Unique to Origami

[wood-Z002]

I consider myself to be an intermediate folder (comfortable with all levels of diagrams but just beginning to understand CPs). I say this to set the context, ie I consider myself to be very much the student and do not mean to look down on anyone's models of styles.

My question is are there any models and/or folders who are creating works that are unique to origami. ie models that could only be created using origami, or have better results using origami than would be the case using another art form.

It appears to me that much of modern origami is basically attempting to create the sort of results seen in other forms of sculpture but, with all due respect, generally resulting in a less detailed and less lifelike substitute. In the end the only real achievement being overcoming the constraints of the medium and the rules of the art.

Don't get me wrong, I love origami, its complexity and the paradox of creating somewhat lifelike 3D objects out of a single sheet of uncut paper. But I am really interested to see if anyone has been able to do something truly unique with the art, kind of like the way that M.C. Escher used the rules of 3D drawing in his work Relativity (the one with the crazy stairs) to create something that cannot be replicated by any other art form.

Very interested to hear your thoughts, and hopefully direction to some unique art.

[Moonspinner]

Hideo Komatsu and Joseph Wu are quite stylised. I don't think any of the models would look better in marble, or anything else.

[HankSimon]

Giang Dinh has developed a flowing style that elevates Origami, uniquely.
http://www.giangdinh.com/

- Hank Simon

[Jonnycakes]

Check our Eric Joisel's work-it is very sculptural, yet also employs geometric patterns that lend themselves to origami.

Insects also turn out pretty well-Lang has tons of em.

Seth Friedman's birds would be worth checking out, too. They use pleats to create a lot of realistic detail that would probably be much harder to achieve in sculpture, especially keeping the wings thin.

[mrsriggins]

I think the whole thing that is unique about origami is making sculptural things out of paper. You see if someone were to make, lets say for the sake of this example Joisel's rat as a sculpture, I'd say most people would not be able to replicate it, or have the means to. Now when you look at joisle's rat in origami, most people can make it (it may take several tries and some help from the forum but most can) and I think it is safe to say that every single person has the means to make it. It only takes your hands and a square piece of paper whereas to make a sculpture you would need a whole array of tools. Origami is a PUBLIC art form in the sense that everyone can do it and everyone has the means to do it. It is completely unique to me. Some of the sculptual models you say are less detailed and lifelike but if you ask me I see them as being more remarkable than a sculpture from the mere fact that they are made from paper and the restraints on paper are far more than that on a sculpture.

I work with clay and am actually starting my own ceramics buisness this coming year and I find that origami is more challenging and more gratifying that my work in clay. You see with clay I can make anything- and quite easily so, it takes no thought for me. But origami- I have to really analyse the shape of a model and how I will make it because it is all interconnected. How do I get 6 flaps out of this square and how do I make two flaps larger than the rest? You see my point? Honestly I don't think I would be half the artist I am with clay if I didn't fold. Origami gives such a unique look at shape and dimension that to me is unparallelled in other art forms.

[mike352]

One area that is absolutely unique to origami is the one-crease models. They rely wholly on the medium for their sculptural effect. The medium, whether paper or some other material, needs to be stiff enough to be able to crease, and not completely rigid as to be unable to deform around the crease. Paul Jackson explored one-crease models here: http://www.origami-artist.com/one_crease.htm

Along a similar vein, though more mathematical, is Erik Demaine's work characterizing the shapes resulting from the bending of a paper-like medium due to a series of pleats. It again relies on the medium for its result, just like above.
http://erikdemaine.org/hypar/

So, as long as you consider these art, and I would say that at least Paul Jackson's work is art, I would consider these pieces of art fully unique to origami.

Note that I'm taking as my definition of origami what Robert Lang has said before, that is, a piece where the primary means of accomplishing it is through folding. The medium is not restricted to paper, but anything foldable, essentially.

[ahudson]

When comparing origami to other artforms, you might want to read some of Saadya Sternberg's blog, he has some insightful thoughts on the subject: http://origami-aesthetics.blogspot.com/

For me, the appeal of origami comes from several directions. It forces abstraction of the subject because of technical restrictions; yet at the same time, these technical restrictions give it a sense of purity and wholeness that most other mediums do not provide.

As to the uniqueness of origami, no offense but I think this is a sort of pointless question. Origami is primarily a branch of sculpture, and therefore has similar functions and qualities as any other sculpture. The Escher work you referenced is an equally good example of this; Escher could have painted, drawn, or etched this same pattern, with similar results. His medium of choice, the woodblock print, is a form of drawing just as origami is a form of sculpture. In that sense, each medium has its own advantages and disadvantages, but Originality is more up to the artist than the artform.

If you insist on asking for uniquely origami styles, look at the Origami Tessellations community, or at Le Crimp in france. Both groups have been exploring art directly through the physical properties of paper and through basic origami structures. For the most part, these aren't based on any existing sculptural ideas, although they inevitably use some similar aesthetics.

[OrigamiGianluca]

I think your question is pointless.
Origami is a figurative art as well as painting, sculpure and so on.
And like its other "sisters" also Origami take as model what is aroud it.

You can't say, for example, that an origami rat, eagle, man and so on are copied from the corresponding sculpures.
The origami model are copied by the real rat, the real eagle and the real men.

You say: sculpture is better than origami because sculpure can reproduce better the reallike appariances.
This is only a point of view, not the point of view.
The rapresentations of the reality is something that all the artists among the centuries had discussed (and also fighted) on.
Think about the difference between Rembrant, Picasso, Monet, Botticelli, Lucio Fontana, Warhol...

Following your way a simple digital photo should be better than a painting portrait or a plaster cast on somebody face should be better than a sculpture just beacuse a photo or a cast are the exact copy of the reality.

The final result in art is an unforseeable mixing of the artist mind and ability and choosen medium.

You also talk about Escher (one of my favourite artist ).
His works mirror exactly what I mean.
They are a point of view of the reality. They exist only because the artist make you look on them through a precise perspective.
If we could move our head a little bit in any direction we will see what stands behind.

Just to explain better, this is a real 3D model of the Escher "Impossible Waterfall"
Look it until the end

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZP46qFgaAHA&hl ... 2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[wood-Z002]

Not sure if I got my point accross very well, as some of you are taking it as an insult to origami as a way of representing objects, that was not my intention.

I suppose that I consider origami to be distinctive from other forms of sculpture as there are significantly different techniques involved and often the results are more abstract. I get the point that this abstraction is part of the appeal of origami and gives the art a distinctive look.

My thought was that given these distinctive techniques that there might be some models that used these techniques to make something truely unique, as opposed to an abstraction of a common object.

Some of the above suggestions are great I particularly like the one crease models, and the crumpling from vincent floderer. I might be being too picky but both of these appear to be subsets of common origami. I have not yet seen anything that uses the distinctive techniques that are common in origami to create someting unique.

[unknownfolder]

By distinctive techniques do you mean something like wet-folding?

[Jonnycakes]

Not sure if I got my point accross very well, as some of you are taking it as an insult to origami as a way of representing objects, that was not my intention.

You did word it in a rather offensive manner (you sounded like you were calling origami a cheap imitation of sculpture). And you still sound like you are bashing origami:

My thought was that given these distinctive techniques that there might be some models that used these techniques to make something truely unique, as opposed to an abstraction of a common object.

By unique do you mean realistic? Because that could be considered the most hackneyed of all-you see the realistic every day in every physical being. Perhaps you are not sure what you're asking-what is it about tessellations, or good representational origami for that matter, that is not unique to you?

There are scores of origami models that I have not seen the likes of represented similarly in other art forms (I am not well-versed in art, but feel free to point me to other artists producing work like Joisel, Christine Edison, or Joel Cooper, to name a few of the more 'unique' origami artists).

Pleating-you can't get much more common than that. It is everywhere in origami used to create angular as well as organic forms. That is what i see as one of the most unique aspects of origami-the mixture of the geometric and the organic.

It sounds to me like you are trying to phrase a question in the least offensive way possible, and are thus masking any meaning it may have. Please, elaborate on what you don't find unique (or what you do) about the work of some specific origami artists and further define what you mean by unique. Because that could mean anything-and not just novelties.

[Silent Winter]

If you are trying to find something in origami that can’t be reproduced with standard painting, or sculpture; I would look at Origami that moves. The "Flapping Bird" or "Spring into Action" are good examples of this, as is the "Flasher Hat". I would also have to include paper airplanes. While they do not change form, they do move.

[Oruhito]

The question of origami's 'uniqueness' is interesting. I think that your misconception is that all of origami is aimed at photorealist, representation like Robert Lang's insects. On the contrary there are plenty of paper artists who have many different styles. I think that people choose origami over other mediums because they like the look of a finished origami piece. The sheer paradox of folding a 2 dimensional surface into something that looks real is (for me) not only miraculous, but beautiful. Something that can't be achieved by Painting or drawing (not that they are less worthy. They have a uniqueness too, that origami can't stand up to). I don't consider origami to be a 'separate' art form - it IS sculpture. Just like you can sculpt a human figure out of wood, or marble, or clay, you can sculpt it out of paper as well.

When people ask me how I started working in paper, or how I became intersted in origami I tell them I came for the art - not the challenge (however amazing it is). Being a painter and draftsmen I saw origami's ability to look at art through a different lens that I hadn't looked at before. The first pieces I saw were by my teacher Michael Lafosse. His interpretation of nature was soooo soulful and genuine I felt it was more sincerely represented in paper than in any another medium. It just felt right that he used the organic process of using pulp. Everything that I learned through studying painting and drawing helped significantly in my origami: and everything I learned in origami helped me learn more about painting: planes, the illusions of form, line, using line as a three dimensional working method, texture, etc,.

So I think your question is sort of aimless.... I personally didn't take offense to it at all. I'm glad we can discuss these sorts of things.

[HankSimon]

My take on the question is: As an artist, (Or hobbyist) what are the unique characteristics that I can achieve using Origami ?

For example, with music, I can achieve a rhythm and emotion that are more difficult to achieve (tho possible) with a painting. With a painting, I can achieve a snapshot of time and space, of light and dark, that may be more difficult with other forms.

With a wood sculpture (or piece of furniture), I can achieve a warmth that is more difficult to achieve with metal or plastic. And I can achieve texture with clay and stone.

There are masterpieces, fusions of style, and outlier techniques, but I don't think the question implies that level of expertise or complexity.

I think the question pursues the common Origami-ness among Lang, Lafosse, Yoshizawa, Joisel, Edison, Cooper, et al .... as well as the rest of us.

How are Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart the same... or Picasso, Escher, and Rembrandt ? I have no definitive answer, only opinion.

And from a pragmatic perspective, maybe that question isn't clear.

But, from an artistic viewpoint, I think the question is interesting.

So, my opinion is that Origami provides a medium for impressionistic expression, available to novice and master, which enables representation of an object or idea in paper through the use of "simple" folds to show the essence of the model.

Although this answer doesn't encompass everything, especially the photo realistic insects of recent years, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.... until someone comes up with something better.

- Hank Simon