Sorry for the slow replies. I have been on holiday. Chris Lott <[email protected]> wrote:
>This strikes me not as contradictory but disconnected. Or at least potentially so. A model can have an elegant folding sequence, it can be an elegant model when finished, or both (or neither). This is true, of course, but the word elegance is then being used in two different ways. I simply prefer to retain the word elegance as applied to origami in the meaning it originally had when I learned it ... ie that it is a quality of the folding sequence. Ronald Koh <[email protected]> wrote: >We seem to be shifting from the 'heart of origami' (whatever that may be) to the 'virtues' of origami. Yes, but, surely, the virtues reside in the heart? What I mean by the heart of origami are those designs which best express these virtues, like the traditional flapping bird. >Speaking for myself, the first thing that catches my eye are the photographs or illustrations of the completed origami model/piece; i.e. the look of the finished product, or the 'destination' at the end of the 'journey'. It is also the first thing that makes me want to fold an origami model/piece. I do not disagree that origami has developed technically. I simply think that this technical development has been at the cost of more important things, and particularly those things that differentiate origami from other artforms. When I first started folding paper ... in 1963 on the publication of Robert Harbin's Secrets of Origami ... I was drawn to the challenge posed by the most complex designs in the book. My father was a retoucher and I was able to fold what would then have been thought of as complex designs by Rohm and Elias from the thin paper used to wrap lithographic plates. At that time I would have completely agreed with you. Origami was about folding the most complex and best looking designs I could find. My origami journey has, however, led me to a completely different perspective. I am not now really a craft paperfolder and I fold designs from diagrams (or videos) comparatively rarely. I mostly like to start with the paper and find out what it wants to become. (Yes, I know it doesn't really want to become anything!) Sometimes I also start with a simple configuration of folds that I like in somebody else's design and see what else they might lead to. Occasional I start with an end in mind and try to find out how the paper wants to become it. (Yes, I know ...) So to me nowadays origami is a challenge of a completely different kind. I strive for the qualities I have written about earlier ... and in the words of Bob Neale, finding a design that incorporates those qualities is my 'occasional joy.' This difference in perspective has big implications which I have not yet fully worked through ... but fundamentally it must mean that just as you cannot judge a book by its cover (though we all do!) you also cannot judge an origami design by its finished appearance (though we all do that as well). To judge a book you need to read it. To judge an origami design you need to fold it. It is as simple as that. So ... like you I am often first drawn to a design because of its appearance ... but I can only judge its virtues once I have folded it for myself. The true test, of course, is do I then want to fold it again ... not to get a better result ... but to re-experience the development of the folding sequence. Dave
