Glue, Wetfolding, Tissue Foil and Purism

[Android raptor]

Though I don't have much objection when the shape just requires the square to be cut in half (such as for a triangle or 1x2 rectangle), that's pretty easy, plus you can make two models from one square

Well, I guess thats what I meant. Other than variations, my models are all out of a square or a 2:1 rectangle.

Cool, got a thread with some pics? Though I admit I am quite jealous of you Cupcake, because you're only 14 (if I recall correctly) and not only are you folding super complex models, you're designing them! I'm 17 and like I said I have yet to even fold a super complex model (for the reasons above), and can barely design anything that's not a variation on someone else's model or uses an existing (usually traditional) base. I just don't know how people like you or Satoshi Kamiya do it! Though I do generally tend to prefer intermediate or low-complex models because I'm not afraid to fold them, they can be folded from the paper I already have, they can be folded fairly quickly (even I don't like spending hours and hours on folding one thing), and while super complex models may be very impressive and get lots of oohs and aaahs when finished, to me they just tend to lose their appeal when that's the only thing people want to fold and show off.

Sorry if I got completely off topic there, just needed to get that off my chest.

[perrosaurio]

Hi Jonnycakes,

Anyway, if you mould the figure like clay and if it needs glue to form his final shape, then it stops being origami and becomes sculpture, as simple as that, and it is perfectly ok, it's just a variation or a different art (my point of view).

I am assuming you mean treating the paper with MC or glue as you are folding it?

Different is wet folding with pure water, because at the end you are only softening folds and not modifying paper's nature to keep a shape.

Wetfolding is using the MC already in the paper to shape it-it isn't just water affecting the paper, it is water affecting the 'glue' already in the paper.

Yes I meant that, if you fold a human face and you mold the round chicks with MC or glue, creates the eyes, the ears, for me is sculpting instead of generating that surfaces or holes by folding design. Regular paper accepts curvatures without the need of MC, but with the ability of the folder and his experience. But again, it is just my way to see folding, as any other technique, MC and wet folding can be used for better or worse and I'm nobody to judge that

Still, you can wet fold using just water, that only will soften the folds and don't giving the figure any special shape, is just a way of erasing sharp folds, you should use very small quantity of water because regular paper's tearing chance increases a lot with water.

greetings.

[Jonnycakes]

Well, using water does more than soften/erase folds-it dissolves the MC in the paper, which holds the paper into whatever shape it happens to be in at the time. Using water is equivalent to using MC, because that is what causes the paper to maintain its shape so adamantly when it dries-not the water.

[perrosaurio]

well yes, that's true when you use regular industrial office paper, but handmade paper doesn't have MC on its components.

regards.

[GreyGeese]

To me, the use of glue (or other "illegal" methods such as cutting) is not inherently wrong. I just don't feel that the resulting model should be directly compared to one that was done in the purist fashion. That seems a bit like an athlete who uses performance enhancers competing with one who does not, it just isn't fair.

[Jonnycakes]

Yes I meant that, if you fold a human face and you mold the round chicks with MC or glue, creates the eyes, the ears, for me is sculpting instead of generating that surfaces or holes by folding design. Regular paper accepts curvatures without the need of MC, but with the ability of the folder and his experience. But again, it is just my way to see folding, as any other technique, MC and wet folding can be used for better or worse and I'm nobody to judge that Smile

Well, using MC to help shape a face for example is still folding-folds are forming all of the features, but the MC is only helping the paper hold its shape. And just sculpting the paper and depending on the MC to hold it in place will cause wrinkles to form to account for the distortion of the shape of the paper. Using folds instead is cleaner and more precise-just 'sculpting' the paper is more of crumple folding. Wet folding doesn't allow different folds or techniques to be performed, per se, except that the paper will hold its shape much better for much longer and, in the case of complex models, the layers will not spread.

Check out Eric Joisel's stuff. Sure, it's tissue foil but you can do the same type of stuff with wet folding.

[GreyGeese]

The more I see of "shaped" or "sculpted" models, the less I like them in the context of origami. That kind of thing is an art form in its own right, but for me origami is resrticted to creasing. Even something as innocent as an instruction to "shape the legs by pinching" results in a hoge number of essentially random (and hence non-reproducible) creases.
I can wad and crush tinfoil into all sorts of shapes without using any origami skills whatsoever.

[Jonnycakes]

Part of origami is the shaping aspect, and some folds (especially in shaping) have no reference point (and are hence no-reproducible ). Shaping insect legs is part of the overall effect-insects tend to have very thin legs and when folding them you often want them as thin as possible. So pinching is the solution. My interpretation of pinching is basically rabbit earing the flap in half , and squishing it as thin as it will go. It is just called pinching because a straight-up fold would be practically impossible. Folds are still the medium, bu t some of them you would call bends (soft folds).

Crumple folding, on the other hand, is a different ball park altogether...Vincent Floderer has produced some amazing works with the technique, though and you can't discount that because it 'takes no skill'. It may be different than conventional origami, don't say that 'shaping' or 'sculpting' takes no origami skill. If you are just mashing paper or foil to get it into a shape, it will look wrinkly and ugly.

[Cupcake]

As Eric Joisel said "when you can make a copy, it is not art"
With those no-reference-point parts, origami is an art.

[origami_8]

Well, taking the copy part into consideration, no painting should be called art, because you could copy them all (the simplest way would be to take a photo...).

[Jonnycakes]

Some quality is inevitably lost doing that, though. It loses its texture, etc. too because of the different material used.

[origamimasterjared]

Instead of pinching to thin, you can often closed-sink. Pick your poison

Pinching to thin a leg is often done to make a flap 3D. It is essentially a mountain/valley fold but done through many layers, and often curved. Curves are okay--they will hold together because of paper tension. Also, if you use really thin paper, you can make your pinches solid folds. And soft pinches make the piece more true-to-form--living things have soft, or at least rounded lines.

Now, there's a difference between that kind of pinching and that of certain tissue-freaks like Manuel Sirgo. They depend on foil/glue to squeeze thick inconveniently placed, but easy-to-form flaps into shape. (Nicholas Terry's work relies heavily on tissue-foil, but at least it has a certain charm.)

[Jonnycakes]

Squeezing legs to size is just an inevitable (pretty much) method of shaping (super) complex models. When the subject becomes so complicated, a little fudging is probably going to happen. At least in my situation (I would imagine in a lot of other peoples', too) I don't have ready access to super-thin, super-strong handmade paper. As a result, I use foil for complex models and use that to squeeze legs, antennae, etc. thin enough.

At any rate, isn't that still folding? A fold is any creasing or bending of the paper, no matter to what degree or what method, so any distortion of the flat square (triangle?) of paper is considered a fold, in my mind. If you want to disagree, feel free to define an angle when a non-fold starts becoming a fold

(Nicholas Terry's work relies heavily on tissue-foil, but at least it has a certain charm.)

It sounds you are discounting people's work (at least to an extent) because they don't adhere to your standard of purism (I may be wrong). If it is still beautiful artwork, does it really matter what means were used to achieve the finished product? Really, all issues of purism are opinionated. Heck, traditional models used cuts frequently, but just because it is a general consensus today that they aren't allowed shouldn't mean that those models should be discounted. They paved the way for modern origami, at least indirectly. Again, I may have misconstrued what you said and if I did, I apologize-it is very easy to take things the wrong way online, with only text to look at.

[origamimasterjared]

No, I'm not knocking Nicholas Terry's work. Sirgo's, yes, but not Terry's. I like Nicholas' work; it looks great (when he does it), but it does have a similar reliance on tissue-foil, which is why I was noting it.

I'm not a purist in that sense (I am against cutting and somewhat against gluing parts together. It's okay to glue them for extra sturdiness, but not as a requirement) . It's more that with his models being almost only accomplishable through tissue-foil you run into some problems.

1) Unless very very carefully and skillfully folded, tissue-foil models really don't look very good (and they photograph terribly.)

2) Related, with the total malleability of tissue-foil, yet it's inability to make good clean folds, people are likely to resort to mashing paper into place, and forgo the neat finishing folds. This results in a very crumply model.

I used to use tissue-foil--I still do from time to time. There are things it's great for (like faces if you can fold smooth and cleanly, cougars, jellyfish, sand dollars, knights, water, elephants, etc.), but it's really tricky to use well. Being able to finish folding from a set of diagrams is one thing, being able to make it stay is another, but you also want it to look good.

3) Also, because foil has thickness, narrow, many-layered flaps, can only be made so thin. Tissue-foil tends to be much too thick for good insects.

4) It's absolute hell to box-pleat/pleat-sink tissue-foil. This is mainly due to its complete inability to have a crease reversed--you can rub out creases, but you can't just reverse them.

5) You have to make tissue-foil. It's a pain, and it takes time and energy. But then so does preparing nice thin papers, so this isn't so much of an issue.

6) Both the tissue-paper and the spray-glue are not archival, so your models will wither and die in a few years.


So basically I don't have a problem with the artist choosing to realize his folds in tissue-foil (as they look great), nor with some people choosing to fold them from tissue-foil (especially for practice), but with them requiring tissue-foil as a medium.

[moonglow]

1) Unless very very carefully and skillfully folded, tissue-foil models really don't look very good (and they photograph terribly.)

2) Related, with the total malleability of tissue-foil, yet it's inability to make good clean folds, people are likely to resort to mashing paper into place, and forgo the neat finishing folds. This results in a very crumply model.

That's so true, there is just too many crumpled tissue-foil made pieces in the world. I just don't get people barely getting through diagrams, making an almost unrecognizable model and then photographing and posting it on the net. I think this is why I doubt I'll ever try tissue foil at all. But on the other hand, most of Joisel's work is made from foil-backed paper, and you won't hear me complaining about that. And I've folded his fishabout five times, wetfolding it and everything, but I don't think it will ever look right unless I make some thin foil-backed paper...