What make an Origami model "Great"?

[GreyGeese]

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.

You are my kind of designer. I wish more thought like you!

[Brimstone]

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

Could you please elaborate on this, it could be interpreted both ways (I think that we agree on this one but would like to hear it from you)

[Jonnycakes]

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.

I completely disagree with that. It is cool if a model has a natural folding sequence, but some things just won't be like that no matter what. Some things, specifically complex models with lots of flaps, are impossible to find a folding sequence for without difficult steps. Some other difficult steps are chosen over easier ones because they produce a more desirable effect.

The end result is the most important thing because origami is primarily an art form, not entertainment (other people folding it for fun). While it is nice if a model can be reproduced easily, that isn't its primary purpose and should not be an important factor, if a factor at all, in judging its merit. Foldability is a factor in diagramming only, and even then, not everything can have an easy folding sequence.

[origamimasterjared]

Certainly, Brimstone. Here's a little bit about what I mean.

Well, For instance a horse and a dog, and a lizard have a relatively simple structure. You could force the three from a generic 6-flap base. The horse would require major shortening for the tail (AKA waste), the lizard would require shortening on the head (Waste) and the dog would require shortening for both the head and tail (waste). It is far more satisfying to have a base with the flaps already the right length, in the right places.

Similarly is forcing thick interior points to be thin appendages. Sometimes you need to use interior points (and sometimes they really are what you want), but for thin things like insect or crustacean legs and antennae they are terrible.

I admire the sheer volume of pieces Manuel Sirgo has produced, as well as the fact that he has produced so many diagrams in such a short time. (I think it may take him less time to write a book than for me to diagram a single complex model.) His folding talent is tremendous, and his works look just awesome as he folds them. But his works are extremely forced. Take a look at/try to fold his lobster diagrams available at Nicholas Terry's website ( http://www.passionorigami.com ) to see what I mean. The legs are folded from the interior of the square. If you've ever seen a lobster, you'd know that its legs are really thin. The legs here are way too thick. Many of his insects and other arthropods are the same way. This is not to say that Manuel Sirgo does not have some very good works--he has a few really nice pieces. But a majority of his work is extremely forced. If he can fold it, good for him, but it's not my style.

One of the oldest things I remember creating, my flying Goliath beetle, was forced. I used the exact same base as I did for my flying Atlas beetle. That base was fairly forced too, being simply a 3x3 bird base tiling. As far as I know I was the first person to put claws on an origami insect's legs, back in early 2002 I believe. You can see those two at OriWorld ( http://www.oriworld.joi.com.br/ ), specifically at http://www.oriworld.joi.com.br/english/jared2.php
The claws were formed from point-splits.

Lots of us have forced origami, and it is good for learning what to do and what not to do. That's why it's good to design and test fold with normal paper that everyone has access to, as opposed to some "super paper" made specifically to be able to handle your strenuous fold sequence.

[perrosaurio]

well, jonnycakes, I have to disagree in a way with you. Art is also a game. Most people forgets this and try to elevate its status to an elite's activity. Children drawing and playing music are people doing art (don't miss the important verb on art's issues: to Play).

To be simple is not to be worst. In fact, I think is the opposite.

However, I agree with you in that result is essential. The resulting figure should call us for the desired form or animal that inspired the model in a feeling's level, giving us the joy of sharing a representation of reality and perception. A heavily box-pleated or crumpled model are also bad pieces of art.

Or the too foil, wet sculpted? are they origami or sculpting? In my opinion, the aesthetic valuing of this art resides inside the principles of origami: game, beauty and reproducibility, you can reach them as a result of the applying of concepts like simplicity or complexity, but it will be you own talent and good judgment to reach a balanced and effective result. Well, is my opinion, not a biblical Truth

regards.

[Daydreamer]

...not everything can have an easy folding sequence

I never said anything about "easy", I said it should be fun, and well... sometimes even closed sinks and wrap arounds can be fun.
The thing is that my focus is on folding origami models and not on looking at origami models. So when I see an origami model that I think looks nice my first thought is "Nice, I would like to fold that." And if the folding sequence isn't enjoyable (note: also folding from CPs can be enjoyable) I lose a lot of my interest for that model.

A heavily box-pleated or crumpled model are also bad pieces of art.

Well for the box-pleating there's Hojyo Takashi with his amazing models, and as for crumpling just take a look at Vincent Floderer to see that crumpling might also yield some amazing pieces of art.

[GreyGeese]

The end result is the most important thing because origami is primarily an art form, not entertainment (other people folding it for fun). While it is nice if a model can be reproduced easily, that isn't its primary purpose and should not be an important factor, if a factor at all, in judging its merit.

Well, I disagree 100%. Of course I enjoy getting a nice end result, and of course that is motivation for folding it, but the folding itself is the real purpose of origami to me. If a model is not fun to fold (again, this does not imply easy), then I get little or no enjoyment from it.
Except for a handful of exceptionally nice models (eg Montroll's Lobster), I either throw mine out when they are done or put them in a box and forget them. Seeing the recognizeable form emerge from the geometry is more than 90% of why I like origami, and a sequence that feels natural contributes to that in a big way.

[moonglow]

The end result is the most important thing because origami is primarily an art form, not entertainment (other people folding it for fun). While it is nice if a model can be reproduced easily, that isn't its primary purpose and should not be an important factor, if a factor at all, in judging its merit. Foldability is a factor in diagramming only, and even then, not everything can have an easy folding sequence.

Perhaps that's true. However, it really is priceless seeing people's expressions when you produce an Origamido butterfly in about five minutes, while they thought you were just toying with a tiny receipt over a coffee...

I think there are three factors, which determine if a model is great or just good (or terrible for that matter...)
- the finished result (yes, the most important, and it consists of visual complexity, realism and elegance)
- economy (of paper, time, folds... they're usually connected amongst each other anyway)
- clarity of designer's vision (when even in designer's interpretation you can't see folds cleanly or you see that he wasn't 100% sure about the proportions, you just know that this isn't a great design...did someone mention Manuel Sirgo?)
And yes, Origamido butterfly passes all these tests with excellence.

I know, this probably isn't very helpful to any designer... However, totally (seamless) closed back on a complex model is usually a sign of being unsure about the subject and the same goes to limbs that just barely reach required proportions, but that doesn't apply for simple, "cute" models. Open-backed models are becoming quite rare, and there's a good reason for that (they are usually inferior to their closed-back brothers). A rare brilliant open-backed model would be LaFosse's squirrel (do I sound too much of a fan?), but that is because the belly is much more exposed and the back is barely visible.
So, yes, seamed closed-back it is, and if you disagree, just go and make Kamiya's smilodon, that one has probably the best "back" I've ever seen.
And unclear folds just for the sake of a model being 3D never impressed anyone.

[GreyGeese]

Also, the thing with Robert Lang and all those unsinks and wraps and stuff--that is basically solving a crease pattern. A straightforward, no-frills, linear approach to solving a crease pattern. All those un/wraps and un/sinks allow a linear folding sequence instead of having to perform a complicated collapse.

As has been pointed out before, a given CP can be folded in more than one way. I often feel that Lang's sequences are more difficult than neccessary. As evidence of this, Montroll often has easier sequences leading to models of similar complexity, so it can be done.

[origami_8]

I've split up the Crease Pattern discussion into an own topic.

You can find the new topic here:
viewtopic.php?t=3414

By the way, I love closed sinks!
And Quentin, your models are very nice.

[Brimstone]

Certainly, Brimstone. Here's a little bit about what I mean

As I had expected we both think the same about Manuel Sirgo. He is quite an accomplished folder and he produces great models, the resulting models look great, but the bases are too generic.

[perrosaurio]

A heavily box-pleated or crumpled model are also bad pieces of art.

Well for the box-pleating there's Hojyo Takashi with his amazing models, and as for crumpling just take a look at Vincent Floderer to see that crumpling might also yield some amazing pieces of art.

Yes, I should have said they "could be" bad pieces of art. Box pleating and crumpling are techniques that can be used for good or for evil .

However, the best Hojio Takashi's figure (in my humble opinion), the Icarus, is not box pleated, is an amazingly complex and fun bird based model.

I have nothing against sculpting, just consider it a different art platform. I will search for Floderer, thanks.

[Jonnycakes]

well, jonnycakes, I have to disagree in a way with you. Art is also a game. Most people forgets this and try to elevate its status to an elite's activity. Children drawing and playing music are people doing art (don't miss the important verb on art's issues: to Play).

To be simple is not to be worst. In fact, I think is the opposite.

However, I agree with you in that result is essential. The resulting figure should call us for the desired form or animal that inspired the model in a feeling's level, giving us the joy of sharing a representation of reality and perception. A heavily box-pleated or crumpled model are also bad pieces of art.

Or the too foil, wet sculpted? are they origami or sculpting? In my opinion, the aesthetic valuing of this art resides inside the principles of origami: game, beauty and reproducibility, you can reach them as a result of the applying of concepts like simplicity or complexity, but it will be you own talent and good judgment to reach a balanced and effective result. Well, is my opinion, not a biblical Truth

regards.

Well, I never said origami was not supposed to be fun. I think origami is very fun-if it wasn't, there would be a lot less folders out there . It just isn't the most important thing-more like a side effect in my opinion. It is like someone who enjoys their job-they didn't pursue that career just because they liked doing it.

I believe there is also a place for folding for fun. I make little things out of whatever is available all the time. Diagrams serve that purpose as well as to build up folding skill. But don't try to convince me that something you folded with a tea wrapper is a 'great' work of origami. I interpret a 'great' work of origami as a singular folded work, including the piece of paper it was made from and possible its display-not some entity that encompasses its design, diagrams, and folding sequence. That is not even being judged by me when I decide if something is 'great' or not. I have no idea how Joisel folded his figures from LOTR, but they are incredible works of art full of detail, expression, and movement. And I can guarantee you they weren't folded 'for fun'. They were folded to be works of art.

[GreyGeese]

I would estimate that maybe 1% of folders have "serious" intent, ie folding to create art or things to sell. The other 99% of us do it exclusively for fun. The market for origami books would not exist otherwise.
FWIW I hate open backs that let the white side of the paper show through (unless, of course, the model is something like a skunk that is supposed to have a thick white stripe.)
Another thing for designers to consider is folds that help lock the model together. Creases alone are not always strong enough (this is especially an issue in the case of legs, which tend to splay if not held against the body.)

[Jonnycakes]

That is the reason for foil and wet folding