Thus sprach Robert Lang >For myself, one of the things I love about origami is its diversity, and I >judge different works by different standards. A simple Robinson fold, an >elegant Montroll design, a supercomplex Kamiya artwork: these are all >beautiful examples of origami, and I can't imagine trying to compare or >rank them by some common set of criteria.
I have spent some time thinking about this before responding. Always good to do. While I can see that we need different criteria to compare the virtues of, say, a single-sheet design and a multi-piece one, since the multi-piece design, at least if it is modular, is not only folded but also assembled, I do not see that different criteria are necessary to compare the virtues of two single-sheet designs, however apparently different they may be. Arriving at those criteria is, of course, a difficult matter, and, achieving agreement about them probably impossible. However, let's have fun trying ... What are the virtues that I look for in a single-sheet paperfold? I'm not completely sure I can state them all but they certainly include elegance, efficiency, balance, a clean appearance (no single word for this I'm afraid), recognisability (if it's a representative design) and bonus points for anything extra like originality, movement, noise, development potential etc. It's probably possible to write a long treatise about all of these ... but just briefly ... Elegance ... is a much misunderstood term nowadays because it now seems to be used in two completely contradictory senses. To me elegance is not a quality of the finished design but of the folding sequence ... and particularly of the arrangement of the folding sequence. Elegance is about the way in which the folding sequence develops from the starting shape to the finished design ... about how the folds are located and made ... about how one fold opens up the potential for another ... about how the whole sequence flows rather than proceeding in fits and starts. And because of this it's very hard to define elegance precisely in words ... because you have to fold the sequence to feel it (or not). Of course, many designs have folding sequences that are almost necessarily only elegant in part. Inelegant series of pre-creases often lead to wonderfully elegant collapses. Efficiency ... probably not the right word ... is about making good use of the surface area of the paper. It's interesting to fold a design, colour the visible surface, and unfold it. To me it is a virtue if a large proportion of the surface area is still showing in the finished design. Balance ... is about the arrangement of paper in the design. I don't mean completely even distribution ... which is probably only possible in modular designs ... but overall balance between the amount of paper used in the different parts is a virtue to me. Clean appearance (some people nowadays seem to call this elegance) ... is obviously a quality of the finished design ... but it's a result of how you get there as well. Recognisability ... is just that. If I fold an elephant and show it to someone I want them to immediately know it's an elephant not a manicure set. (Yes, this has really happened to me!) Bonus points ... not every design can be startlingly original, flap, jump or fly. But it's great when they do. You'll notice that I have not included simplicity as one of my virtues. That's because if I aim to design paperfolds that are elegant, efficient, balanced and clean they will probably (though not necessarily) tend to end up being quite simple as well. Dave
