The Origami Forum

I want to know what you look for in an origami model. As in everything, the name says alot. When Kamiya-san designs something, we all jump on it, because it is a Kamiya design. But what if an unknown folder designs something better?
What makes it a "ggod" design?
Is it the folding sequence, ease of folding, simplicity or complexity, subject, detail, closed-back, diagrams, availability, or WHAT that makes it a "good" or "favourite" model?
I think this will help us designers understand what the general public is looking for in a design. And hopefully design better, more "wanted" origami!!!!!

Excellent question, Quentin. This is gonna be kind of long-winded and all over the place.


My top three are Kamiya, Komatsu, and Kawahata.

For me, it all has to do with how folds and creases line up, both in the folding and result. Distribution and position of layers also comes into play. Satoshi Kamiya's work lines up all folds perfectly, and is usually very balanced in layering. Robert Lang's work can have a great finished result, but I don't like how the interior layers don't line up properly. I also think that in a design, if you're going to open sink a region in and out to a particular width, all sinks should be the same width. It's part of the design process. Check out Satoshi Kamiya's Phoenix 3.0 to see what I mean, how the rabbit-ear-triangle section that is sunken by the legs lines up exactly with the legs. Also, for layering, I believe that if you make the front legs from the interior of the square, you should to the same for the back ones usually.

Kamiya, Komatsu, and Kawahata all do a fantastic job at layering and having the folds line up.

I like bases that seem tailored to the subject at hand better than those which are forced into shape (see Manuel Sirgo).

As for closed-backness: There are three different basic states: Open-back, seamless-closed-back, and in between there is another, seamed closed-back. I usually prefer the seamed closed back for a few reasons. Open-back is definitely worst in most cases.

A seamless closed back gives a very weak, sharp back, and an unstable model. Also, usually designers make the legs come from under the body, which looks stupid. If the legs come from the top it looks much better, but still the back has its problems. The solution is the seamed closed back. A seam in the back means there are more layers, so it's stronger there.

Paper usage!! This one's important--almost forgot it. A little wasted paper is okay, but I really don't like it when the finished product is exceedingly tiny. Kamiya, Kawahata, Komatsu, Jason Ku, and I all adhere to this one pretty strongly. Kamiya's stuff comes out huge! A lot of my stuff ends up longer than the side of the starting square (obviously I used diagonal symmetry)

I actually have a lot of criteria (yes there's more) by which I judge origami works, and which I try to apply to my own work. Satoshi Kamiya and Hideo Komatsu compete, neck and neck, for the top spot, with Kawahata a close third.

First let me say that this matter is highly opinionated and that some people look for different things in an origami model than others. Now here is my opinion:

The distribution/alignment of layers is an important factor in designing a model, but the ultimate test of a model's merit is its completed form. If it looks good, then it is a good model. But there are many important aspects of a model that factor into it looking good.

I personally like seamless closed back models. Sure, the back can be thin, but if it is folded well it looks better than a closed back with a seam.

The base used is also important-it will generally turn out better if the base is intuitive and lines up well with itself, but there are ways of getting around those issues. Again, efficient paper usage contributes to a good design-but it isn't the end all be all of a good base. The flaps need to be in the right places and aligned properly to allow good shaping.

Proportion, originality, interesting detail, cleanliness of folds, shaping, and overall coherency are all parts of the judgment of an origami work. It doesn't have to be simple, complex, easy or hard to fold, or diagrammed well to be a good design. It just has to look good, because in the end, a folded form is a work of art.

As a non-designer the things that attract my interest and respect, in nearly this order:

1. Completed model representation:
I like a model that has character, showing features of what it represents, rather than appearing like a statue (unless that it what it represents). For these I include Trollip's Border Collie, LaFosse's Cardinal, Elias's The Last Waltz. These have a coolness fact, like Kamiya, & Komatsu Lion. (These last two are not yet in my repertoire.)

2. Models that advance my folding expertise:
In this case, I like clever models that further my technique: Rohm's It's Magic, Hulme's Jack In the Box, Mooser's Train, Crawford's Grand Piano.

3. Models that have a certain life or warmth to them, such as various models by Yoshizawa (for example, mouse or snake), and Momotani's Cinderella Coach (not diagrammed, yet.)

4. And it helps a lot when diagrams are well-drawn with a clear sequence.

- Hank Simon

My view of good origami is best displayed by the works of Yoshizawa. His models are always very simple and usually around only 10 steps. However, the finished product always conveys the message perfectly. He also uses every crease that is visible to mean something. Subtle creases that are added to the face to represent eyes, or pinches to represent legs may not be much, but they really add the model. I find that many of the complex box pleated models have a superfluous amount of edges visisble when the model is finished. For instance, sometimes the back or limbs of a model look like accordians. Sometimes its better to leave off the five fingers of the hand than it is to put them on. On the other hand, some artists like Lang can put toes on a frog and make it look good. In the end, a "good" peice of origami is one that conveys the idea of the artist, uses exposed creases for a reason, and hides the complexity of the model.

Like mentioned before the answer to this question is very subjective.

First of all a model has to be optically pleasing to me. That's true for models I want to fold (otherwise I wouldn't try to fold them) as well as for models I only look at. I can't really describe what exactly makes the model so pleasing for my eyes, but I know that complexity isn't a factor, because I like Kasahara's grasshopper as much as Kamiya's Rju Zin.

The second criteria is that it has to be pure of Origami, so no cuts and no glue.

I prefer cleanly folded things over crumpled looking ones.

I very much like colour changes and all kinds of action models.

About the seamless back thing: Not all models automatically have a back. There are geometric models like polyhedra, tessellations or boxes as well as flowers, objects (e.g. trains), scenes (e.g. two dancers),... that all do not have a back, there are even animals like bats that do not fall into this category.

Well, and only because a model is by a specific designer doesn't automatically mean that I like it or not.

Another point that comes to my mind is a clear and nice folding sequence. Some models sink or fall in my degree of respect after I have folded them once just because of their foldability and usage of paper.

What makes an origami model 'Great'?

In my opinion, a model is 'great' if you can answer 'Yes' to all the following questions:-
1. Do I want to fold it as soon as I see it?
2. Do I want to fold it again?
3. Do I want to share it with anyone who'll let me teach it to them?

Number 2. is possibly the most important, but I've no idea how you design for these very subjective qualities.

Dennis

Of the models I have folded so far, the most satisfying all came from Montroll/Lang's Origami Sea Life (especially the goldfish and the lobster.) I like these because:
1) They are very distinctive, clearly identifiable by species rather than generic fish (and quite elegant-looking.)
2) The bases are original, rather than adapted from other models.
3) The folding sequences are clear and logical, with a natural "rythm", and even the most complex ones are foldable by non-experts (no unsinks, double reverse-folds of hidden layers by "feel", etc. This is in stark contrast to Lang's insects, which require a Ph.D in Foldology.)
4) Excessively thick stacks of paper are avoided.
5) The models are fairly large as a percentage of the original paper size (I think this is called "efficiency".)
6) The final shape is achieved almost exclusively by geometry, keeping modelling to a minimum.

Ooooh I love Origami Sea Life. Probably my favorite origami book. There is something in there for everyone, with models ranging from incredibly simple to very complex. There are clear folding sequences e. g. the Blackdevil Angler Fish (one of my favorites-folded from such a simple base). Although I would have to disagree with the complexity thing...there are some really hard closed sinks in that book, like the tail of the Lion Fish or the sides of the crab (I forget which one, I think the Fiddler Crab). There are also plenty of unsinks in the sea urchin. I still love that book.

Jonnycakes wrote:there are some really hard closed sinks in that book, like the tail of the Lion Fish or the sides of the crab (I forget which one, I think the Fiddler Crab). There are also plenty of unsinks in the sea urchin. I still love that book.

I have not done the Lion Fish or either Angler Fish because they don't look like they will stand on their fins, which is something I liked about the others. The Urchin did not appeal to me. I have succeeded in folding the Fiddler Crab, so it can't be too hard (I am still an amateur. The only model I can fold in the insect book is the Ant.) There is a step in the Hermit Crab that eludes me, but the Lobster is rated as "harder" and I could do it, go figure. One of the crabs involves box pleating, and so far I have not managed to do any model with box pleating (I hope to learn eventually, as I have seen some cool designs that use it.)
I do love that Origami Sealife book, even though I havent done all of it.

I think two great designers are Brian Chan and Satoshi Kamiya. I love the way that Brian Chan uses different techniques to get the finished model. His crease patterns are fresh and fun to fold.
Kamiya is also this way. I can hardly think of a model of his that was not satisfying to fold. He also makes his crease patterns efficient and bases them on easy to find reference points.

Here are some aspects of a design that I look for in a model.
1. The model is efficient
2. Captures the subject that is being folded.
3. Is not overly difficult.( Some models have to be difficult, but others are unnecessarilly so. This could be from bad efficiency.)
4. The base has all necessary the flaps in the right locations
I also like small details or other things that make a model unique.

Thank you all for replying!
Wow, but you are a "picky" bunch!! Doesn't make it easy to design something nowadays! But I think it is good for origami to try and incorporate these things into models. Concentrate more on some aspects of the model/design thatn other. It should set the boundaries a bit wider, if you know what I mean.
Quentin

As I said in my response, there was a lot more by which I judge the greatness of an origami piece.

For one thing I left out the "is it worth it" check. I love complex models. Give me compound open/closed sinks and unsinks, detailed collapses, etc. and it's all good and well. So long as the finished piece is worth it. I've seen some pieces that were incredibly difficult but the finished product was just not worthy of such effort. In fact, it led me to question why someone would put so much effort into diagramming a crappy 100+-step model, when they could have put that time and work towards a better one.

I find closed sinks and closed unsinks to be among the coolest moves in origami. They're pretty easy to do once you have a lot of experience and understand them, unlike open sinks, which never get much easier.

Remember that many folding sequences are really just trying to fold a crease pattern by steps. This is where you're gonna see lots of unsinks, wraps, etc.

Efficiency. Usually extreme complexity is meant to give efficient paper usage. Which is more important, an efficient folding sequence, or efficient paper usage? If the largest square you have on hand is 6 inches, you may want a more complex folding sequence resulting in a larger model. On the other hand, if you have a huge square, you may prefer a nicer folding sequence. Efficiency is not the most important consideration, but it definitely helps.


All that stuff about capturing the subject, having the right length flaps in the right places, etc. is true about many origami designers. Just about every Kamiya, Kawahata, Komatsu, Yoshino, Miyajima, Lang, Montroll, Nishikawa, etc., even Yoshizawa (who I don't like) meets that. That's a good design.

The question was about greatness though. There is a difference to me. I'm not saying that every work of origami must have all these qualities, (not every work of my own does, but my "great" ones try to). And yes, of course there's more.

Ah, but Quentin, what I've seen of your origami does totally fall into the realm of greatness.

One thing that for me is most important for a model to be great is it's foldability, i.e. is the model fun to fold. One artist that fulfils this requirement in my opinion is Hideo Komatsu, the most recent example for this being his sheep (diagrams in Tanteidan 105) which has a lot of steps that just happen by themselves.
Foldability is also a thing I'm trying to achieve in my models, and I usually don't draw diagrams until I've found a folding sequence I'm satisfied with, and sometimes I go back to old diagrams and redraw some steps because they are easier to fold another way.