The Origami Forum

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?

Hmm, very controversial. I don't think its so much the domination of geometry, but more of the focus on it. His words ring true with many of John Montroll's models. Though, they are not meant to be life like, more of an enjoyment of the geometry experienced in folding the model. Satoshi Kamiya and Robert Lang's models are a bit of a hybrid between geomerty and art. The bases are highly geometric, but allow enough space for shaping. Yoshizawa's models however, are shaped fluidly through the whole folding process and many of his folds lack a given reference point. Eric Joisel has many underlying geometrics in his models, but are wonderfully shaped upon completion of the base.

In the end, its just another view/theory of origami. Its up to your personal tastes and views in your expression of a subject in origami. Everyone has different styles and goals in design.

I think that geometry is the basis for origami, otherwise we would just be crumpling paper at random into shapes. I also think that a piece of origami isn't really successful if it relies completely on geometry. Geometry provides the structure while final detailing makes it origami.

Perpetual Odium, look at this
It proves that you don't have to crumple to make something nice, but you barely have to fold.

But I guess you guys have a point. As long as your not measuring for every fold, always folding angle bisectors (even for the details), then I guess it really isn't ruled by geometry.

However, I'd still like to see the other sides argument. I know theres someone out there who put differently...

I don't disagree with you guys, but there are some designers with pretty geometry-dominated or at least geometry-oriented models that I don't think anyone would call lifeless (somehow Hideo Komatsu springs to my mind...). But as a fan of Yoshizawa/Brill/Joisel style of folding, I guess I should vote for Yes.

i wasn't saying that you have to crumple something to make it look nice but that origami without geometry would devolve into simply crumpling paper.

Origami without geometry is no origami. You couldn't fold anything if there was no geometry, because any shape of paper is geometric. Even if you crumple paper, if you open it up, there will squares, rectangles, triangles, etc. So, origami HAS to have at least a little geometry for origami to survive.

I like the being folded look of Origami models and sometimes I also like to fold patterned structures like Koi scales or Momotani walls. With inserting such very geometric structures you can often make a more realistic and lifelike model. I´m maybe not the best person to decide how much geometry is too much but in my opinion there can´t be enough of it. I´m absolutely sure that a model can be designed with reference points all over until the last step and look alive anyway.
A good example for this are Katsuhisa Yamada´s models.

Fanatic has a good point. No matter what, even if you fold just one line randomly, there is still geometry involved.
But I guess what I meant is are some people just going too far with geometry? Moonglow brought up Hideo Komatsu, and I agree a bit with that. To be honest, I don't think that Hideo Komatsu really breathes life into his models, yet his models are still very realistic.

In your (everyones) opinions, what is breathing life into paper? Again, I'm going to use Giang Dinh as an example. I don't know if he really uses all that many guidelines, or even lines. However, his models seem to have life in them.

Breathing life into the paper, to me, would be anything that the folder does differently to adjust the model more to their liking, which is usually unique to the folder. if what i'm saying isn't clear i'll give an example; the "new" kawasaki rose is very geometric but the way you shape the petals and so on would be "breathing life into the paper"

I'm not sure when he said that quote, but he was the first to create a rigorous standard for diagrams. Most people encouraged sharp creases, resulting in flat, lifeless models... at that time.

Yoshizawa worked heavily with wet folding (damp folding ?) and with soft creases, instead of sharp creases. I believe that the variable placement of the crease and the varying softness go a long ways toward bringing life and warmth into Yoshizawa's models.

If you read his books, even the English translations, he talks about those ideas in more detail. But what is most amazing to me, is that even I can fold his simple mouse and give it warmth and life. I can't do that with Montroll or Lang, although I like their models.

I think the variability is what Yoshizawa refers to when he says that geometry isn't everything.

My two cents,

- Hank Simon

So, I guess what some of you are saying is that wet folding can be a good way to breath life into different models. I guess I can agree with that for the most part. But theres got to be more to it than that...

That isn't to say that geometry itself isn't beautiful. Look at the FIT and the vast majority of modulars. Very strictly geometrical and beautiful.

However, when making animals and natural forms, the geometry can be seen as the 'skeleton' of the form, or the base.
From that point there is a divergence. Most models will then continue to use landmarks to form the details, which is very geometrical, but some (e.g. Yoshizawa) do not always use landmarks and it's up to the folder to free-fold the nuances that make it look like (say) a dog rather than some other four-legged, one head, one tail non-descript animal.
You will also find many who will say that the diagrammed landmark is the precise position if the paper was 2D! An experienced folder will know where and by how much to 'fudge' the fold, depending on the paper and future folds, to make the paper lie properly for later.

And, of course, there are examples of good, bad and extreme across the spectrum. e.g.
All landmark folded, very clean lines -> representative but lively.
All landmark folded, very angular -> misproportioned and ugly.
Part landmark folded, part freefold -> natural, alive, in motion
Part landmark folded, part freefold -> an unidentifiable crumpled mess.
All freefold -> organic (e.g. Floderer mushrooms)
All freefold -> a joke or a mess (boulder!)

These categories are, of course, subjective. What one person thinks ugly maybe what another thinks beautiful. And just as subjective is the other question, "Did I enjoy folding that?". For some combination of folder and model, geometric folds can feel comfortable and precise, freefold can feel hap-hazard and frustrating. On the other hand geometrics can feel stale and repetitive, freefold can feel liberating and artistic.

Dennis (just rambling!)

denori wrote: However, when making animals and natural forms, the geometry can be seen as the 'skeleton' of the form, or the base.

Funny that you say that... because Yoshizawa also once said that

In origami, the folds are the bones and the paper is the skin

I am explicitly saying that wet folding is NOT the way to breathe life into a model, just one of the ways.

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), and to also be flexible placement of legs, ears, etc. by using the landmarks (if any) as a guide, rather than as a fixed signpost.

For example, in Origami Museum I - Animals, there is a mouse on p. 60 But the photo of the finished model shows 7 variations. ... And none are wet folded.

Also, the swan sequence on Youtube - altho Yoshizawa is using a cloth to dampen the paper, I don't think that is absolutely critical. However, if you re-watch the video carefully, you can see how he caresses some folds, rather than creasing sharply.

- Hank Simon