Should Eric Joisel's Works Be Diagrammed?

[rdrutel]

To make your argument stronger you should say that he told you in person he did not want any of his work diagrammed etc. Otherwise you have no basis whatsoever. Also, you have no right to express what you feel he wanted.

[bethnor]

i'm sorry, but i frankly think that many of your thoughts are clouded by monsieur joisel's recent passing.

i have seen both yours, gachepapier and grizzlyman's, designs and works, and i have bad news for you. your designs are also works of art with a unique perspective. your posts seem to imply then, that eric's work is somehow sacred and should not be diagrammed, while the "trash" that you (and other designers, like kamiya, komatsu, lang, montroll, etc., etc.) have created is not so sacred and therefore can be.

can't you see what utter rubbish that is?

i'm sorry to say, that while perhaps gachepapier and grizzlyman are not eric joisel, that does not and should not diminish how unique and beautiful your own (and therefore, by extension, all other artist's) contributions to origami are. to imply, therefore, that diagramming them would somehow diminish them (or eric's) is also rubbish.

i also want to remind the community about yoshizawa and yosshino, who were also taken away from us. i've been on this board for awhile, and sad to say, almost no one speaks of them now, despite their massive influences on modern origami. i don't know if more diagrams would have helped continue their legacy, but i certainly doubt that it would have hurt.

lastly, i do think use of the word "greed" is a bit strong, gache. speaking for myself, i have no desire to fold anything he created. as an example, even if someone were to reverse engineer joisel's barbarian series and diagram it, i doubt myself that i would ever bother to fold it (nguyen cung huong's eagle is about as far as my patience goes with regards to precreasing). however, there are only a handfull of people who could possibly be capable of this feat, not to mention has the time for it. all i'm saying is, if they wish to do so, i don't think the community should boo them. many of the best cp solvers, like artur and andrey, appear quite busy with their own projects. but if they were to volunteer their time for such a massive undertaking, they should get our cheers--not our jeers.

if eric expressly stated that he did not wish his works diagrammed, then i would agree those wishes should be respected. however, the book was planned before his death (though, given his end-stage diagnosis, i suspect it was already in planning as he was actively dying). the book will have cp from what i understand. i'm sorry to say, that if cp are available, there are plenty of people on this forum who would be talented enough to figure out how to fold his models, and do quite a good job of it. if the goal was to keep his works unique and unfoldable by any save he, the release of cp is certainly contrary to that.

[gachepapier]

As a matter of fact this is the kind of thing Eric and I discussed at length as I was trying to convince him to publish a book of diagrams, and he had many a reason not to. It is not that I feel he wanted this, it is that he told me. And for that matter I don't need your permission to express what I feel about the matter.

Your point is moot, but I'm not under the impression that you'd care.

[gachepapier]

lastly, i do think use of the word "greed" is a bit strong, gache. speaking for myself, i have no desire to fold anything he created. as an example, even if someone were to reverse engineer joisel's barbarian series and diagram it, i doubt myself that i would ever bother to fold it (nguyen cung huong's eagle is about as far as my patience goes with regards to precreasing). however, there are only a handfull of people who could possibly be capable of this feat, not to mention has the time for it. all i'm saying is, if they wish to do so, i don't think the community should boo them. many of the best cp solvers, like artur and andrey, appear quite busy with their own projects. but if they were to volunteer their time for such a massive undertaking, they should get our cheers--not our jeers.

if eric expressly stated that he did not wish his works diagrammed, then i would agree those wishes should be respected. however, the book was planned before his death (though, given his end-stage diagnosis, i suspect it was already in planning as he was actively dying). the book will have cp from what i understand. i'm sorry to say, that if cp are available, there are plenty of people on this forum who would be talented enough to figure out how to fold his models, and do quite a good job of it. if the goal was to keep his works unique and unfoldable by any save he, the release of cp is certainly contrary to that.

@Bethnor :

Eric wanted people to think about his models - publishing CPs supports this, full diagrams does not.

And no, I don't think my stuff is rubbish - but I have no wish to diagram it fully just yet, nor has anyone bothered to actually give it a full shot, which does not bother me, it's not my ambition.

[GJ0KYZ]

Of course Joisel's work should be fully diagrammed else his creations will be lost. What if Mozart hadn't written down his compositions?

Strong argument, I like it. If something were to happen to his originals, I would hate to think that only pictures would be left.

This is what I mean by greed - it's all about what you want and not what Eric wanted for his creations, as if you had a right to possess what he did not give you.

I'm not going to enter into an argument,, but get some perspective. Yes, I want to fold Eric's models, who doesn't? I'm sure Eric would want all of us to enjoy folding his creations. If we don't, they'll fade to obscurity over time. What a waste that would be.

And as for the "CP vs. diagrams" arguement, it has to be full, easy-to-follow diagrams that allow anyone to fold Joisel's work. Origami has a strange bitchiness to it here and there and CP snobbery is an example. I'm too old and too busy to learn CPs.

[Falcifer]

Of course Joisel's work should be fully diagrammed else his creations will be lost. What if Mozart hadn't written down his compositions?

That is an interesting argument, but I don't really think that it's a fair comparison.

It makes sense to me that a composer would transcribe their music. Music is not a physical form of art. After playing a piece of music, there is no physical evidence that the music had been played. Musical notation is a way of creating a physical record.

On the contrary, I wouldn't expect a sculptor or a painter to produce instructions to accompany their works of art. The pieces of art themselves stand as testament to the creation of the art.

Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from studying his models and trying to recreate them.

I might also add that I absolutely adore his seahorse, and I would love to be able to fold one myself, but I wouldn't be happy knowing that the diagrams that I was following weren't Eric's own. It might not be a view shared by others, but if the diagrams weren't his own, then I'd feel that the model that I folded wasn't really his, either.

I suppose we could speculate all day about whether he was going to make diagrams for more models, or whether he wanted there to be diagrams, or whether he'd be happy with people making diagrams... the fact is that there are a few models which have been diagrammed and they're freely available on his website.
The fact that there aren't more diagrams should inspire people. Either to recreate Eric's models, or to create their own.

There are plenty of models by living origami artists which don't have diagrams. Would you be so quick to invite their models to be reverse-engineered?
While I understand that it's entirely possible that Eric passed away before he had a chance to diagram his entire collection of models, I will add my name to those who would hate to see an abundance of terrible attempts to recreate his fabulous models.
Given that he wasn't happy to see poorly folded rats, I think his more complex designs would create many more poorly folded models, if diagrams were made available.

I've seen some of his sketches and notes, on his website, and I would be interested to see a collection of notes and sketches, but more for an insight into his process of design, rather than for information on how to create his models.

As for his models being "sacred", I don't view them as sacred as such, but certainly as different from the majority of other origami models.
I suppose the nature of the subjects and the way in which they're designed makes them stand out more than most other designers who strive for realism in their subjects. Eric's models all posses a unique character, even his troupe of musicians is based on the same (or similar) base, and yet each has its own individuality. And furthermore, the final models look less like origami models than most, so I tend to treat them differently than most other models.

Crease patterns would be acceptable, because at least then, his models would be somewhat limited to those who have the knowledge and experience to fold them.
Considering what I've read about Eric, I don't know if he would be happy for everyone to fold his models. I'm not capable of folding anything but the simplest of crease patterns, so CPs of Eric's models would be of little use to me, but I certainly wouldn't expect detailed diagrams.

I don't suppose there's much else to say without repeating myself.
Unless it's "officially" instigated or condoned, I'm going to remain decidedly against the idea of people reverse-engineering his works, no matter how capable they are.

It's apparent that there are people who have strong views either way, and just as I don't expect to sway people to my way of thinking, I don't expect to have my thoughts on the subject changed by others. I only hope that my opinions can be understood, even if they're not shared.

I'll finish by saying that even though their names may not be uttered, the influence that has been made by past origami artists is undeniable. I hope that in a few years we start to see more and more expressive human figures in origami.

[orislater]

that was the longest post i have ever read 0-0
i too think his work should be diagramed

ps i didn't even read that long post. so it is the longest post i have ever seen.

[bethnor]

On the contrary, I wouldn't expect a sculptor or a painter to produce instructions to accompany their works of art. The pieces of art themselves stand as testament to the creation of the art.

I'm sorry, but were this true, then all designers might as well stop diagramming now.

Part of the joy of origami--and its gift to the world of art--is the ability for anyone to reproduce it.

There are plenty of models by living origami artists which don't have diagrams. Would you be so quick to invite their models to be reverse-engineered?

Again, you speak as if the ability to do so is commonplace. The number of people who can "eyeball" a model and reverse-engineer it without a crease pattern can probably be counted on one hand. If they choose to do so, I daresay it is no one's place to stop them.

Given that he wasn't happy to see poorly folded rats, I think his more complex designs would create many more poorly folded models, if diagrams were made available.

I'm sorry, but this stance is also nonsensical. It implies that if models can't be folded beautifully, whether they are authored by Joisel or not, people shouldn't even try. But another of origami's gifts is the ability to crumple a product with which you're not happy and try again. So this can't be true, not even a little. In his lifetime, it was an understandable position as he was dependent on the sale of his works for his living, but that stance is moot now.

As for his models being "sacred", I don't view them as sacred as such, but certainly as different from the majority of other origami models.

Again, I must wonder if you and those who espouse this view really hear yourselves. There is something so special about his models that they should never be diagrammed, but others works aren't quite so special, so they can be?

I honestly think the community should have more respect for its fellow designers and itself than that.

Again, personally, I have no desire to see his works diagrammed. However, if someone in the community volunteers their time to do so, and the estate is so willing, the effort should be encouraged and cheered, not booed, as the people who can do so are few and the time required enormous. It would help perpetuate his legacy, not destroy it. If he expressly forbid it at some point, by all means, his wishes should be respected.

[Moog]

Part of the joy of origami--and its gift to the world of art--is the ability for anyone to reproduce it.

sure, but as you stated

The number of people who can "eyeball" a model and reverse-engineer it without a crease pattern can probably be counted on one hand.

, so for all the other people there's a possibility to reproduce only if the author gives you something: a CP for a few more, the diagrams for all the other.
It seems, reading the forum, that only the author has this right, the precedents of a rose and a robot come in mind.

It implies that if models can't be folded beautifully, whether they are authored by Joisel or not, people shouldn't even try.

it's sure that everyone can try whatever he wants, only trying you'll succeed, what I said was a kind of joke"no diagrams, no ugly results"

i also want to remind the community about yoshizawa and yosshino, who were also taken away from us. I've been on this board for awhile, and sad to say, almost no one speaks of them now, despite their massive influences on modern origami. i don't know if more diagrams would have helped continue their legacy, but i certainly doubt that it would have hurt.

I agree that more diagrams should be better, I spent a lot of time (and some money) to have the books of Mr.Yoshizawa, I consider him probably the most creative of the master, but his choice was always to release diagrams (often, if not ever, of the simplified version) of few of his models.
Even so he released about three hundred different models (on a basis of some thousands...), how many Kamiya's models were released?
The world of origami has its rush of trend, I don't think that the number of existing diagrams makes some difference.

[Falcifer]

I'm sorry, but were this true, then all designers might as well stop diagramming now.

I would agree if I viewed every origami model in the same way that I view Eric Joisel's models. But I don't. Now, I'm not saying that everyone shares my view, or that they should, and perhaps it seems foolish of me to do so, but I do consider the majority of his works to be beyond "origami models".
I also don't mean to take anything away from the huge number of excellent origami models produced by other designers.

Part of the joy of origami--and its gift to the world of art--is the ability for anyone to reproduce it.

I do agree with this. To a certain extent.
It seems that there is a certain amount of "expectancy" displayed towards designers, either that they should create diagrams or that they should release crease patterns. And the huge number of those which are readily available only perpetuates the feeling, I feel. But I don't think that designers are under any obligation to release anything, or to allow diagrams to be made. I've seen a few instances where people have made diagrams of models without the designer's permission, and even after being confronted, they show very little understanding about why it's a problem.

Since there is no way to obtain Eric Joisel's direct permission, I don't think it would be respectful to create diagrams.
I agree that the skill that it would take to reverse-engineer his models and the time it would take to produce diagrams is immense, and that anyone capable and willing should be admired, but I don't think it's a reason in itself to go ahead and do it.

If someone came forward and invited such an undertaking, however, I would not be against it. But I don't think it should be done for the sake of doing it.

Again, you speak as if the ability to do so is commonplace. The number of people who can "eyeball" a model and reverse-engineer it without a crease pattern can probably be counted on one hand. If they choose to do so, I daresay it is no one's place to stop them.

As I said, anyone who can do this should be admired, and I certainly wouldn't stop anyone from attempting it. But releasing the diagrams to the public is something else.
Even on this forum, there have been occasions when people have reverse-engineered models, or created diagrams in some form for models, and happily posted them here for all to see, with no regard for the wishes of the designer.

Of course, not knowing what Eric's wishes were, it's difficult for me to approve of the whole process. I just feel that it would be better to hold out for someone to come forward and say definitively that Eric wanted diagrams for certain models, and that if someone can and will make them, then they are free to do so.

I'm sorry, but this stance is also nonsensical. It implies that if models can't be folded beautifully, whether they are authored by Joisel or not, people shouldn't even try. But another of origami's gifts is the ability to crumple a product with which you're not happy and try again. So this can't be true, not even a little. In his lifetime, it was an understandable position as he was dependent on the sale of his works for his living, but that stance is moot now.

I don't mean to suggest that people shouldn't try, but the trouble is that too many people are happy to display sub-par folds. The time it takes to fold a complex model seems to put people off making several attempts.
It's another personal opinion, I guess, but if people aren't willing to take the time, make the effort and take the care to fold models, it shows little respect to the designers.
Making full diagrams available may allow everyone to fold his models, but it means that there would be many who weren't experienced enough to create attractive models. And while it may not be detrimental to Eric Joisel anymore, I still think it would be disrespectful.
I think I mentioned before that crease patterns would at least help in some respects, since anyone who could collapse the CP would hopefully be able to the models justice with the shaping.

And due to the fact that most (if not all) of the character comes from the final shaping steps, making diagrams for these steps would surely detract from the distinguishing feature of Eric Joisel's models.

Again, I must wonder if you and those who espouse this view really hear yourselves. There is something so special about his models that they should never be diagrammed, but others works aren't quite so special, so they can be?

In my view, yes.
Perhaps I am "wrong" in my view, but when I see his models - his musicians, his Lord Of The Rings figures, his seahorse, his mermaid, etc - I certainly don't view them as origami models.

Yes, they are made using paper, and the paper has been folded, but Joisel takes the medium so much further than most.

Although, to be fair, I would also be against other people reverse-engineering anyone else's work.
If the designer creates diagrams and makes them available, then it's obviously up to them to do so.
If a designer hasn't created diagrams, though, and there's been no desire to do so expressed, perhaps it should be taken as a hint of some sort.
There may be designers who have neither the time nor the inclination to diagram their own models, and may be more than happy to allow others to make them but, as far as I'm aware, Eric Joisel has made no such indication.

I honestly think the community should have more respect for its fellow designers and itself than that.

As I see it, the community is extremely diverse. There are many different types of folders and designers. Some people spend their time working exclusively on their own designs. Others prefer to ignore designing completely and fold the models of others.
Some enjoy immersing themselves in the community and interacting with other enthusiasts, and I'm sure there are others who prefer to avoid it.

However, it seems that what applies to the majority is being applied to the whole. There are a huge number of designers who publish books, release crease patterns and create diagrams. The internet, too, has helped in making diagrams, CPs, etc available to many more people than before. Models are frequently dissected and photo-diagrams are made for crease patterns. But it seems that many people have come to expect it from designers, and if someone doesn't produce diagrams or release a crease pattern, then there's something wrong with that.

I'm not saying that people should stop making diagrams, but people shouldn't be so hung up on diagrams for Joisel's models.
I'm sure I've said it before, but the nature of his models leads me to view Eric Joisel as someone other than another origami designer. I admire his models in the same way that I admire a statue or a painting. Sure, I'd love to be able to create something as beautiful as they are, but I'm happy to admire them as works of art, and to admire the man who created them.
If it inspires me to try to recreate them, or to design my own models, then that's wonderful. And the great thing about Joisel's gnome is that it gives you a base that has to be shaped and can produce incredibly varied, and individual results. But I wouldn't fold his gnome and try to copy one of his own characters exactly. It would be like painting a copy of the Mona Lisa. It may be visually accurate, but Eric Joisel's heart and soul went into his folding and there's no way to put that into black and white.

Anyway, as I said, I don't expect, and I'm not trying, to convince anyone to see things from my point of view. I was just doing my best to explain myself, and if my reasons seem nonsensical or far-fetched, well, that's life.
There'll be people who say that yes, his designs should be reverse-engineered, and I'm sure people will have different reasons for feeling that way. As it is, I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't be. At least not until such time that it turns out that Eric Joisel wanted it to be so, or that his estate decide that it's allowed.

Well, I'm sure I've expressed my thoughts and reasons, even if not particularly well, so I'm going to shut up now.

[HankSimon]

I think I fall between bethnor and falcifer, leaning toward bethnor. Eric's work is not Mozart, but Mona Lisa. I don't think you can diagram what Eric created. Just as the diagrams of Giang Dinh's models only provide guidance, rather than cookbook instructions, I think that diagrams of Eric's works would be even further from the desired result. You might diagram the base, but the model is all in the shaping. A common example is Eric's Dwarf. How many of us have folded it... and how many of those look like a Joisel Dwarf ?

So I don't think that it would honor Eric to create a formal book of his artistic models. On the other hand, I encourage the efforts to reverse engineer selected models like the Pangolin, "for personal use," especially as a learning vehicle, which keeps Eric's memory alive. However, no judgment intended, but even with all the effort, no one would mistake the current models for the original. But I also believe the Pangolin collaboration has been educational.

So, no formal book, but informal reverse engineering for the sake of learning and personal use is borderline OK. Legally, maybe other issues.

- Hank Simon

[legionzilla]

I voted 'crease patterns'.

Eric Joisel' works were unique in the sense that every work is not the same. Whether it is the proportions of every model, the way he folded it, or simply the way he detailed it, every model is sooo different, even if in the same category (say dwarf).

Diagramming Eric Joisel's work would make these models lose some of their art. Imagine a diagram saying 'then shape the nose this way'. Is there an exact way to fold the nose or the face of an eric joisel model? Not really. Even the more technical side of the models like the shield and sword of his barbarians, are different in their own way.

I feel that crease patterns or just diagramming to the base is ok, but full diagrams, no thank you.

[Adam]

I fully agree, Legionzilla. Full diagrams would be impossible to draw properly, hence there is no point in trying to do so. Eric's diagrams for his dwarf, where he shows how to get the base, are probably as far as one can go when it comes to diagramming his models. Publishing CPs would allow people to experiment with the bases and keep Eric's work alive. Most people would not be able to fold these models as incredibly as Eric himself did, but I think many folders would still certainly appreciate some CPs.

[foldymole]

Eric told me quite clearly he didn't want diagrams or CPs of the bulk of his work. The rat was provided as he was very unhappy with the quality of the rats he was seeing. I'd agree with him. I'm still struggling with it.

Eric's work looks so stunning because he was a master of the finish, the subltle work that needs to be done to capture a mood or expression. If you don't have the skill to do this, you'll never do them justice. I fold a lot of masks and busts, not to re-create Erics work, but for what they can teach me about form and expression.

Go and get "3D Masks and Bust" from the BOS shop. It's the biggest insight into his work you'll get. You will get several bases which you can use and adapt. And you will still have to do a lot of work to make them look anywhere near as good as those done by Eric.

Eric was an artist first, and a folder second.

Please, respect his point of view, and be grateful for what he did give us.

[shortloldude]

I think that if the models were to be released in some way, there should be a CP, a progressive cp/diagrams to get the base such as was done for his dwarf in Tanteidan Convention 13, and things pointing out what flaps to use for what and a bit on how to shape, just a general idea so that if you are not good at CPs you can still fold it, but get an original result. I don't think it would be fair to people that want to fold Joisel's models not to be able to because they do not understand CPs. Also, as a sidenote, if I remember correctly his barbarians were boxpleated with grid sizes of over 100. Just something to think about.