simple vs. intermediate vs. complex

General discussion about Origami, Papers, Diagramming, ...
Post Reply
User avatar
ahudson
Forum Sensei
Posts: 561
Joined: May 10th, 2006, 2:14 am
Location: California
Contact:

simple vs. intermediate vs. complex

Post by ahudson »

I've heard a lot of people classify models by their complexity, using the labels "simple", "low-intermediate", "high-intermediate", "complex", and "supercomplex". Where did this hierarchy come from, and how is each category defined? Is there any consensus, or does everyone define them differently?
DZIGGITAI
Junior Member
Posts: 110
Joined: October 14th, 2003, 12:19 am
Location: anywhere, folding
Contact:

Post by DZIGGITAI »

origami usa made a set of guidelines based on the folds involved (open sink = at least HI, etc. or something)

too lazy to find it for you...

the origin as far as I know is to distinguish origami classes, like at the ousa convention (I know that's where supercomplex comes from--to scare most of the folders away except for the really good ones)

if you look at any origami book, like John Montroll's, they all have different, sometimes arbitrary systems such as 1-4 stars or whatever, so I doubt there's much consensus
User avatar
Brimstone
Buddha
Posts: 1729
Joined: November 23rd, 2004, 3:59 am
Location: Colombia, South America
Contact:

Post by Brimstone »

User avatar
origami_8
Administrator
Posts: 4371
Joined: November 8th, 2004, 12:02 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by origami_8 »

The main problem with this classification is that it dates back to a time where complex still was low intermediate. I think every folder has kind of a ranking system on his own to describe models. Now here is the second problem, different folders have different skill levels and find different movements easy. Lets take an example, I would say that my CD case is very simple containing only a few folds, on the other hand it contains a closed sink what would give it a much higher rank in those OUSA standards mentioned above.
User avatar
Brimstone
Buddha
Posts: 1729
Joined: November 23rd, 2004, 3:59 am
Location: Colombia, South America
Contact:

Post by Brimstone »

I totally agree, complexity has been redefined since then
TheRealChris
Moderator
Posts: 1874
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

Post by TheRealChris »

unlike a definition about the difficulty I think complexity can really be defined by the complexity of the finished model and the number of creases and manoeuvres that need to be done.
but complexity does not necessarily mean that the model is hard to fold. even easier models can have a high number of folding procudures. and even the kind of folding does rarely define the difficulty. a good example for this is Langs tarantula from the second insects book, where a "simple" open sink is making people mad. an open sink can be easy but an assymetric open sink in a half folded model can drive you crazy.
altough the origami usa definition is surely no worldwide standard, it a good way to describe complexity.
User avatar
Jonnycakes
Buddha
Posts: 1414
Joined: June 14th, 2007, 8:25 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Post by Jonnycakes »

Some open sinks are easy, some are hard. The kind of fold involved doesn't necessarily make a model more or less difficult, so it is a judgment call for whoever is ranking the models. I think most models, with a little common sense, can be accurately rated.
Post Reply