The Origami Forum

I was wondering what people thought about the suggestion of having someone reverse engineer Joisel's works and diagram them in a book? If not diagram then maybe at least a crease pattern?

Origami House's publications will contain cps, although many cps in a manuscript way.

Would those voting "Nothing at all," care to explain their decision?

Also, with respect to publishing crease patterns, I have doubt that many exist and would be surprised if any were published without the aid of someone taking apart his models.

rdrutel wrote:Would those voting "Nothing at all," care to explain their decision?

well, not that i'm that person, but only one person has voted "nothing at all."

if it involved actually dismantling existing works, i would say no, though.

but, in all honesty otherwise, the number of people who could reverse engineer and diagram his more complex works, like his human figures, can probably be counted on one hand. if such a person is willing to take the time to do so, i think the estate should let them have at it. however, i again sincerely doubt there are those with the inclination, skill, AND time. OTOH, a basic structure and "you fill in the blanks," a la his dwarf diagrams, may be more feasible.

Joisel's models are works of art, like the Mona Lisa or the David. I feel that making diagrams or crease patterns available when he himself did not do so would be disrespectful. Michaelangelo taught others to paint, Joisel taught others to fold. In no case did the students attempt to re-create their master's works, but found their own expression.

so no, I do not believe diagrams or crease patterns should be reverse engineered.

i completely disagree.

as i said, the number of people who can reverse engineer his models simply by eyeballing them, not to mention then making diagrams, can probably be counted on one hand. another matter entirely is whether or not such ppl have the time to actually do so. if they are willing to do so, let them have at it. diagrams of his works will not staunch his legacy; they could only help perpetuate it.

no matter how much i practice, i could never make something look as good as something michelangelo did. but origami's great gift is that with care and precision, one can do something almost as good.

jadylyon wrote:Joisel's models are works of art, like the Mona Lisa or the David. I feel that making diagrams or crease patterns available when he himself did not do so would be disrespectful. Michaelangelo taught others to paint, Joisel taught others to fold. In no case did the students attempt to re-create their master's works, but found their own expression.

so no, I do not believe diagrams or crease patterns should be reverse engineered.

You wrote it better than I could have. Thanks.

I find the proposition revolting and distasteful, there is such a thing as greed in knowledge apparently. Nobody who respected him when he was alive would have done it, because he did not wish it to happen. What he did share was generous, what he didn't was his own to keep - if there was one thing he seemed to take a lot of pleasure in, it was when people thought about his work and techniques, not when they copied it mindlessly, usually with very meager results.

I am not making a point about legalities here, in practice they're mostly irrelevant on the Interwebs, but I am trying to make a point about respect of somebody who most people here preach to admire.

jadylyon and gachepapier have managed to express my own sentiments, which I had trouble getting across (and hence avoided posting anything).

I agree that most of his works, at least the ones which I think set him apart from other designers and folders and the models for which he is most associated and admired, are indeed works of art.
I was going to make a comparison between diagrams for his works and a paint-by-numbers set for Van Gogh's works, or a fill-in-the-blanks, write-your-own Shakespeare sonnet... it might seem over the top to some people, but considering the nature of the man and the nature of his work; starting out with stone, wood and clay and creating such sculptural pieces of work, which contain a lot of character and artistic individuality, I think that diagrams would somehow reduce his works to something less than they are.

Someone once mentioned on these boards that Joisel disliked people showing images of his models poorly folded. I don't think that the same man would be happy with someone trying to reverse-engineer his models and creating diagrams from them.
And I don't think I'd be happy following diagrams which weren't made by Joisel himself. Even if someone did reverse-engineer his models with 100% accuracy, there's no way of knowing exactly how much detail Joisel would have included/excluded from the diagrams.

I'd prefer to be left wanting, and just admire the works that he created.
If people are really interested in recreating the same models, perhaps they should use that as motivation and inspiration to create their own models and develop their own style, in honour and out of respect for Eric Joisel.

There are a handful of Eric's models which have been diagrammed, so he obviously wasn't averse to diagramming entirely. Unless he specifically stated that it was his wish for his models to be diagrammed, I don't think it should be done. Even if it is possible.

Also, despite having voted for "At least crease patterns", I would have preferred it to say "At most crease patterns", and even then, only if they already exist.
Though, thinking about it now, cosidering the artistic nature of the models, I can't really see the CPs being that important, compared to the models themselves.
With other designers, like Robert Lang and Satoshi Kamiya, the crease patterns are often interesting to study, because of the creators' usage of the paper or the arrangement of flaps, etc. However, with Eric Joisel's models, I think these design concepts take a back-seat to the finished model, especially when it's more often the final shaping/sculpting steps which define his models and bring them to life.

Falcifer wrote: If people are really interested in recreating the same models, perhaps they should use that as motivation and inspiration to create their own models and develop their own style, in honour and out of respect for Eric Joisel.

'though i've voted for diagrams i have to agree with the words above.
it wouldn't be the same when just someone and not the master himself draw and publish a diagram of a really outstanding piece of art.
now that i've just made my vote pro diagram i'd like to relativate it to the fact that i would appreciate a collection of diagrams drawn by master joisel - if there only were a hidden one.
i ordered the joisel-art-book by origamihouse to get some more inspiration and a special pleasure of paper art.

I voted no for diagrams (although it would be really cool having some) I wouldn't like to see many people around the world folding pieces of $%&! out of his work

Most of his models are unic, they should remain like that. Example the Ryuzin few yeras back It was one of the most desired models to fold and now...

IMO.

yes.. everybody's trying to attempt to fold complex most desired models, and fail often, and even put the pictures on the net, showing disrespect to the creators.

jadylyon, gachepapier and Falcifer expressed almost all what I would say.
I had the pleasure to fold with Eric two years ago, he was "hotting" his hands folding his version of the crane, we fold it together, in the end he had a masterwork, me a variation of the crane...
In his classroom he was always full of attention and explicative on his way of folding, one was entirely on how obtain the flaps needed for the faces of his human figures like Chisciotte, Colombine, Arlequin
On the other side answering a question on his Hyppocampus he said "You begin with a fish base, then start to shape"
I think that it will be disrespectful designing something he didn't design himself, and after all much of his models depend by the final shaping, how many dwarfs have you seen as much expressive or well formed than his own?
Probably his models must be inspirations instead of objects of (almost always bad) replications.

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.