Complexity

sunmaid · Post by **sunmaid** » October 9th, 2007, 10:26 pm

I think that there is an interesting distinction when discussing the complexity
level of different creators' models.
For example, Lang is generally considered more complex than Montroll.
I have folded many of both creators' more complex models.
What I find interesting is this.
It is true that most of Lang's complex models are much more complex to FOLD than Monroll's.
However in evaluating the complexity of the LOOK of the finished product,
Montroll's models can look just as complex as some of Lang's.
Montroll's grasshopper is a good example.
In conclusion, although I totally admire the work of both men, I prefer Montroll because he can achieve a relatively high degree of complexity
in the finished model without an extreme degree of complexity in the folding
steps.

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » October 10th, 2007, 1:56 pm

I agree 100%. In fact, it is though you are echoing my exact thoughts. My impression is that Montroll is better at finding relatively easy folding sequences for a given crease pattern. In fact, I would bet that he could come up with easier ways to fold Lang's most complex designs, if he wanted to.
I also suspect that Lang enjoys difficult folds for their own sake. You can't tell me that all those closed sinks, double reverse folds. etc. are actually required to achieve the end result.

Galif · Post by **Galif** » October 10th, 2007, 3:25 pm

When you get used to complex models (and you have a good paper, obviously), there isn't really anything hard to do. The real challenge is doing clean folds and modelling the final piece accordingly...

And I like Lang's models LOT better...

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » October 10th, 2007, 3:58 pm

I love the way that lang's designs look in the pictures, but there are many that I cannot fold (and several that I am not optomistic about ever being able to fold.) By contrast, I have succeeded in folding every Montroll model that I have tried (albeit sometimes a few practice runs are required first.)
As for good paper, I have to be a lot more skilled before trying it. It is too expensive for practice, so I will only use it for models I am already confident of being able to do well.
(Finally, most "modelling" is inconsistent with my purist view of origami, so I stick to models for which that step is strictly optional.)

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » October 10th, 2007, 8:10 pm

Well, if you can't fold Lang's models as well as Montroll's, does that mean that Montroll's are better? I don't think so, although there is certainly merit in the ease of folding something in a world where models are constantly being folded by many other people.

That said, I happen to really like Lang's models. I don't have as much experience with Montroll's work, although I really enjoy what I have folded. I like Lang better overall, though.

I won't say anything about your modeling/purism comment since that would probably start another giant discussion about purism

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » October 10th, 2007, 9:11 pm

Jonnycakes wrote:Well, if you can't fold Lang's models as well as Montroll's, does that mean that Montroll's are better?

No. In fact, Lang has some of the coolest models I have seen in book form. (I have seen a few cooler ones, but in CP form only, which I am still 100% clueless about.)
I aspire to fold his models, but I am not optomistic. In addition to steps I find confusing, there are some that I simply lack the manual dexterity to perform.

Galif · Post by **Galif** » October 10th, 2007, 9:27 pm

GreyGeese wrote:I love the way that lang's designs look in the pictures, but there are many that I cannot fold (and several that I am not optomistic about ever being able to fold.)

Well, that's why I said "when you get used to complex models (...)" =]!

sunmaid · Post by **sunmaid** » October 10th, 2007, 11:15 pm

Another dimension I would like to add to the Montroll/Lang comparison complexity issue is this.
A large part of the final look of Lang's models as shown at his website goes beyond the issue of the level of comlexity of the folds themselves.
As already mentioned, the proper type of paper (such as Origamido Paper) has a big influence on the final look. But also the painstaking shaping of the various parts of the model using wet folding techniques has a big influence on the final outcome. This highly refined shaping issue has been debated
endlessly concerning whether it is truly origami. It is what it is. And what it
is, is very beautiful. Also the fact that these models come from a single square with no cutting is truly amazing, even if there is a lot of shaping involved.

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » October 11th, 2007, 2:20 pm

Sunmaid, good points. Even if I do learn to fold Lang's hyper-complex models (his insects, for example), the results will never look as good as the pictures. I have no interest in modelling or wet-folding, and do not plan to learn those techniques as they are outside the scope of what I call origami.
What I do enjoy are models made 3-dimensional through creases alone (of which there are several examples in Lang/Weiss' Origami Zoo.)

Galif · Post by **Galif** » October 11th, 2007, 8:34 pm

Well, you can do a very good job given the right paper... it's not that hard, you see...

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » October 12th, 2007, 12:56 am

To GreyGeese:
And what Lang models become 3d without creases? Even the shells on his beetles use curved creases to make them 3d.

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » October 12th, 2007, 1:10 pm

I said "through creases alone" not "without creases". What I object to is papier-mache type modelling, such as rolling legs into cylinders or sculpting an animal's body with wet paper. I am looking at a duck from Origami Zoo on my monitor right now that is 3D and does not use those techniques.

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » October 12th, 2007, 4:39 pm

Sorry, I thought you meant that a lot of his models didn't use folds to become 3d. However, I disagree when you say rolling things into cylinders, etc. is not folding. I think any changing of a paper's form (without cutting, chemicals, etc.) is folding. Even if you are just bending it, I consider that a very very soft fold. And if you say that isn't folding, where do you draw the line between folding and bending/shaping?

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » October 12th, 2007, 5:27 pm

Jonnycakes wrote: And if you say that isn't folding, where do you draw the line between folding and bending/shaping?

I don't know if I can come up with a good definition of that "line", especially in writing, but I know when it has been crossed. The key for me is that the model can be unfolded and the resulting pattern consists only of well-defined creases, no crumpled areas (at least in theory.)

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » October 14th, 2007, 3:38 am

I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no way to 'scientifically' describe the difference between folding and bending. They are essentially the same thing, but in varying degrees. I.E. folding is an extreme case of bending.

From http://www.dictionary.com: Fold-to bend (cloth, paper, etc.) upon itself.

If you can produce a well defined definition that doesn't depend upon an opinion, then I might be more inclined to accept your reasoning. I respect that you have a philosophy about folding that you stick to, but I just think it is ridiculous.