I folded from CP (50x50 square).
This model is very difficult.
because... This CP is difficult to find the reference point.
but very beautiful model...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27527992@N08/
Lucanus Cervus - Nguyen Hung Cuong
Forum rules
READ: The Origami Forum Rules & Regulations
READ: The Origami Forum Rules & Regulations
Lucanus Cervus - Nguyen Hung Cuong
I folded from CP (50x50 square).
This model is very difficult.
because... This CP is difficult to find the reference point.
but very beautiful model...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27527992@N08/
-
InsomniacFolder
- Senior Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: January 12th, 2006, 3:26 pm
- Location: Maidenhead, UK
Your model is very nice, and expertlyy finished.
But I have a problem with the design itself
It's clearly very skilled and brilliantly engineered.
All of the insects parts are (roughly) present and correct, and yet, every version of this model that I've seen folded does not look at all like the real thing, which is is obviously striving above all else to be.
It just seems to be a beetle in the Stag beetle style with a bit of, now, common other origami subjects (Metalifer, generic beetle abdomen etc) style parts.
Still, I wish I could design something like it.
Which leads me to the question. With todays obsession with tooth, claws, feelers, spurs, scales and hair realism in origami, if a design is clearly designed in this manner, do you judge it more harshly if it fails to convey the subject exactly.
As compared to say Forcher's fox, or LaFosse's Origamido Butterfly: brilliant abstractions of the subject which, although not the most realistic representation of the subjects, are arguably more effective in communicating the "essence" of it?
Personally, I tend to prefer the more lyrical, whimsical interpretations to the ultra-fastidious morphological reproductions.
But I have a problem with the design itself
It's clearly very skilled and brilliantly engineered.
All of the insects parts are (roughly) present and correct, and yet, every version of this model that I've seen folded does not look at all like the real thing, which is is obviously striving above all else to be.
It just seems to be a beetle in the Stag beetle style with a bit of, now, common other origami subjects (Metalifer, generic beetle abdomen etc) style parts.
Still, I wish I could design something like it.
Which leads me to the question. With todays obsession with tooth, claws, feelers, spurs, scales and hair realism in origami, if a design is clearly designed in this manner, do you judge it more harshly if it fails to convey the subject exactly.
As compared to say Forcher's fox, or LaFosse's Origamido Butterfly: brilliant abstractions of the subject which, although not the most realistic representation of the subjects, are arguably more effective in communicating the "essence" of it?
Personally, I tend to prefer the more lyrical, whimsical interpretations to the ultra-fastidious morphological reproductions.
"Had we but world enough and time..."
Great fold power0606, I have also tried this model but I can't find the reference point. Do you think you can help me?
Insomniac folder has a good point. the more stuff you try to cram into a design, the harder it becomes to breath life into it. the other thing that annoys me is that all the people that have folded it have done it with red paper, to copy Hung Cuong Nguyen, when in real life it is black/brown.
Insomniac folder has a good point. the more stuff you try to cram into a design, the harder it becomes to breath life into it. the other thing that annoys me is that all the people that have folded it have done it with red paper, to copy Hung Cuong Nguyen, when in real life it is black/brown.