
Thank you for saving me some time. Now I know that I am not interested in folding his designs, without needing to look.
