Simplifying Models

[Trouble]

i just wanted your opinion of authors simplifying their models in their diagrams. D you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

[orislater]

I dont mind it. But i dont think it is good. While we are still able to make great origami models, they will never look as good as the authors, because we fold the crappy version. the crappy version might be good but not as good as the "great" version.
if you know what i mean
-Slater

[origamimasterjared]

Disagree. Usually simplifying makes it better. And most any origami designer will tell you the same.

[orislater]

Jared i understand what you mean! i remember reading somewhere that simplifying can be just cleaning up a model, right? but if cleaning it up compromises the appearance of the model then i dont like it.

[LeafPiece]

I voted yes, but obviously it depends on who is folding the model. If you see it as a challenge to fold a model precisely how the designer has done it, then okay, it would be nice to have a complete diagram. But let's face it, a lot of designers add some fine details and finishing touches that make it their own, and it would just be really tough to diagram. If you're a folder and you're struggling through a diagram, you might want to at least finish it without the details than to not finish it at all. Then, simplifying would be good.

[anonymous person]

Simplifying a model can make a model tons better. if you can simplify a model then you are improving its accessibility to all without corrupting its form, thereby making it a much better model. For example, in grizzlyman's angel model, instead of doing a closed sink in one of the steps you could unfold, rabbit ear and valley.
in my opinion, all designers should check over their models to see if they're unnecessarily complex, and whether they could find a simpler way of doing things.
One of the things I really hate is this trend among young folders that " complex is better". if you're having to do a ridiculously hard fold just to get that tiny detail, you should consider, really, what is the point?
Another thing I hate is this obsession people have with " fingers". Yes, I know non-folders marvel at them, but I'm fed up with perfectly good simple efficient models being turned into inefficient monstrosities with the addition of toes. again, you have to look at your model and think, is there any point in adding complexity to this model or not?
Thanks for letting me share my opinion
Arun

[dinogami]

One of the things I really hate is this trend among young folders that " complex is better".

I would tend to agree, except...

if you're having to do a ridiculously hard fold just to get that tiny detail, you should consider, really, what is the point?

...that a lot of the features origamists wish to capture in their models (particularly those of living organisms) are tiny details, complex or no -- the eyes and mandibles of arthropods come to mind. A better question -- or, at least, better phrasing -- might be "What is gained by adding a zillion steps to capture some aspect of the subject matter?" Or, alternatively, "When does it become justifiable/acceptable to add a zillion steps to obtain one feature?" Either one gets primarily at two issues: (1) aesthetics, and (2) the model creator's intentions and wishes. Can a koi be "captured" in an origami model without folding all the individual scales on the body -- do the scales add anything other than a level of impressive-ness about the creator's (and the folder's) technical ability? An aesthete might -- I emphasize might (and I am not myself arguing this!) -- argue "No, it doesn't," but a technical folder might respond "But now it bears even greater resemblance to a real koi."

This isn't a new argument; people have been arguing about realism vs. representationalism in various art forms for centuries. Each has a place, and different people will prefer different things, maybe even for different purposes. There's also a perfectly good and acceptable place for technical ability; I think the debate here is whether or not that technical ability qualifies as "art" in and of itself -- whether one has to have great technical ability to produce "art." Does an origami model cease to be art because it is very realistic and has a high degree of detail, even if it's really difficult and time-consuming to obtain that detail? Is it "better" art if it's more detailed?

[Froy]

Have you EVER considered that at less you have the chance to fold a great model from diagrams and not to just wonder how or reverse-engineer it? SK ancient dragon for exaple. (although reverse-enginner is a very good exercise)

If we are lucky a designer will makes diagrams for one of his models (simplified or not), even when they get some money for it (selling books) I don't think they will like the peolple to fold exact replicas of their works.

If you design a mater piece you are not forced to share it. Why the great designers should do it?

[akugami]

For example, in grizzlyman's angel model, instead of doing a closed sink in one of the steps you could unfold, rabbit ear and valley.

yes, that's a fine solution, arun! i wish, people would give such hints in the st. nicholas topic ...

[orislater]

Ok i agree with you guys now, that there is a better chance of getting diagrams if the model is simplified. And being complex doesn't necessarily make a model better. But i like to fold complex origami! If all origami was easy i wouldn't do origami! Whats the point of folding something like a one fold stegosaurus when you can make a stegosaurus skeleton?! (i dont know if this has been invented yet, im just using it as an example) I think that alot more times complex origami is funner than 10 step origamis.

just my opinion
-Slater

[Falcifer]

Stegosaurus Skeleton


Also, it can be disappointing to see a model (like Brian Chan's V mask) and want to fold it, and then to find that the diagrams are for a different version.
I didn't know until after a few attempts, so I thought it was my folding that was at fault, and I'm still a little disheartened to know that I can't recreate Brian's great fold of the model (yet).

Still, it's great to be able to fold the model at all, and it gives the basic structure, into which I'm sure the extra details could be incorporated.

Personally, I'm grateful for designers who do produce and publish diagrams at all, so I can forgive simplified models, even if I secretly harbour deep feelings of hate and rage against them for folding a superior version, photographing it and displaying it provocatively in front of me...

And I actually tend to enjoy folding a model more than the model itself, so I don't mind complexity.
Obviously, it doesn't make sense to diagram a difficult sequence if the result is some insignificant detail, but I'm willing to go through a longer set of diagrams if there's good reason to - having ears, or a lower jaw, or proper positioning and proportions, etc.

As a non-designer, though, I've come across several models which look relatively simple, but have many more, and more complex, diagrams than I expected.
I'm sure seasoned designers are more adept at estimating how long/complex diagrams are for a model.
I guess if I don't immediately see a huge number of flaps or details, then I don't expect complex diagrams. Hideo Komatsu's dog and Marc Kirschenbaum's "Fluffy" are two examples where I expected the diagrams to be simpler than they actually are.

[joshuaorigami]

I think it's good for the diagrammer, but not as good for the folder. I always simplify my models when i make their diagrams as it's so much easier.

[Jonnycakes]

I think it's good for the diagrammer, but not as good for the folder. I always simplify my models when i make their diagrams as it's so much easier.

This. I would like to add, though, that a good diagrammer should try to be as faithful as possible to the original design while diagramming. And Jared, while simplification can lead to a better result, that better, simplified model should be the final model anyway (if it is indeed better, that is). Thus there is no need to further simplify the diagrams.

[Releashi]

As a beginner-imtermediate folder I'm not sure I know anything but simplified diagrams but as someone else said if it is the difference between folding it or not then I'd prefer to be able to fold it. I can sympathise (and feel jealous) of those that want to be challenged but I suppose it is better for sales to aim at a wider scope of ability?