Stupid article I found

Cephalopod · Post by **Cephalopod** » April 12th, 2009, 6:52 pm

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... 521328.ece

What really annoyed me about this is how origamists are classified as 'geeks'. So because we do something that is creative and requires a brain we are all of a sudden nerds with no life?

It is exactly this kind of thinking that is preventing origami from becoming more popular. Why is origami any worse than football or any other hugely popular sport?

Maybe this article isn't very serious, but it just seems to me that it treats origamists as some weird extraterrestial beings.

Just wanted other thoughts.

barakboom · Post by **barakboom** » April 12th, 2009, 7:18 pm

Dude i don't care what they say...
Origami is fun and they can !@$!@% if they want.
Anyways i think that they think that geek is someone who is addicted to something that most of the time he does by himself.
Well i don't care if they think we are geeks

.
It doesn't matter to me im also a "geek" of computer games, classical music, movies, football, tennis billiard and so on...
If that what they say....
For conclusion i don't think they understand what geek is.

Mars · Post by **Mars** » April 12th, 2009, 8:31 pm

We all have our perspectives of certain things,
especially if we never done it or seen it, and quickly judge.
It doesn't really matter what other people think, it's what
you think.

It's not like this article will make people think we are evil people.

PS- Who said being a geek was bad?

origamimasterjared · Post by **origamimasterjared** » April 12th, 2009, 9:01 pm

I don't mind the use of the work geek so much. Lately words like geek, nerd, dork, etc. have experienced somewhat of a redefine, meaning someone who enjoys something not mainstream. The cute girl in a math class may classify herself as "a nerd, because I like math."

That said, the article was pretty bad. It contained numerous inaccuracies, and presented Satoshi Kamiya as some sort of universally worshipped idol, on the same level as Buddha. It also was a bit denigrating, describing Robert Lang as "selling little pieces of folded paper for $800." And, "Brian Chan once folded a Kraken"... That's like saying Brian once threw a javelin 57 yards, or once folded something 15 feet tall. He designed it, and folded it. And more than once!

Whatever, not every article can [or should] make origami sound like the answer to the energy crisis.

eric_son · Post by **eric_son** » April 13th, 2009, 8:15 am

The future: Robert Lang was recently profiled in The New Yorker. Expect a film with Harrison Ford as a tortured origami genius redeemed when his folding solar mirrors save the world from global warming.

Woah.. I'd like to see that. It would be funny to see him blurting out key words like circle packing, square packing, rivers, etc.

e.g.
I'm trying to see if I can do a point split on this...err...that's it! I forgot about the river! Then the camera fast forwards and he brings out a 10" solar panel which he made from a 5" sheet of foil paper. Movie magic!

spiritofcat · Post by **spiritofcat** » April 13th, 2009, 9:50 am

I haven't read the article, since it seems to crash my browser (That's been happening a lot lately), but on the topic of Origami enthusiasts being geeks, I have no problem with that label.

I'm a geek and I know it. I love reading books, playing video games, computer programming, folding paper and various other indoor and intellectual activities.
I've never been much of a one for team sports and constant outdoor activity, and I imagine that many other Origami enthusiasts would fit a similar profile to me.
I have trouble imagining macho men who like to play football, work out at the gym and drink lots of beer, sitting down to spend a few hours folding a beetle or butterfly or chinese dragon.

As stereotypical and over-generalising as it is, I still believe that there are basically two types of people.
The indoor, intellectual, academic types. AKA Nerds and Geeks.
And the outdoor, active, physical, sport-loving types. AKA Jocks and Rednecks.

Within the scope of those two types, I'd say that Origami enthusiasts would definitely fall into the first category more often than the second.

Obviously this won't be try in all cases, but I still think it's fair enough to refer to us as geeks.

Cephalopod · Post by **Cephalopod** » April 13th, 2009, 10:35 am

What you all say is true, I suppose 'nerd' and 'geek' isn't as bad as it used to be.

Yet although it may be mild, it still seperates. FOr example, in my school, the year is basically split into two groups--the sporty and the clever. The sporty are the most popular, are the most 'exciting' etc. while the clever seem to be just ignored. This is not fair. I can't think of any other reason for this than the 'nerd' 'geek' mindset.

I don't see why origami (or anything else) must be sidelined as some weird eccentricity that only nerds like. Even though nerd geek etc. isn't really insulting anymore, it still seems to create a rift.

I'm not asking for origami to be hero-worshipped, I'm just asking it to be analysed without these assumptions.

origamimasterjared · Post by **origamimasterjared** » April 13th, 2009, 5:17 pm

spiritofcat wrote: I have trouble imagining macho men who like to play football, work out at the gym and drink lots of beer, sitting down to spend a few hours folding a beetle or butterfly or chinese dragon.

I like baseball, basketball, football, and beer.

And rednecks is definitely not the right word to use to refer to athletes. While in general rednecks like football, NASCAR, and beer, liking those things doesn't make someone a redneck.

Mars · Post by **Mars** » April 14th, 2009, 2:53 am

Come on people! Lets not turn this thread into a
bias feud.

If you're really upset about it, contact the writer, and
explain what You think a origami person is.

We all must realize that not every single person
thinks the same.

spiritofcat · Post by **spiritofcat** » April 14th, 2009, 3:47 am

origamimasterjared wrote:
spiritofcat wrote: I have trouble imagining macho men who like to play football, work out at the gym and drink lots of beer, sitting down to spend a few hours folding a beetle or butterfly or chinese dragon.
I like baseball, basketball, football, and beer.

And rednecks is definitely not the right word to use to refer to athletes. While in general rednecks like football, NASCAR, and beer, liking those things doesn't make someone a redneck.

Yeah, I said Jocks and Rednecks. I'm not saying they are the same thing.

Rdude · Post by **Rdude** » April 14th, 2009, 7:00 am

Well, thats definitely an interesting perspective.....

My main problem with it is it's overall tone is very condescending, and extremely stereotypical. Stereotypes are useful in some circumstances but I find people go overboard far to often.

Oh and just to point out, for those not from the UK, wikipedia defines the term Boffin as follows : Boffins are scientists, engineers, and other people who are stereotypically seen as engaged in technical or scientific research. American equivalent is "Egghead"[1]. The word conjures up an image of men in thick spectacles and white lab coats, obsessively working with complicated apparatus. Portrayals of boffins emphasize both their eccentric genius and their naive ineptitude in social interaction.

But like Mars said, to each his own. I guess that some people don't appreciate origami as an art form, think it's silly that something made from paper is worth money (although masterpiece paintings could be looked at as just cloth and paint, and they sell for even more)

juston · Post by **juston** » April 14th, 2009, 1:50 pm

That article also suffers from a problem seemingly endemic to 'journalism' as a whole these days... these incessant need to be funny. Why must every article (or every paragraph) end with a joke? Why must every picture have an ironic caption? It gets old real quick...

InsomniacFolder · Post by **InsomniacFolder** » April 14th, 2009, 2:45 pm

The author, Tom Whitwell, is really a celeb trash hack, accomodated to doing modern life and technology micro pieces after Mr. Murdoch made his round of cuts in 2005 at The Times.

Private Eye have featured his general ineptitude in their "Hackwatch" feature.

That said, I didn't think the article was terrible, it just tries to be modern in style, that is, conversational and flippant. It's essentially a puff piece of filler.

Though stressing the geek aspect, I feel the author is tacitly impressed by the achievements he describes (of course he's far too cool to say this overtly).

Similar articles in the series have the same approach to other technical disciplines.

It is three years old though

Any publicity... and all that.

Post by **origami_8** » April 14th, 2009, 6:09 pm

I don't see what's so bad about being called a geek, nerd or boffin. It isn't worth the anger to get upset because of such an article.
If anyone wants to call me a geek, just do it, I don't mind.

By the way being a chemist I spend most of my day in a white coat wearing big safety glasses and when I come home I like to sit in front of my computer for a while...

foldymole · Post by **foldymole** » April 14th, 2009, 6:46 pm

origamimasterjared wrote:It also was a bit denigrating, describing Robert Lang as "selling little pieces of folded paper for $800."

No come on, don't misquote!

"He literally wrote the book on designing new shapes, and sells tiny paper creations for $800 each."

This is not derogatory, creation is a fine word to use..and $800 for a piece of art by a living artist at the top of his field is a snip.

I think this is a light hearted but positive piece.