Ronald Koh wrote: >The question to you, David is, exactly what do you consider to be the 'heart of what origami is', and 'what origami actually is'?
Yes, those are interesting questions ... and not really questions with answers that can be fully explored in a brief email, I'm afraid. But if I had to give a brief answer it would probably start with considering the traditional flapping bird. Here is a design which has very few folds, all essential to the design, which is elegant to fold, and in which much of the surface area of the paper is preserved intact in the finished design. And there's a bonus, a surprise, a pleasure in the tail! That is my idea of what the heart of origami is. It all comes down to ethics. What do you (or I) believe that good paperfolding is? I believe that the qualities I have mentioned above are many of those I would look for in a good design. They are very little to do with the look of the finished design. They are about the journey ... the folding experience ... and, of course, in this case also the fun you can have playing with the simple toy you have created. >Stating your opinions as though your opinions are established facts, as vague as the grounds for your opinions seem to be, is not doing origami >or yourself any favours. Keeping what is or isn't origami to very narrow definitions smacks of being self-serving and prejudiced by personal agendas or limitations. Well, you know, Ron, I did deliberately say that I was happy to contribute an opinion! I did not say I was happy to put forward some established facts because I recognise that most paperfolders today do not share my views. Incidentally, my thinking about paperfolding has been heavily influenced by the ideas of the late Eric Kenneway and of Paul Jackson (though they are not to be held to blame for them!) I was also very interested to see that Seth said > I try to use the word sculpture a lot on my website, because I want people to think of my models as valuable art works, as permanent, and as a thing you might want to someday own. This is very similar to some of the points I made (except, of course, that Seth thinks this is a good thing ... and I think exactly the opposite!) Thank you for entering into the debate however. Maybe we can continue it? What do you think the qualities of a good origami design are? And what design would you put forward as a great example of what a good design should be? Dave
