What make an Origami model "Great"?

[GreyGeese]

That is the reason for foil and wet folding

I am making progress in my ability to fold foil. I have achieved a couple of pretty complex models with it (crab and lobster.) I have no intention of learning to wet-fold, as it is too much like papier-mache.

[JeossMayhem]

I haven't tried wet-folding, but I don't think it's anything like paper mache. You still have to fold your sheet.
I don't wet-fold just because you can't unfold it and you don't have a square anymore (in most cases).

[Foxglove]

I am making progress in my ability to fold foil. I have achieved a couple of pretty complex models with it (crab and lobster.) I have no intention of learning to wet-fold, as it is too much like papier-mache.

In papier mache, paper and glue is continually added on top of each peice of paper. Where as wet folding is just wetting the paper so that it bends better and then holds its shape. They are not that simlar, plus wet folding really adds a new dimension to the final model in terms of "breathing life" into it.

[Jonnycakes]

You can unfold wet folded models theoretically-you just have to get them wet again. And so what if getting the paper wet slightly warps the shape of the square (which will warp anyway due to natural fluctuations in temperature and humidity)-that is a tiny nuance, akin to the natural human error of cutting paper to size. If you want to get technical, 'squares' of paper are abstract shapes, and if you want to get even more technical, they are abstract 3D forms and the whole concept of modeling the paper as a 2D form goes out the window. So now you can call circle packing and crease patterns impure too

[Nathan]

When I look at origami models my favorites are the ones that look the coolest. However, for the general public/an average non-folder, the finished result is most important.

Howevermore (I just invented a new word!), for the origami-savvy person's perspective, many more factors count. Although the best looking models may be favorites, general opinion here seems to think that what makes a model truely great is what goes on unseen beneath the model; in the inside. These factors include the efficiency of the paper usage, the layer distribution, and the folding itself and many more.

I think this about sums it up, ~although in my opinion, the greatest models are the best-looking (which usually happen to be the most complex)

[GreyGeese]

You can unfold wet folded models theoretically-you just have to get them wet again. And so what if getting the paper wet slightly warps the shape of the square (which will warp anyway due to natural fluctuations in temperature and humidity)-that is a tiny nuance, akin to the natural human error of cutting paper to size. If you want to get technical, 'squares' of paper are abstract shapes, and if you want to get even more technical, they are abstract 3D forms and the whole concept of modeling the paper as a 2D form goes out the window. So now you can call circle packing and crease patterns impure too

I can accept wet-folding as long as it is only used to make the finished model more permanent (an effect more easily achieved by dry-folding and then spraying the finished result. Sculpting with wet paper, however, is fundamentally different than origami in my opinion.
I take the same approach with foil. I treat it as simply thin paper that holds creases exceptionally well, not as something to be sculpted by pinching or crumpling.

[Foxglove]

GreyGeese, you seem to have strong views on the purist side of origami (i.e. no cuts, no adding things, one square, etc.). However, without the advancements and changes to origami, it would definately not be what it is today. Much of the most popular and in my opinion the most aesthetically pleasing is not necessarily "purist" origami. For instance, Joisel's works may have been wet, and maybe some MC was used; but still a square of paper was used to create a dazzling, jaw dropping model. Change is good, it only extends the bounds for what can be done.

[GreyGeese]

Change is good, it only extends the bounds for what can be done.

I am a lot more impressed when someone extends the boundaries of what can be done within the purist approach. Which is the greater accomplishment: an athlete slightly exceeeding a record while playing by the rules, or another athlete shattering the record but cheating to do so (by using drugs, for example)?

[xaoslord]

Perhaps this portion of the discussion should be continued in the thread already established for it:

viewtopic.php?t=1304

There are going to be a lot of different answers as to what one individual feels makes a model "great." Debating the merits of another poster's point of view doesn't accomplish anything other than annoying the original poster.

Perhaps a mod could split this part of the discussion into the other thread?

[Foxglove]

Touche GreyGeese. However, have there ever been set rules for what origami is. There are rule books for all sports; I've never seen an "origami rulebook".

[Jonnycakes]

These are 2 extreme viewpoints. Change can bring about innovation and push the boundaries, but there are also innovations within the boundaries. There is merit in both things and great results can come from a mixture of the two philosophies. Start with solid, established foundations and build off of them, recycling old ideas too. That is what origami is-taking ideas and using them in interesting ways, coming up with new ideas and exploring them, coming up with entirely different methods for the art (Vincent Floderer's crumple folding and Eric Joisel's masks come to mind).

[petr-stuchly]

well. for me the final result matters. in this case i prefer closed-back models. and when saying that, the Trollip's horse IS closedback model for me, though someone else mentioned if a closed back model has a ridge on back where the reverse side of paper is shown, it isn't closed back. sure it is! traditional pig isn't closedback for me. as someone said (yeah, i have gone trough all the posts here), efficiency matters, but when seeing the finished models without any other information, how to compare their efficiency? so though it is nice if the model is efficient, it isn't the most important thing. for me is most important how i personally like it. yeah. it is so simple. nothing else. i usually like color changes and hence i am concentrated on animals in origami, some animals wnt from prehistory to recent days and evolved into magnificient patterns for a color-changed models. i take care of features and details. and for me it doesn't depend on a clear "lifelikism", because even a cartoonish model with nice features is nice model in my eyes - Nicolas Terry - cartoon frog (for example)
i have two top models. a pig by Quentin Trollip with "tricky nose" with nostrils, and eyes and Gen Hagiwara's flying squirrel. now i negate what i said above, because the folding sequences of both these models makes them even more my favourite, because they contain interesting steps and both are efficient in paper, and (almost forgot to point it up) they are nothing but fun to fold (the squirrel is one of very few models by another designers what i can remember), to negate other things i said before, but i thought it should go in this order:
-final result
-fun to fold
-interesting/new steps
-ratio

when speaking about my own designs, i (almost always) study the subject before folding, then i think of the features i want on my model and then try to find out as well-working base as possible. in this case the folding sequence is more important than the final result for me, because even horribly-looking draft could contain a new idea, new folding sequence, so it is a useful model, but i have a few of "once was enough" models, because though the results are ok, the folding sequence doesn't worth to fold them again from clear joy, so i can't call them good. in this case mz new skunk:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25853667@N04/3768571914/

and quite recent treefrog:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25853667@N04/3619523038/

are callable good even in my eyes (and i am the worst critcis for myself) because they are closedback, color changed, easy to fold and with each flap placed on needed place, so nothing is forcedc and solved with geometry and clean folds.

well. just my two cents =P

[飛竜]

i write this as someone who doesnt design but loves to fold other models.

im very picky
for example i looooove ancient dragon but if i had the choice between that model and brian chans thanksgiving turkey i would have a huge debate so complexity is out of question to me

mainly a good design to me is one that appeals visualy
i dont care about closed or open back because if that were the case i would take pictures of the back top and sides of the model
models to me only have two sides front and profile if not many of us would pick as a definitive picture the back of the model.

i hate crease patterns and have a condition called crease pattern-challenged but when i find a design sooooo beautiful i will try figuring it out
my first cp was phoenix 3.5 i didnt know squat about cp but the model is sooooo good i had to try. it took me around five months.
and as many know that particular model has made many unexperienced folders try a cp
so its not a matter of whether the design is diagrammed or not.

about it being fun to fold... i think thats too much to ask i mean i cant conceive in my mind a designer creating a diagram with fun and excitement in mind.
yes komatsus designs are very amusing to fold but i recently discovered that the way origamists design is sort of a trademark they repeat the same solutions to some creases this with kamiya and hojyo they are predictable.
so funness is not something i would ask for its not fair to the designer.

what makes a model pretty:
it has to be elegant
not something that has been done over and over
unless the design really sticks out
what do i mean with this
many horses have been done but only one horse 1.1
many dragons have been done only one ancient dragon
many phoenix models only one phoenix 3.5
you catck my drift (i really like kamiya)
now just because i love his designs doesnt mean im blind i prefer hideo komatsus giraffe because its so great looking

no excess details some models look too crowded for example kamiyas butterflies to me look to grotesque because of the creases that form the veins that look ugly.
ryujin 3.5 isnt too crowded why? because that is how the dragons where depicted i have seen even more detailed dragons in vases or paintings
at the cost of sounding like goldilocks ryujin 3.5 is juuust right

it has to look as close as possible as the thing animal or person its supposed to be unless abstract in that case it needs to be very artistic

about paper many models require specific paper for them to be acomplished decently and i also dont find it fair to ask that the model be done in copy paper so i can just fold it out of the blue
what i do really pay attention to is that the model is done with only one piece of paper because that is the idea that i grew up with (also because of comodity dont like assembling)
thats why i like kamiya cerberus better than the one by vietnams origami group origamist dont know his name
yes its great looking but come on there will never be a diagram and i have never seen multipiece cp.

finally for the love of god if you make a great piece
either diagram it
make a cp with collapsed based and some tips on shaping
if too difficult just the cp
because then it really doesnt matter if you made a great piece or not people just want to fold it and praise the designer for both his brilliance and generosity

not enough diagrams or crease patterns for some really cool models like lucifer from hojyo

well thats it for me (as if this wasnt enough)

hope this helps from an average joe folder
(by the way i have discussed all of this with most of my friends some of them fold and some dont but they all agree on these points)

[federicoh]

My top three are Kamiya, Komatsu, and Kawahata.

THE KKK dont know what is that but i heard about it in the ramones theme ... lalalala

ontopic:
what makes a model to be the best? the sensation when you look at it and feel it's alive and moving.