mir numaan wrote:Ryujin is the cleverest design in origami and you guys are criticizing it coz u don't have the patience and ability to fold.
Sincerely, I'm pretty sure that I have the ability to fold it. Without a few exceptions it's pretty much pure boxpleating, nothing overly complex, just time consuming. I might at some point fold it, but for the moment I have more important things to do.
Don't judge over other people without knowing them. I too found this statement of yours very rude.
The whole "purism" thing to me is overplayed. It is only recently that the whole no cuts, square only, no glue thing came to be anyway, there is nothing traditional about any of those rules. Look back at a book like "Secrets of Origami" by Robert Harbin. While pretty simple by today's standards, the models in this book represent some of the best that there was anywhere in the world when it came out in the 70's. It is quite obvious that none of the "purism" rules that people tout today as being so important where around 40 years ago.
I'm well aware that traditional Origami has nothing to do with purism, on the other hand Origami today wouldn't be where it is now, wouldn't there have been some people trying to find out how far they can go when using a specific set of rules. These rules for whatever reason have been: one square sheet, no cuts, no glue. Sure you can fold a spider with eight legs by cutting or using a long strip, but isn't it somehow fascinating to try it with one square sheet of paper without the use of cuts or glue? For me it is and thankfully there have been other people who think so too otherwise Origami as it is today wouldn't exist. You are right that 50 years ago, those rules didn't apply, but look at the variety of models that have been in existence back then and now. And then tell me again that purism is overplayed.
I can acknowledge that "purism" has brought a lot of progress to origami and still thank that it is overplayed
I do personally like some purism in my origami, but don't get too worked up about it like some people. I don't like cuts, and I prefer a square, but I don't mind a rectangle now and then. To me it really takes away from the model if a cut needs to be used to form it. If you are going to use scissors, why not just cut out the whole shape and call it good? If you refuse to fold things from rectangles though, you do yourself a disservice by never getting to fold some really awesome models (see a lot of Neal Elias and some specific Robert Lang models just as a few examples). Glue I am indifferent about. I think with most of models that people use glue on, the glue could be avoided with the right paper choice.
I think the object behind bringing up purism is that one should not tend towards relying on impure techniques and then holding it to the same standard as pure models. Extreme argument; papercraft versus complex origami. Just think about it. Are you going to go and treat them as equivalents? No? Why not? Papercraft has cuts and glue...but complex origami is starting to tend towards glue and wiring.
On the subject of complexity versus simplicity, I had the privilege of reading Fumiaki Kawahata's article on box pleating a special edition of Tanteidan (2006?). Very interesting indeed if I remember correctly (mainly I am bringing note to the introduction which dealt with complex/simple models).
As I meander through the conversations and comments on this topic, my knee-jerk reflex prompts me to chime in with my own far from revelatory thoughts on the subject.
First and foremost, I am most happy to see a diverse discussion from multiple viewpoints.
This is healthy.
There have been nuggets of gold insight, scattered amongst the inevitable dreary proclamations of absolutism, holy truth and unyielding subjective, opinionated nonsense.
I don't believe that there is any debate that Kamiya is a brilliant origami genius, nor can it be sincerely debated that his Ryujin is anything other than a unique pinnacle example of complex origami, well deserving of the highest praise possible.
To be sure, I am in no way qualified to fold it. But I am somewhat qualified to admire it.
Origami is my primary avocation, I attempt to fold as many of the world's remarkable models, designed by exceptional designers, as I am able to. When you look at all the terrific models created in the past 40 years, there are a staggering number.
The slightly gnarly question at hand seems to hinge upon the relative value of his newest models, the turtle and the dog.
Personally, I cannot be more ecstatic than with his introduction of somewhat more grounded models, obviously done with the care, thoughtfulness and ingenuity that a master of origami may bring to the table.
Whether his turtle is as good, or better, than Robert Lang's Western Pond Turtle is of no consequence.
Simply speaking, both are extraordinarily exceptional.
The origami world is a better place with the inclusion of each.
With reservation for being a bit greedy, I hold out hopes and anticipation for more models of this type from the heart and mind of Satoshi Kamiya.
Last edited by gordigami on January 13th, 2014, 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May I wish success to all who cope with the mountains & valleys of Life,
with all its peaks & depths, as well as Origami .
To be more on topic, I think both of the new Kamiya models are awesome, especially the turtle.
As for the side topic of purism / simplicity / complexity, I tend to agree that a model is more impressive if the purity rules are imposed. I can fold a passable octopus by folding a frog base and cutting the 4 limbs in half and shaping. This is hardly an impressive feat though, and I am glad that people have put in the effort to figure out a way to do it without the cuts.
What I find so great about origami is the idea of starting with a very, vary basic shape- a square- and turning it into something beautiful. But in the end, the paper is still just a square. As long as you don't "change" the fact that the piece of paper is a square, I still see it as being pure.
