Should Eric Joisel's Works Be Diagrammed?

[bethnor]

i'm sorry to point this out, but discoducky's post is just a natural extension of the stance that most current origami is just such garbage that it can be diagrammed while joisel's work is above all that. utter nonsense which should be repudiated.

honestly, grizzly and gache, you and your fellow creators deserve more respect, both for yourselves and each other's work, which, whether you like it or not, is also a valuable contribution to the field.

by all means, joisel's memory should be respected, but even without knowing the man, i cannot believe even for one second that he would endorse a view that certain works are so great that they should never be diagrammed, with the obvious corollary that there is a huge body of work that obviously does not meet that standard, as it has already been diagrammed.

this is again with the caveat that i care not one whit if his work is diagrammed. the cp for one of his barbarians is on the cover of the book, and i have virtually zero interest in trying.

[akugami]

i just ask for politeness - especially in this serious matter.

[DiscoDucky]

i'm sorry to point this out, but discoducky's post is just a natural extension of the stance that most current origami is just such garbage that it can be diagrammed while joisel's work is above all that. utter nonsense which should be repudiated.

honestly, grizzly and gache, you and your fellow creators deserve more respect, both for yourselves and each other's work, which, whether you like it or not, is also a valuable contribution to the field.

by all means, joisel's memory should be respected, but even without knowing the man, i cannot believe even for one second that he would endorse a view that certain works are so great that they should never be diagrammed, with the obvious corollary that there is a huge body of work that obviously does not meet that standard, as it has already been diagrammed.

this is again with the caveat that i care not one whit if his work is diagrammed. the cp for one of his barbarians is on the cover of the book, and i have virtually zero interest in trying.

You have horribly misinterpreted my previous post and as such, have posted a rebuttal of complete ignorance. I have never said that his models are of arcane brilliance, such that they do not warrant to be diagrammed/crease patterned. I have only said that they deserve to be shrouded in mystery, not complete mystery, as your replies suggest that I have said. I have already acknowledged that Joisel has released his very own origami book but it seems to me that you are more interested in garbaging my reputation than honouring Joisel as the great man he was.

Now you know what I truly meant, would you children please get off my back now? Next time, please do not be so presumptuous.

[bethnor]

I have seen his models and they are transcendental, unrivalled even by the likes of paper folding greats such as Satoshi Kamiya, Joseph Wu and Robert J Lang.

I have only said that they deserve to be shrouded in mystery, not complete mystery, as your replies suggest that I have said. I have already acknowledged that Joisel has released his very own origami book but it seems to me that you are more interested in garbaging my reputation than honouring Joisel as the great man he was.

if you don't want to own up to saying something, don't say it.

so the work of lang, kamiya, komatsu, et. al, don't deserve to be "shrouded in mystery?"

out of curiosity, what governing body of origami gets to decide which works should remain "shrouded in mystery?"

even if one has not said it word for word, the implication here is that there is a standard of origami that is "trascendential," and obviously, the works of those artists have not met that standard with their works which have been diagrammed. their designs are not "mona lisas" and can get an instruction booklet.

i would call that presumption. frankly, it is silliness borne out of grief for joisel's passing, and that's it.

[Adam]

(...) have posted a rebuttal of complete ignorance.

(...)

Now you know what I truly meant, would you children please get off my back now? Next time, please do not be so presumptuous.

That's the spirit! Ad hominem attacks will surely help you convey your opinion.

please don't defile his remembrance with such phrazes as quoted above!

It was a sarcastic remark, with the purpose of pointing out Disco's strange ideas. If anyone is defiling Joisel's remembrance it's Disco, by comparing Joisel's wonderful work to the junk created by Picasso and Warhol. Well, at least he didn't compare it to Jackson Pollock or Duchamp...

[akugami]

... would you children please get off my back now? ...

i'm sorry, but politeness looks different to me and so i'm out of this topic.
it's getting more and more offensive yet.

[Adam]

No one cares for your logical fallacies. They impress only those dull enough to learn them off by heart.

If you think you're successfully trolling me, I'm going to have to disappoint you.

[origami_8]

Dear DiscoDucky, I've deleted several of your posts from this topic since they were absolutely inappropriate, disrespectful and offending. Such a behaviour can lead to a ban from this Forum, so please rethink your words before posting next time.

[rdrutel]

Thank you for this Anna. I was wondering, though, if you have voted and what you think about diagramming Joisel's work?

[DiscoDucky]

i would call that presumption. frankly, it is silliness borne out of grief for joisel's passing, and that's it.

No, greenhorn, the only presumption would be made from you, you said quote:
" discoducky's post is just a natural extension of the stance that most current origami is just such garbage that it can be diagrammed while joisel's work is above all that. utter nonsense which should be repudiated. "

Where in my previous post where had I called the other origami master's work 'garbage'? I did just the opposite, I even claimed them as 'greats'.
It is unfathomable how could you come up with such a claim.

Overly presumptuous child.

[bethnor]

Overly presumptuous child.

as i have outlined in previous posts, no matter how one sugar coats it, you create a standard by which there is some origami which deserves not to be diagrammed. and obviously, there is a huge body of work that does not meet that standard. whether or not one actually calls it garbage is irrelevant; the term is only a natural extension of that stance, which i why i repudiate it from you, as well as from artists who i respect, such as grizzly and gachepapier. it is insulting to even infer that some works deserve to be shrouded in mystery, as the natural corollary of that is that there are works that don't deserve that honor. it is absurd , an anathema to the tradition of origami, and only being stated in the afterglow of joisel's loss.

but by all means, keep referring to me as a child (while misusing the quote function to make it appear as if you yourself used those words, which is, by the way, what you did earlier, stating that "discoducky" says that nothing but unintelligible garbage). i'm sure that falls within anna's definition of respectful posting, as well as convincing the readers that you're the adult here, when you've given out your exact age, which, i must say, makes it pretty funny when you refer to other people as children.

[bethnor]

by the by, it seems like we no longer need to argue this hypothetically.

it should be plain to all by now that ricardomonticenos has reverse engineered some of joisel's barbarians by eyeballing them. (just, by the way, as some people were able to reverse engineer the ryu-zin 3.5 by eyeballing it). please, go to the thread and tell him how disrespectful he is and to leave joisel's works "shrouded in mystery."

i'm sorry to say this, but if one does not want one's work to be reverse-engineered, origami is the wrong artform to pursue. its constraints--one square, no cuts--means that, someone who has a good understanding of the creation process will, with enough time and dedication, be able to reverse engineer what you do. every origami work, be it designed by joisel or komatsu or montroll, has an underlying architecture that can be deciphered by those in the know. i say, that is origami's beauty, and its gift.

so you can believe what you wish. i say that ricardo's efforts to reproduce joisel's work honors his memory. but please, since you're the adult here, feel free to tell him otherwise. if he got permission from the joisel estate to draw diagrams (understanding, as i have stated before, i wouldn't trouble him to do it, and wouldn't care if he did, the pleating to form the chainmail patterns look beyond tedious), who are any of you to frown at him?

[origami_8]

Overly presumptuous child.

Did you even read my post DiscoDucky?
It's comments like this that you are supposed to cut out.
You call all others child but show the most childish behaviour of all, stop that!

Back to the topic: No I didn't vote and at the moment I don't feel my opinion of any interest to you, so I won't tell it.

[orislater]

after reading all these posts again i have changed my decision. My new decision is "i dont care" whatever happens no one is going to agree with eachother so i dont think our opinions even matter
-slater

[Rdude]

Funnily enough, our opinions really don't matter, and they haven't mattered all along.

There are certain pieces, by many artists, that are very complex or difficult to draw and thus have not been diagrammed, like some of Joisel's work, Kamiya's Ryu Zin, Komatsu's lion (although I really hope to see this one diagrammed), many pieces of Giang Dinh's, Joseph Wu's work, etc. There are some talented people that practice origami who have been capable of reverse engineering some of these works from crease patters, or even less, and I say power to them, and who are we to stop them? (now if they are breaching copyright by trying to sell them, I think this is disrespectful, and the origami community should oppose this detrimental behavior). Couldn't a very skilled painter create his own rendition in the likeness of the Mona Lisa, or a talented block cutter make prints inspired by Escher's work, or a skilled architect recreate the Lighthouse of Alexandria? Provided they did it for their own enjoyment and didn't sell it for profit, masquerading as the real thing? Does this detract from the mystique of any of these great works? What about when a new band does a cover of an old song? Sometimes there can be something gained by the re-interpretation, another way of looking at it?

It would be great to see Eric Joisel's work diagrammed, but this would neither preserve his work for a future generation to enjoy, nor would it ruin the mystique of his work , because lets be honest with ourselves, who among us has the skill to perfectly duplicate Master Joisel's work (Ricardo's beautiful interpretations come close for sure! )? And of those individuals of that skill level, who would be willing to do it for more than personal enjoyment and go to the tremendous effort of diagramming the pieces they fold, when they could be designing their own work, and making their own career as an origami artist - I'm guessing the answer is a resounding NOBODY! But lets say, just pretend with me for a moment, that every beautiful piece of his work were to be miraculously diagrammed! This would not preserve his art for future generations! There are only a handful, maybe a few hundred (to be generous), in the world with the ability, patience and artistry to fold these models to their full potential, and they are all happen to be members of the origami community, so diagramming his work will only preserve it for a select few. the best approach is the one being taken by Origami House - publish an art book, featuring Joisel's best work, that anyone could look at and enjoy while needing no folding skill whatsoever, this and the Between the Folds film - his work should be better known by people who know nothing about origami, that way more people can come to appreciate his art.

Eric Joisel didn't diagram all of his work, but he was very generous with what he did diagram. It is amusing to see this stigma among origami fans who seem to demand diagrams from the artists, we should step back and realize that among art enthusiasts, we are the luckiest (up there with musicians) to have such amazing works of art made available to us to create ourselves. You'd never see a painter or a sculptor make diagrams for any of their greatest masterpieces.

So I will purchase Eric Joisel's book, thoroughly enjoy it, and try to get better at folding his rat, and what other diagrams he has released, and maybe find some inspiration to help me learn more about designing my own pieces in the process.

If diagrams additional diagrams are made, with the blessing of the estate, I'll probably fold them, but if not, I'll enjoy the mystery of his pieces - something that is present in all true art - because the artist puts a little bit of themselves into their work, and the resulting art provides a fleeting glimpse into their thoughts and emotions - this is something that can not be taken away from a piece or art, no matter how hard one tries, even by *GASP* diagramming it!

Thanks to those brave enough to read this long winded nonsense!
No forum members were insulted in the making of this post. Please feel free to contact Rdude's legal department if you have any questions or concerns