The Origami Forum

Do you feel there is a criteria for the title of "Master"?
I posed this question to the O-list a long time back, and here are some answers:

Joseph Wu-acclamation

Charles Esseltine-
1. How creative they are.
2. Skill level they create at.
3. Skill level they fold at.
4. Skill level they teach at.
5. The level of the most difficult model they've created.
6. Technical expertise, and an artistic eye. (And the knowledge to know when
to use them, and when to let down one for the other.

I find them to be true, but not so much on skill level, but on range. Then there are divisions, like modular ,animal ,specific object, or overall. Francis Ow is the origami "king of hearts", Akira Yoshizawa, has influnced the art alot, so he is called the "Grand Master", and Montroll folds all types of stuff from all skill levels, so he is a "Master" in the overall category. Most "masters" are equal in their skill, but creativity is a big part too. Satoshi Kamiya is much admired for his complex creations, he is also quick in designing, but I havn't seen any simple creations of his yet. Any feelings on this?

I believe "Master" is a title to show respect for those who have commited to the art for a long time, while submitting his/her art for public display. Obviously one can not be known as a master of origami if one's works are not known, but that is not the point. The point is that I do not maintain the main criteria to be according to complexity, but more to the experience, time, and effort that they have sacrificed for the folding community. Thus I believe such a title is also somewhat proportional to age, as one has had a chance to impact the community.

Wow Jason, that is an awesome reply.

saj
(Ps - I hope you publish a book of diagrammed models one day ...)

Thank you.
Awesome in what respect? I did not entirely understand from which aspect of the post the "awe" originated.

(Ps - I hope so too.... *knocks head against wall in moment of frustration* )

I have a different view of beeing a master. somebody can also be masterly within his own borders. I mean, who sets the skill level of beeing a master? Who is giving the borders? what if somebody was called a master, and somebody else began to do it much better than the older one? is the old master than less master than before... or looses his master title? you know what I mean? what if a retarded folder is able to fold any model that he probably should not be able to accomplish? isn't that masterly?
I mean, it's easy when there are clear levels. if somebody runs faster, or jumps higher than somebody else, he can become the new master. but it's really hard to define that within art.

- Christian

Hi Jason, I meant that it was very clear what you meant in your description of a Master. Certainly a lot better than some other descriptions that I've come across!

Chris, you make a very good point. If for example I begin creating models that exceed Lang's complex works, models which are more life like than Yoshizawa's would I warrant being called a Master? Probably not, since I can't ever imagine reaching that level of folding excellence. I think one needs to invest a very long time to the Art, contributing to its community etc before achieving this title (as Jason says). It perhaps should be noted that many artists aren't recognised as 'Masters' at all until they hit the graveyard.

Hmm ....


saj

I think that declaring someone as a master (of anything) cannot be an objective decision. Just like there is not absolute beauty, there's no such thing as an absolute master. It really all comes down to what you think is important in origami.

I agree with Jason that to be declared a master you must have given a large part of your life to origami. I also think that being a master should stand the test of time. If today someone's models are all the rage (e.g. John Richardson's Hedgehog some 20 years ago), it still doesn't mean that that someone is a master (do any of you remember John Richardson? His models are really cool, but I haven't seen any of his work or derivatives thereof in a long time).

In my opinion, a master in origami does not have to be a creator of original art.

I think that Lillian Oppenheimer was an origami master. Not having invented a single model, and not being capable of folding on a very high level, her love and devotion of origami have made modern origami what it is. I do not think any of us would be talking on this forum if it weren't for her.

I think that David Lister is a master of origami. He has researched the art so much, in so many ways. His knowledge in origami (and most other fields) is truly something to be admired.

I think that Robert Harbin was a master of origami. His "origami 1" was my first origami book. His origami books have created a great impact on the world of origami today.

I think that Eric Kenneway was a master of origami, being a strong advocate (if not originator) of my (possibly) favorite genre of origami, climactic folding.

I think that Ligia Montoya was a master of origami. I admire her work greatly.

I think that Seiryo Takekawa is a master. Anyone who could have invented action models like his (magic tipper!) must be an origami master.

My list goes on, but it includes mainly people of the origami past, and little to none of the present "inner circle" of origami. With the exception of David Lister (who's been around almost forever in terms of modern origami), the people in the above list are either deceased or non-active. (I do not know whether Seiryo Takekawa is dead or alive, so forgive me if I unintentionally "killed" him)

Finally, this list is different than my list of favorite designers. While there may be a few intersections between the two lists, a good designer - or even a favorite designer of mine - is not necessarily a master, in my opinion. Of course, this is all due to the fact that I choose my masters subjectively.

if someone truly masters it, they can do anythng with it. with that in mind who is a master in origami?not many people, as far as i know. but my goal is to become one...though perhaps i will never achieve it.

i master of Robo

First of all, sorry for the re-opening the post after such a long period of time

bshuval wrote:I agree with Jason that to be declared a master you must have given a large part of your life to origami.

You have to base your life on origami, to be a master, in my definition of origami master. Sure, everyone would call some people a master that others do not, but who declares the true origami masters? Surely, we didn't just one day start calling skilled origamists origami masters. Somebody (or some group) of higher power in the international origami society must be declaring them as masters.
For example, the masters included in the Hangar 7 book are what I call true masters. Others, that we call masters and others do not, are what I call "personal masters".

And what does it take to be a true origami master, known by all origamists? Over a hundred models? A true devotion to the art?

justin wrote:if someone truly masters it, they can do anythng with it. with that in mind who is a master in origami?not many people, as far as i know. but my goal is to become one...though perhaps i will never achieve it.

I too would love to be a master. But that will take great time and work, and I don't know if I am able to be such a great origamist to be declared a master. Believe it or not, I do a lot of research about designing and read every decent origami book that I can get my hands on. Maybe someday I will have the skill to truly become a master, but for now I'm just a 14 year old kid with about 6 designs and big dreams of becoming the second origami master in Canada.

Take a look here, particularly at the section entitled "a few warnings" - quite a lot of it is applicable to this discussion:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.phd.html

Jun Maekawa had a look at my models at a BOS conference and called me a 'master'. Does that make me a master?

I'm the only person on the planet to fold an origami model using an abdomenal laproscope. Does that make me a master?

I've got an MA and and MSc. Does that make me a master?

If the likes of Lang, Satoshi and Brill are Grandmasters, does that make me a master?

I've designed an origami chess set. If I got good enough to challenge most players, but not Kasparov, does that make me a master?

The term 'master' should probably be kept as a compliment to other folders (as was the first comment), rather than a title or description of ability. As for all the above? That's for you lot to decide

I remember posting this thread a few years back . The conclusion I've drawn from the origami community is that "Origami Master" is a loose title that no one really adheres by, however quite a few more people than not called Akira Yoshizawa the Grand Master. Which, that mostly goes by what Fishgoth said as it being more of a complement.

Most origami people like ourselves tend to have eccentricities, and alot of them have to do with having no boudaries, much like our cherrished origami. By giving ourselves "ranks" we form those boundaries. I suppose there is also the saying "True wisdom comes from knowing that you do not know". So in our case, "True origami mastery comes from knowing that you are not a master." ?

If you're searching for recognition or a form of achivement, there are some awards and the like that exist. They're usually given out at conventions to people chosen by their society's board of staff I believe. The NOA also offers an origami instructor license that you can earn, see here: http://www.origami-noa.com/index_e.htm I'm unsure what its use is, but I'm sure it would be something interesting to have.

I'd suggest entering Origami By Children that OUSA hosts every year, you can find out more on their website: http://origami-usa.org . They usually open the contest up around March. Me and my similar-aged colleagues entered it and had our works chosen before, some several times I think. If you feel up to the creative challenge, you could also enter the yearly challenge at OUSA. There are no awards, but its quite fun. You can find out more on that at Robet Lang's website: http://www.langorigami.com/art/challenge/challenge.php4

Hope that helps on your quest. My personal goal would to be on Joseph's origami page under the luminaries gallery, but alas my good elder twin was not present at OUSA 2004 and thats the only convention I've gone to thus far.

I believe that master defines when you have discovered pretty much everything on a topic, and you invent and discover more than the average origamist.

Heres a site I found of all the origami masters that were at hangar 7

Who is a Master and how many, is a matter of opinion. To further confuse the matter, I would venture that there are few than 20 GrandMasters:
Yoshizawa, Oppenheimer, Elias, Rohm, Wu, Lang, Chan, Brill, Montroll, LaFosse, Kawasaki, Ku, et al.

So, what do these "20" or so people have in common ?
It's not the Ph.D, because only one or two Ph.D.s are directly related to Origami. Not the math, because I don't think that Yoshizawa or LaFosse used math for their design.

My personal two cents is that 3 things define the Grand Master:
1. Depth of models within the domain - The Lafosse Cardinal, F-14;
The Lang Cuckoo, insects; most Yoshizawa models. By depth, I imply
models which are unique to the deisgner. For example, if Yoshizawa had created 10,000 models, but they were flat and lifeless, then I wouldn't
include him. However, his models appear simple, but retain a subtlety and warmth.

2. Breadth of skill - GrandMasters are not one trick ponies. They have made hundreds or thousands of models ... with depth.

3. Style - A little less tangible, but each GrandMaster defined a style and explored it in depth ... extending the boundaries of the art (analogous to a Ph.D. - which extends the boundaries of knowledge.)

So how do you become an Origami Master or GrandMaster?
First, you have to be wired for Origami... (I am not... I just like to fold, but I cannot look at a flat piece of paper and see a 3D Masterpiece.)
Second, practice many techniques,with the intent of perfecting your understanding of the "rules" (so that you can understand where they are solid, where they can be bent, and where they can be broken without sacrificing integrity.)
Third, Follow the models of Beethoven and Picasso to learn everything from the Grand Masters before you. Then fuse, synthesize, and cross-pollenate what you've learned.
Fourth, Finally be yourself, follow your own path, create your own unique style, and explore its boundaries. Then, define the guiding principles, and share, teach, and share some more.


(I disagree that you have to devote your life to Origami to be a GrandMaster, but it probably has to be you primary diversion or hobby.)

You know you're an Origami Master when:
1. You keep junk mail, because of the interesting paper.
2. You miss computer cards, because you liked to fold and spindle.
3. You have a car wreck, and wonder if you could unsink the damage.

- Hank Simon