In response to Joel there is also this on the net about Tolstoy and cockerels:
The pianist Alexander Gol'denveizer recorded this episode from 1896: Once I met Lev Nikolaevich [Tolstoy] in the street. He again asked me to walk with him. We were somewhere near the Novinsky Boulevard, and Lev Nikolaevich suggested we should take the [horse-drawn] tram. We sat down and took our tickets. Lev Nikolaevich asked me: "Can you make a Japanese cockerel?" "No." "Look." Tolstoy took his ticket and very skillfully made it into a rather elaborate cockerel, which, when you pulled its tail, fluttered its wings. An inspector entered the car and began checking the tickets. L.N., with a smile, held out the cockerel to him and pulled its tail. The cockerel fluttered its wings. But the inspector, with the stern expression of a business man who has no time for trifling, took the cockerel, unfolded it, looked at the number, and tore it up. L.N. looked at me and said: "Now our little cockerel is gone..." -- A. B. Gol'denveizer, Vblizi Tolstogo / Talks with Tolstoi, translated by S. S. Koteliansky and Virginia Woolf (1923) In response to Dianne >Impermanence seems to be at the heart of Origami, reflecting the philosophy >of Eastern thought. The striving to change the nature of Origami, even by >calling it sculpture, seems counter intuitive. You will not be surprised that I agree with much of this ... but I think that the impermanence also comes from two things closer at hand ... the nature of paper itself ... and that origami is fundamentally about the process of folding rather than the result. To enjoy the process of folding you have to fold ... so it is arguable that the best kind of design is one you want to fold over and over again and not just fold once and display on a shelf. In response to Ron >I do not consider myself an authority on origami design and 'good >origami design' is at best subjective I think this is the core of where we disagree. I believe that the argument that anything is subjective (so that everything is equally valid or good) and therefore cannot be rationally discussed is fundamentally flawed. I am convinced that it is possible to find criteria by which good ethics, good art, good origami, good music, good cooking etc can be judged. I do feel that much of modern origami is driven by (several different kinds of) dissatisfaction with what just folding paper can do rather than an acceptance of its inherent limitations (which are what make origami different and special). That is surely why we use foil, dampen the paper to mould it, glue (or soak it in glue), crumple and strive, among other things, for complexity, verisimilitude and permanency. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with any of these things, any more than there is with using cuts, but, to me they are not the heart of origami. I could write lots more about this ... lots, lots more! ... but will leave it here for now. I would however still be genuinely interested to know what design you would put forward as an example of excellent origami design (sorry ... no easy synonym available). Dave
