On 10/9/2014 3:11 AM, [email protected] wrote:
*Those* words are, I would contend, pretty incontrovertable, or did you
misquote?
No, Nick, I did not misquote.
You ommitted the first part of David's reply to me: ""But if I had to
give a brief answer it would probably start with considering the
traditional flapping bird."
You also seemed to have missed the context in which the exchange was made.
David's quoted passage was part of his reply to a specific question I
put to him, viz: "(snip) exactly what do you consider to be the 'heart
of what origami is', and 'what origami actually is'?
I was referring to David's offered example of what is or is not origami.
As far as I am aware, the parameters defining what is and what is not
origami have yet to be established. David's example beginning with the
flapping bird adds nothing (to me) in this regard Read in this light,
the quote attributed to me is not as incontrovertable.
I feel that using the merits of the flapping bird (very few folds,
all essential to the design, elegant to fold, etc.) as examples of 'what
is' origami leaves too much under 'what is not' origami. If these are
the only merits worth considering, are we not having a rather skewed
view of what origam is about? Are we implying that designs based on box
pleating, (which involve many folds, do not leave much of the surface
area intact, etc) is not origami? Are we saying (some) modular origami,
tessellations, complex and ultra complex origami are also not origami?
Are we not doing an justice to many of the acclaimed works of people
like Robert Lang, Eric Joisel and Satoshi Kamiya, (to name just a few on
top of the huge pile) because their work involve numerous folds, etc?
It is one thing to have certain preferrences and opinions in origami. We
all have, i would assume, but we should not express ourselves as if our
views are the only ones that matter. I am particularly disturbed by
this words from David's first post in this thread: "I personally don't
like the term origami artist. No, let me be clear. I really dislike it!
It smacks to me of not being satisfied with WHAT ORIGAMI IS and the
uniqueness of what it can do and of trying to MAKE ORIGAMI INTO
SOMETHING IT ISN'T.
These words strongly suggests (to me) that the opinions were based on
the erroneous assumption that the parameters defining 'what is' and
'what is not origami' have already been established.
I may be reading a too much into this and coming a tad too strong in
this thread, but like David wrote, let's call a spade a spade. I see
nothing uncivil about what I have written thus far.
I will add no more to this thread.
Ron
's
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.(snip)
Ron replied
These, of course, are your felt opinions, which many practitioners of
origami in the international community do not necessarily share.
*Those* words are, I would contend, pretty incontrovertable, or did
you misquote?
I also subscribe to the "journey" approach, at least to the point
where it is every bit as important as the destination and often
woefully undervalued. I don't think Dave is, for a second, dismissing
the model...
A fascinating thread, but let's keep it respectful please.
For the record, I still call them "models" and myself a "paper-
folder". I think the analogies with music are sometimes over-
stretched and there's a danger of becoming pretentious, which
wouldn't do at all ;)
